Watch LIVE

'This Is a Monster of the Government’s Own Doing': Blaze Readers React to the Supreme Court's Landmark Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage

News

"A ruling that changes the meaning of marriage will cause religious persecution to become the norm, and no one will be allowed to worship with freedom of conscience."

This photo taken Friday, Oct. 3, 2014, shows the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

TheBlaze posted a story earlier this week featuring highlights from the landmark Supreme Court battle over same-sex marriage. The case of Obergefell v. Hodges will have a profound impact on the ability of states to define legal unions.

This photo taken Friday, Oct. 3, 2014, shows the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington. A Supreme Court term that is starting Monday, Oct. 6, 2014, with a lack of headline-grabbing cases may end with a blockbuster that helps define the legacy of the court under Chief Justice John Roberts. That's because the justices appear likely to take on the issue of same-sex marriage and decide once and for all whether gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) AP Photo/Susan Walsh U.S. Supreme Court (Image source: AP/Susan Walsh)

Arguments show that the justices are divided on the issue. Some appear to show they favor legalization of gay marriage while others appear to show concerns.

Here's what some readers of TheBlaze had to say about the issue:

Cavallo

As years go by it seems the SCOTUS becomes more and more of a super legislative council with lords appointed for life. Many of their musings, arguments, and debates are less on the constitutionality of X Y & Z but on society’s benefits or detriments of their rulings.

thenannerpus

The SC should not even be ruling on this. This is clearly a states'-rights issue. The people should decide this (as they have over 30 times, defining marriage as 1 man, 1 woman), not unelected, lifetime-appointed judges.

zorro

A person I spoke to recently admitted she was all in favor of redefining marriage. After all, she claims, we haven’t redefined it in centuries. So I said, "OK, let’s redefine it to mean two adults. What happens when someone want to redefine it to three adults?"

“We don’t let them,” was her response.

“Why?” I asked.

*crickets*

polyglot

Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg should recuse themselves from this and any other case surrounding gay marriage. Both of them have OFFICIATED at gay wedding ceremonies. How in the heck can there be any question that they not only support but participate in the furtherance of the issue. The SCOTUS is just another example of corrupt government.

MCHRISTIAN

I will go the way of thinking as stated in the Bible.

Salamander-2

Instead of changing the definition of marriage, why doesn’t the Supreme Court do the right thing and suggest that Congress and the States adopt language that recognizes ‘dual partnership’ at every place the term "marriage" is mentioned in tax laws, property rights, etc. It still isn’t too late to correct the movement. It isn’t marriage, but it is a partnership between two people conveying all the rights and privileges (and responsibilities) of marriage. In every instance marriage is mentioned in legislation (federal or state), it is to be replaced by "Marriage or Dual Partnership between Natural Persons." This eliminates aberrations. It conveys ALL rights. And it doesn’t upset the "settled (social) science" of marriage. The LBGT movement has taken a wrecking ball to societal norms, and this is WRONG!

rvick

If the courts are allowed to simply ADD something into the Constitution that was not previously there, then what is to stop them from simply REMOVING something from the Constitution that has been there all along?

Cathy1104

At its core, gay “marriage” is an affront to nature and nature’s law. It produces nothing good for society. If you believe in God, his Word calls homosexuality an abomination that flies in the face of his command that we should be fruitful and multiply. If you believe in evolution, homosexual is a bane to the species because it does not promote survival of the fittest — humanity would die out. Homosexuality is and always has been deviant behavior that generally leads to disease rather than health. Those who promote it always take the argument to “love,” but we all know, down deep, that sex has little to do with love — you can have one without the other. The natural order should be preserved because it is essential for a stable civilization. Slapping a “married” label on a gay union doesn’t change the nature of the union. It’s still unnatural, it’s still wrong in the eyes of God (his words, not mine), and it’s still harmful to society in general.

But more to the point, since the Constitution doesn’t address marriage at all, the Supreme Court has no business interfering in the matter. Laws regarding marriage belong to the states, not the federal government.

tc5bwe

Something that isn’t being addressed: What happens to institutions that believe and practice their religious conviction that marriage is only between a man and a woman? We’ve seen what has happened to small businesses owners trying to stay true to their religious convictions — the state has punished them with malice. A ruling that changes the meaning of marriage will cause religious persecution to become the norm, and no one will be allowed to worship with freedom of conscience. This slippery slope will be treacherous at best.

DoOrDie

With the government as corrupt as it is, arguments heard before the Supreme Court, which votes along political lines instead of the actual Constitution, is a complete waste of time because the outcome will be solely based on which political side they are on, or how much dirty info the liberals have on the justices. I’m calling you out John Roberts.

RAMJR

Redefinition. The doctrine of deception that even our founders knew would destroy this nation from within.

The sole reason Noah Webster spent years finding the foundation of words for a dictionary — a tool barely used in any format today — was to make certain they could not be redefined.

He attached Bible verses to every word defined, to make sure we understood that God is the real foundation of truth — and the only way we remained in line with God was knowing what is of God and what is not.

God created the original separation of church (High Priest) and state (King/leadership). And humanity has done everything in its power to replace God with fleshly value, agendas & immoralities.

Another reason for term limits on judges, as well as for Congress.

“But that is not the way you learned Christ! Assuming that you have heard about Him and were taught in Him, as the truth is in Jesus, to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.” — Ephesians 4:20-24

It is essential, in all our learning, whether by reading/study or in classes/conversations, that we keep the goal of wisdom in mind.

We are growing in wisdom when we are growing in Jesus Christ, thinking with his mind, speaking with his gracious words (Ps. 45:2), walking in his spirit (Gal. 5:16-23) and speaking to others of his kingdom (Acts 1:1-8).

GaryNOVA

I’m for gay marriage because I have nothing against gay people, and I don’t understand why I’m supposed to. So why would I care if they married? It doesn’t affect me at all.

And if you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, so be it. I don’t care about that either. Again, your belief does not affect me. But why would you deny equal protection under the law for those seeking to practice what they believe (yet are being prevented by government)? It seems un-American to me. That’s why I think there’s no question how the court is going to rule.

The_Renegade

As a Libertarian I have to wonder why the state is involved at all? One would think separation of church and state would entail leaving up religious matrimony to the church. If we’re all honest we’d all know that the only reason the state ever got involved was for tax purposes.

bbyrdhouse

Listen, IF the SCOTUS deems that “marriage” includes same-sex “partnerships” or “unions," here's how it might affect the right of preachers and/or churches to decline to participate in same-sex “marriages.”

I imagine that they will first lose their tax-exempt status, which — you can get mad at me if you want — but many churches have unknowingly sold themselves to the government because they depend on their tax-exempt status.

However, after seeing the treatment of businesses who choose not to participate in same-sex “marriages” or provide services for them, I believe that there will be much persecution of churches and preachers in our future.

I suspect that this is the greater goal of the liberal and progressive agenda — to further rid society of any semblance of God, the Bible, or morality.

Beliketrey

This is a monster of the government’s own doing. I could care one whit what folks decide to do privately. And that is exactly what this should be: PRIVATE. Why government gets a say at all should irritate us ALL. Why not just quit recognizing marriage at all (government) and treat everything like a private contract. That’s really what we expect the courts and the government to accomplish: to protect an environment in which legal contracts are upheld. Heck, if you want to enter into a polygamist relationship — private contract. Redefining marriage seems a bit heavy-handed when government SHOULD just butt out altogether. And any government “benefits” for marriage should be dumped, too. I am not an advocate of IRS social engineering.

CrazyTravis

With 36 states having gay marriage, it's hard to see the SCOTUS ruling against gay marriage. Probably 5-4 with Kennedy as the decider or maybe 6-3 if Roberts votes with majority.

Mapache

I think the best way out of this is the get the government out of MARRIAGE — the government can perform civil unions for straight and gay couples to cover all the legal rights and responsibilities. And then if a same-sex couple wants, they can find a denomination that performs same-sex "marriages" on their own.

If the SCOTUS declares gay marriage to be a right, would clergy of denominations that do not accept gay marriage be forced to perform such a marriage or lose their tax-exempt status or be sued like the cake couple?

Follow Dave Urbanski (@DaveVUrbanski) on Twitter

Most recent
All Articles