My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available! Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680 Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680 Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023 Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495 Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e

Literally the same people voted the way they did in Obergefell v Hodges years later

@MikeRosoftJH

4 жыл бұрын

And it's nice how Scalia, in a dissenting opinion, noted that the same reasoning could be used to invalidate state laws limiting marriage to different-sex couples. Well, he was right: over the next two years, state courts have ruled that such laws are unconstitutional, federal courts confirmed the verdicts, and when one federal court didn't, the Supreme Court took the case and ruled that all states must permit same-sex marriage (as well as recognize it when performed elsewhere).

@rainb5987

Жыл бұрын

​@@MikeRosoftJH I agree with Scalia not because we have the same views but because he's smart enough that any ban or classification on the basis of sex and sexual orientation doesn't even make sense at all. By such, he expected most laws with that classification would fall.

@MikeRosoftJH

Жыл бұрын

@@rainb5987 Could you be more specific? How does the ban on discrimination by sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation "not make sense at all"? How would most such laws fail? In any case: there isn't any absolute ban on laws classifying by gender or similar criteria. Courts have ruled that classification by sex (and, by extension, sexual orientation and gender identity) is subject to intermediate scrutiny (unlike classification by race, which is subject to strict scrutiny). But it wasn't necessary for the Supreme Court to decide just about what level of scrutiny applies - the court has ruled that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage serve no legitimate purpose, and so they already fail scrutiny of rational basis. (Likewise, the Defense of Marriage Act doesn't serve any legitimate purpose, except for discriminating against same-sex couples in case some state would extend marriage to them.)

@rainb5987

Жыл бұрын

@@MikeRosoftJH Yup. But it's rare and the classification is very relevant to the objective. For example, maternity leave benefits cannot be given to men because it's something unique to women. Still, the new innovation in some countries allow maternity leave to be credited to fathers who want to take care of children as well in addition to separate paternity leave. In the case of marriage, parenting and union, the sex, sexual orientation and gender identity are no longer significant factors in reality. For such a reason, sex and sexual orientation now belongs to protected status in equal protection analysis - the strict scrutiny. The normal equal protection analysis is a rational basis test. It's just a mere placement of heavy burden of proving on the part of the petitioner challenging the law to point out that the "classification is not rationally related in ANY WAY to the objectives of the law." For example, the Congress made such a law giving cash aids to people on the basis of religious beliefs instead of "economic conditions." Every law has a presumed objective so it's obvious here that cash aids should be distributed for those unfortunate. Is classification based religious beliefs in ANY WAY related to the objective even with slightest sense? No. Because there are religious people who are poor, there are not and it's not even different when compared to the general population. Hence, this classification is more than 95% of failing to achieve the objective. Unlike the rational basis test, more exacting tests are applied to certain protected classes or suspect classes. Before we discuss this exacting test, we need to discuss first the criteria on how certain groups of people become suspect classes. Note: Traits/Status: All people have this (Race, sex, sexual orientation). Classes: Classification of people based on traits/status (Black, women, homosexual) or (White, men, heterosexual). There are four criteria on how certain CLASSES became suspect classes for the reason of their traits/status. 1. Pervasive historical DISCRIMINATION because of certain traits/status someone possesses. 2. These traits/status do not significantly affect the ABILITY TO CONTRIBUTE. 3. These traits/status is IMMUTABLE or can bring irreparable grave harm if forcefully change. 4. People possessing such traits/status are politically POWERLESS to stop the discrimination. With these criteria, it is not difficult to say that gay people pass all four criteria the same way how black people passed it in the 1950s and 1960s (Brown and Loving case). So, they deserve to be treated as suspect classes with heightened equal protection analysis. Under this, the law is presumed unconstitutional and most of the burden of proof will shift to the government who made such classification. In order to sustain the classification, the court required that it is a matter of "necessity" rather than preference or discretion and such restriction is "least restrictive means" to achieve that objective. Is there a necessity to ban same-sex marriage? Even if there is, is it the least restrictive? Obviously, those two questions where the opposition failed to answer. They only use "state rights" and "no express constitutional provision" as main arguments against same-sex marriage. Even if we remove the substantive right to marry in the equation, Obergefell v. Hodges and US v. Windsor still stands on equal protection ground due to the reasons I mentioned. Roe v. Wade fell because it has no equal protection basis. That's RBG is not supportive of the reasoning behind Roe (not necessarily the abortion itself) because it may fall anytime. Instead, the reasoning should be anchored in the same equal protection analysis like "Right of Women to Have Equal Bodily Autonomy as Men" and placing unnecessary burdens like unwanted pregnancy and rape would make it unconstitutional. Finally, I heard some conservatives throwing strawman red herring arguments against gay rights. What about child sex? Then drug addicts are protected by the rights of privacy? How about polyagamy? How can we regulate incestous relationship? And so many more. Again, strict scrutiny does not make it impossible to pass a law burdening fundamental rights and suspect classes. Like what I've said, the states are given chances to explain the based "necessity" and "least restrictive means" principle. In short, strict scrutiny makes it HARDER, not IMPOSSIBLE to pass a law burdening such rights and suspect classes. For example, there is a NECESSITY to stop certain acts even in private places like drug abuse, rape and incest due to PROVE HARM. But we also need to consider that we only use LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS because we don't want further to offend rights. Like we can only raid private spaces if there is a warrant of arrest based on PROBABLE CAUSE, not on mere suspicion. Without this, the right to privacy would be compromised since gov't is now allowed to interfere with your private lives according to its whim.

I love supreme court briefs they are so interesting. They are sooo good.

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

Good to hear you enjoy them. :D This series should be around for awhile.

@justfrankjustdank2538

3 жыл бұрын

@@iammrbeat :D

I love this series. I don't know if you take requests, but I think "Raich V Gonzales" (2005) would be a great one to cover.

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much! I do take requests, but my Patreon supporters get first priority for their requests. I can still add that to my list, though.

For the next chapter of the battle for gay rights in America, be sure to check out Obergefell v. Hodges: kzread.info/dash/bejne/pKaDyMpumcyfgps.html

@aaronbradley3232

5 жыл бұрын

Mr. Beat, is there anything you are against other than tariffs and the Electoral College?

I like this series a lot,so thank you for making these videos! I know I request a new case every time I comment,so I apologize if you plan making it already.I think it would very important to do Korematsu v. United States at some point in the future as well as others.

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

+Delightfully Dakota Well thanks for watching! :D Yes, that case is absolutely coming. Have you heard the More Perfect podcast episode about that case?

@delightfullydakota5019

6 жыл бұрын

Mr.Beat Thanks and no I don’t believe I have heard of that podcast about it.But,I will go and check it out now for sure!

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I think you'll enjoy that series

@TheNicolocomd

6 жыл бұрын

Delightfully Dakota the podcast Mr.Beat refers to is great, not only is it very educational they are great storytellers and make you feel like you are present for the unraveling stories.

@delightfullydakota5019

6 жыл бұрын

Mr.Beat and Caliconico I just finished the podcast about Fred Korematsu and it was very good.I am glad that you directed me to the podcast!

I had to pause and actually go read up a bit on the Due Process Clause. I hope there's a dedicated video later in the playlist.

You should eventually cover Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the suggestions.

@Lyle-xc9pg

4 жыл бұрын

stupid socialist kid

@MikeRosoftJH

4 жыл бұрын

@@Lyle-xc9pg If demanding equal rights before the law is socialism, then I'm a socialist, and I'm proud of it. (And there's nothing stupid about it.)

FYI: I did not know about the Loving case. My ex-wife, a Black woman from Jamaica, West Indies, and I a Pennsylvania Dutch guy from Pittsburgh, were married in NYC in May 1971. Interracial marriage was already legal in NY.

Great work as always, hope you could do U.S. v Lopez, it’s kind of confusing and I’ll bet you could explain it in a fantastic way.

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

I could add that to my list. Thanks for the kind words!

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

Just checked. I already added it to my list, so that's a good sign. 🙂

@alexkrakowski8597

6 жыл бұрын

Mr. Beat you’re always one step ahead of me my friend.

Boooooo IRS

@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770

4 жыл бұрын

jb14998 and friends IRIS. Lol.

Please do: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan Abuut libel and 1. admendment

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

+Khasidon That one is certainly on the list.

Groovy work!

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

Thank you sir!

I think this is just a case for why the government shouldn’t be involved in personal matters such as marriage. Then shit like this wouldn’t happen in the first place.

Can you do Lochner v. New York?

BLAG is truly one of the worst acronyms ever. Great video though.

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

+Cogito - Curiosity Visualised haha absolutely. I about gagged saying it.

@seanpatmac27

6 жыл бұрын

BLAG sounds like someone vomiting

Hey, Mr. Beat. Can you please cover FCC v. Fox Television Stations in a future Supreme Court Briefs video?

I really enjoy your channel you’re my favorite KZreadrs but I can’t stand step back.

0:45 I'm dead

@ericbrown6757

3 жыл бұрын

You must have sent the comment a split second before you died

I think DOMA simply violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Isn't the full faith and credit clause really at heart here?

President During this time: Barack Obama Chief Justice: John Roberts Argued March 27, 2013 Decided June 26, 2013 Case Duration: 91 Days Decision: 5-4 in favor of Windsor (Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer, Kennedy. Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia for US.)

Loving lost her wife and the irs basically hit her with a "sorry your FRIEND died. Now give me 300,000 dollars

I get that it makes no sense for marriage status to be treated differently between the state and federal levels, but irregardless of your beliefs on the topic, should the Supremacy Clause have allowed DOMA to trump the state of New York on the matter and therefore instead made all state laws allowing same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional at the time (at least until Obergefell v. Hodges or a similar case reversed it)?

@MikeRosoftJH

2 жыл бұрын

No. In general, marriage and the related procedures is within state authority. (For example, states differ on whether or not first cousin marriage is legal.) There's no law saying that states can't allow people of the same sex to marry. The only thing the law said is that marriage for the purpose of federal law is a union of two people of the opposite sex. (And the court said that the law serves no legitimate purpose, except to discriminate against same-sex couples in case some state should legalize same-sex marriage, and so it violates the 5th and 14th amendment.)

@KC-dw6yz

5 ай бұрын

DOMA did not specifically overrule state law. It just stated that for the purposes of the federal government marriage was between a man and a woman, and didn't care about what state law said

the princess bride cute 😀

BLAG is like a disgusting version of GLAAD... the anti-GLAAD

DOMA was an American analogue of DORA, a British law enacted against the Irish during the latter's War of Independence. In that it was senseless and predjudiced against a segment of the American population.

It's all about states rights until the states wann give gay people rights

So the 4 in opposition would’ve overturned the circuit’s decision cuz they didn’t think that they personally had jurisdiction?? Frikkin mongrols

I love the Princess Bride clip

How were people so bad? Consenting humans wanting to marry?!? Is that really that hard to accept?

@Ptaku93

6 жыл бұрын

ehhhh

@Douglas77755

6 жыл бұрын

You are clueless as to where marriage and laws come from.

@therealmittromneyful

6 жыл бұрын

marriage is christian. Atheists, gays, muslims, etc. dont get to

@christianweibrecht6555

5 жыл бұрын

All the people I know who oppose gay marriage do so because of religious beliefs

@sparksthedaytrader9606

5 жыл бұрын

noob BLOXXER it's a free country, who honestly cares.

I like the decision that the court made and why do all the same sex marriage one of the spouses in the supreme court died?I'm in support in same sex marriage and it's so funny that appeal to the supreme court even though they had won.Great video too!

@iammrbeat

6 жыл бұрын

+Mummy Neo It often takes martyrs for justice to be had

DOMA? More like DOOMYA!

👍🏼

BLAG are a freaking joke . Blague means joke in french sorry ill sort myself out ^^

4 voted against? That is mad

@the4tierbridge

3 жыл бұрын

No, it isn't. They thought the supreme court wasn't given the power to decide this in the constitution, and so the case shouldn't be looked at. It's fairly simple.

this was an interesting case. The government should not be in the business of telling people who to merry as long as does not break other laws(consent). On the other side justices should not try to make law because that is very brittle and can be overturned by a new justice. The correct approach in my opinion should've been to get a law passed through the legislature branch to ensure that those rights are never taken away. i don't think that would find much opposition. This should be done now with all the "controversial" court decisions. constitutional notes or clarification if you will, that can only be overturned that is job of the legislature after all.

@universalplayz7496

3 ай бұрын

Well wouldn’t this also blatantly go againist the equal protection clause And I mean it clearly goes againist the due process clause And really goes againist the constitution itself by demeaning people based on something they physically can’t control You don’t chose what sex your born as

Can u do tinker v Des Moines and metal v tam

Why do people even not like gay marriage anyway?

@ASmartNameForMe

3 жыл бұрын

Some religious people who can't think for themselves believe that because some racist, sexist, sexually frustrated men who wrote a book claiming it was the word of God despite having more contradictions than there are stars in the sky said it was "an abomination" that they should believe that too, some hetero people just think that if they're not the same as them they're wrong (though as someone who's straight myself I should tell you that this is a tiny minority), some people just want an excuse to hate people and they figure "I dunno they're gay I'll blame it on that", and some people are just morons

@giannagerster4431

3 жыл бұрын

@@ASmartNameForMe This is actually kinda historically right. Gay marriage became illegal in the late 1800's bc of clergyman Anthony Comstock, the YMCA, and judicial activism. Bowers v. Hardwick (making gay marriage illegal in TX that Lawrence v. Texas overturned) reasoned that British clergyman William Blackstone said gay relations were just evil. Baker v. Nelson (MN, overturned by Obergefell v. Hodges) said that marriage is btwn a man and a woman. Where is the only place that is specifically said? The Bible. These cases are overturning laws whose only reasonings are Christianity.

@user-mb7gh4nu1j

3 жыл бұрын

Because marriage is a life long union between a man and a woman for the purpose of the procreation and the education of children.

@MrHat.

3 жыл бұрын

@@user-mb7gh4nu1j citation needed

@user-mb7gh4nu1j

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrHat. www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib4-cann998-1165_en.html#TITLE_VII. Title VII: Can. 1055 §1.

So, after all, there was a case where justices Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Scalia (!) stood in the stark opposition of states' rights. Interesting. One might view it such, that the defenders of states' rights bare deeply in mind which rights of which states are in question.

@universalplayz7496

3 ай бұрын

They actually just argued the Supreme Court didn’t have the authority to rule on the case They didn’t take much of a stand other than that Besides ig scalia

Great video. Glad we have a President in office supporting gay marriage. As someone who is bisexual, my sister a lesbian, it is important to be seen under the law as equal.

@JaxTheCartographer

5 жыл бұрын

true as a bisexual as well I love Trump he's been more pro lgbt rights than most other presidents and politicians I also like some of his other policies the wall is stupid though. Also for those bringing up the military "trans" ban (not all trans people are banned) that was only based off of health condition like people who go through hormone surgery have too much health risk to be in the military same with many other surgeries so it is not discriminating against transgender people more like people who have high medical bills and the military has been doing that for years. so I understand why it is there.

@yany3xkkrenii144

5 жыл бұрын

Flame Fusion Gays have been equal under the law for decades. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage isn't a civil right. That's just gays wanting special rights. You should go to Iran and stay there. Same with your sister.

Why do you keep calling Kennedy "the conservative swing vote" when he literally voted for gays in every decision he took part in and personally wrote all the opinions as well?

@Nimish204

2 жыл бұрын

Look at his stance on DC v Heller and Citizens United v FEC

@25756881

2 жыл бұрын

"he literally voted for gays in every decision he took part in" - really? Boy Scouts of America v. Dale? Also, you can't decide solely on this, he's a conservative libertarian.

That was a terrible decision on the Supreme Court's part.

@MikeRosoftJH

2 жыл бұрын

How so? The court has ruled that the law serves no legitimate purpose, except to discriminate against same-sex couples in case some state should extend marriage to them; as such, it violates the 'due process' and 'equal protection' clause of the 5th and 14th amendment. If you believe that the decision was wrong, how was it wrong? How the law wasn't discriminatory? What legitimate purpose does the state have to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples only, given that some people are genuinely attracted to people of the same sex as themselves, and given that this is something that cannot be changed and doesn't harm anybody? (Well, except for that it has "always" been so - even though the word "always" needs to be qualified; a number of cultures did historically recognize same-sex unions. And this kind of reasoning could as well be used to justify laws that restricted people of a different race [or religion, or the like] from marrying, or that imposed that man was the head of marriage and woman was subordinate to him.)

@user-mb7gh4nu1j

2 жыл бұрын

@@MikeRosoftJH Not being able to claim a federal tax exemption for being a surviving "spouse" of a fake marriage is not unjustly depriving someone of her property. The 14th amendment compels states to protect all their citizens' rights and privileges, regardless of race or "previous condition of servitude," the 14th amendment does legalize gay marriage. The state does not restrict marriage to normal couples, because marriage by its very nature restricts marriage to normal couples, for marriage is not an economic union between any two people so they can have tax exemptions, marriage is the life long union between a man and a woman in which they generate and educate children.

@MikeRosoftJH

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-mb7gh4nu1j You got this all wrong. Windsor wasn't a surviving "spouse" of a fake marriage. She was a surviving spouse of a genuine marriage, legal in Canada where it was conducted, *and* in her state as of the time when her wife died. 14th amendment doesn't condition itself on race or previous condition of servitude (you have confused it with the 15th amendment, which prohibits states from restricting people from voting precisely on these grounds). It says that states can't "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" or "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". No ifs or buts. And likewise, your point about marriage is incorrect. Marriage is not a universal constant - it differs across cultures, and has changed over the time. It's not necessarily a lifelong union; otherwise, divorce wouldn't have been possible. It's not necessarily for the purpose of procreation. Couples which don't want to have children, or can't because of age, injury, disease, disability, or medical procedure, still can marry. (Not to mention that same-sex couples can take care of children together, be it by adoption, or by artificial insemination.) In the past marriage was arranged by the families for economic or political reasons, and the couple themselves had little say in it. That has changed. In the past man was the head of marriage, and woman was subordinate to him. That has changed. In the past people of a different race (or religion, or the like) couldn't marry. That has changed. You could have used the same argument - that this is what marriage is, and that this is how it has "always" been - to justify any of these laws. And so likewise, in the past same-sex couples couldn't marry, and that has also changed. But it's good that you talk about "normal" couples, because Edie Windsor and Thea Spyer were a normal couple. A normal lesbian couple. (I am reminded of the moment when in primary school a boy was examined about the book 'Romeo, Juliet, and Darkness' - set in Czechoslovakia during the Nazi occupation; and when he talked about the protagonists, saying that Esther was a Jew and Paul was a "normal" Czech, the teacher interrupted him, saying that Esther was a normal Jew.)

@DiamondTurtleGamer

2 жыл бұрын

ok homophobe

I'm so fucking sick of Anthony Kennedy. Mister beat this is my second favorite Channel but I swear to God if you bring his name up again.........

@MikeRosoftJH

4 жыл бұрын

Too bad, because it's him who wrote the key decisions on gay rights: Romer v. Evans (overturning a state constitutional law which prohibited the state from enacting laws that would extend anti-discrimination protection to gays), Lawrence v. Texas (invalidating sodomy laws), United States v. Windsor (invalidating Defense of Marriage Act), and Obergefell v. Hodges (ruling that all states must recognize same-sex marriage).

Mixed feelings are what l have here. As a libertarian, l believe that the government should butt out of citizens' lives. But as a social conservative, l believe that "marriage" is inherently the union between one male and one female. What is to prevent Muslims, not to mention adherents of extreme sects of Mormons, from demanding recognition of polygamy; or recognition of marriage with 7-year-pld partners, or... or... or...?

@sosachamberlain6069

Жыл бұрын

Just don’t be a pedophile bro, the government shouldn’t be what stops you

@davestrasburg408

Жыл бұрын

@@sosachamberlain6069 What l'm saying is, once we recognize "same-gender" marriage, what is to prevent other groups with vested interests from claiming similar "rights"?

@sosachamberlain6069

Жыл бұрын

@@davestrasburg408 don’t do things that violate people’s civil rights. Anything between consenting adults is Gucci. Hate to have to be the one who breaks it to you, but children can’t consent bro

@davestrasburg408

Жыл бұрын

@@sosachamberlain6069 Of course children can't consent. What l'm saying is, that with all the clamor for recognizing "gay rights," eventually other "unconventionalists" will demand similar rights for their own absurd obsessions; this is precisely why l oppose "same-gender marriage," in order to protect children, and preserve monogamy.

@sosachamberlain6069

Жыл бұрын

@@davestrasburg408 you are the only person on the planet I have ever met who is so adamant that if we don’t have marriage between a man and a woman, that no one will have the self control to not go after kids. That’s literally just you dude. For the rest of us, not fucking kids comes naturally, and we don’t need traditional values and traditions to tell us not too.

No more of this gay shirt.

@rejectrealism

5 жыл бұрын

Not gay, but this comment is amazing, everything to the way you said "shirt" instead of "shit" to the way you look at this video as if its for gay people only, is just amazing.

@ASmartNameForMe

3 жыл бұрын

Hey my shirt is fabulous

@unoriginalclips9923

Жыл бұрын

Lmao

@tgirltouhou

3 ай бұрын

me when my rainbow coloured shirt gets too small for me

Disgusting.

@jacobdaniels3246

4 жыл бұрын

why

@MikeRosoftJH

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, it was disgusting to discriminate against same-sex couples and not to let them get married.

@TeacherRobert

4 жыл бұрын

@@MikeRosoftJH It is disgusting that the Supreme Court started taking over the nation and began making laws rather than interpreting them. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, not a random friendship.

@MikeRosoftJH

4 жыл бұрын

@@TeacherRobert Then blame the framers of the 14th amendment. The amendment says that states can't "make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", or "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", or "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". The court has ruled that to deny marriage to same-sex couples constitutes "deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and "denying the equal protection of the laws"; so the states can't do that. (And nor can the federal government; in accordance to the 'due process' clause of the 5th amendment, the 'equal protection' clause of the 14th amendment also binds the federal government.) It's that simple. And a same-sex union is by no means a "random friendship". How do you purport to know what same-sex couples feel towards each other better than the couple themselves? In Obergefell v. Hodges, the court has analyzed the purpose of marriage in detail, and concluded that it equally applies to same-sex as to different-sex couples, and that states have no legitimate right to restrict marriage to different-sex couples.

@TeacherRobert

4 жыл бұрын

@@MikeRosoftJH One of the reasons for marriage is to have children and preserve our species. A gay marriage is by its nature sterile. While it is true that an elderly couple cannot have children, there are rare cases where children have been born from an elderly couple, whereas there is no possibility of a child coming from a same sex couple. Also like Mr. Beat said, the justices that dissented were not necessarily against gay marriage. They were against the idea of stretching the equal protection clause to include same sex marriage.

A path to decadence and hedonism awaited past this decision.

@RyanFeatherston

Жыл бұрын

Nothing wrong with being gay.

@historian252

Жыл бұрын

@RyanFeatherston Yes, there is.

@RyanFeatherston

Жыл бұрын

@@historian252 Confirmation bias.

@historian252

Жыл бұрын

@@RyanFeatherston Nope.

@rebeccalassetter1726

6 ай бұрын

Same sex marriage doesn’t hurt others so it is unconstitutional to make it illegal.