Sorry but I am even going to go a bit further. So when the supreme court struck down state laws that made it illegal for interracial couples to get marriage license, was it a bad decision from the supreme court?
False choice. The federal government has no authority over marriage. Sure, you can find examples and make the case if you want that sometimes courts should make rulings outside their legal jurisdiction. You can find examples and make the case that federal law enforcement should overstep their bounds for the greater good regardless of what the Constitution says. The argument goes Al Capone was a bad person, therefor throw the book at him with whatever you can find. People in the mainstream make this case about the bad guys all the time, I get it.
But this throws the whole constitution out the window. It's letting the camel's nose under the tent, you agree with the supreme court's decision. I doubt you would have agreed that we should accept their will on marriage if they had ruled in the other direction on homosexual marriage. And since you want to make this about interracial marriage, would you have accepted a SCOTUS ruling that banned interracial marriage?
The question does not apply to me, marriage is not part of their job. Just like convicting rapists is not their job. You can jump up and down and point fingers and say that I support crime because of what i just said. But that doesn't make it true. If SCOTUS heard 1,000 violent crime cases this year, and tossed 1,000 violent criminals behind bars, you can clap your hands all you want. And understandably so, of course criminals should be punished, right?
Yeah, I think so too.
But its dumb, its not what they get paid to do. They wouldn't have time to do their real job.
Anytime you support Judicial Overreach, you should ask yourself whether you would agree with the opposite ruling. I suppose you could support SCOTUS overreach once, just this one time. But it doesn't work that way, they will keep on overstepping their jurisdiction, and sooner or later rule in some way that hurts you. As a matter of fact I'm sure they have in the past. Keep telling yourself you can pick and choose rulings, just like sometimes people in the government pick and choose respecting the bill of rights.
Also interracial marriages are even mentioned in the bible as being against God's will.
No.... I've read it a few times and haven't seen anywhere where it says that. Moses had an Ethiopian wife, I assume she was black, God seemed more than OK with that if you read where she is mentioned.
So we have a similar situation as we had with interracial marriages and I would be curious to see if you are also against it too. Its only fair that you are consistent in your views about govt.
How is it similar? We are discussing the Constitution. SCOTUS says certain things are in the Constitution that clearly are not. If the keep it up they might say drinking a Slurpee violates the Constitution. It doesn't. I personally oppose
all government involvement in marriage at all levels. My views, and what the Constitution says are totally different things. Projecting your views into the Constitution is dangerous. Disagreeing with the Constitution is fine, but pretending it says things it doesn't is absurd.
Besides, a man marrying a woman who looks different than him is totally different than the federal government entirely redefining what marriage is. All men and women look different. The idea of men "marrying" other men is a brand new idea.
Deuteronomy 22:9: "Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled."
You honestly think that verse is referring to people marrying other people? Wow.
