Because it would have violated 1A and 4A. What consenting adults do exclusively with consenting adults in the privacy of home is no business of the Federal government's. If they can criminalize gay marriage, the precedent is set that they could also criminalize heterosexual marriage.
We are not a Democracy, we are a Republic, and thank god for that, or 13% of the nation's land mass would be solely responsible for governing 100% of American citizens. The Supreme Court exists not only to recognize and uphold the constitution, but also to recognize that mob rule is fucking stupid and that people can be manipulated into giving up essential freedoms for the 'good of society' which will then come back to bite all of us in the ass later.
Or have you forgotten about all this mask and vaccine bullshit so soon already?
your reasoning just legalized pedophilia and bank robbery.
If a government cannot make laws regarding behaviors, there can be no law.
Beyond that, the Court didn't criminalize or decriminalize anything. Homosexual "marriage" did not exist. It had never existed here or in any country from the beginning of time to the present. It created law and precedent that had never been accepted by any culture at any time for any reason. And as noted by Justice Scalia, did so not out of thin air, but out of total vacuum of any historical, legal, or rational basis of support.
You clearly didn't read what I posted very well. Consenting adults, exclusively with consenting adults. Minors are obviously not included. Pedophilia is absolutely still a crime as it should be.
The government cannot make laws regarding behaviors on the basis of religious dogma, because to do so would be to institutionalize that religion above all others. They can obviously still arrest people in their homes that are committing criminal acts so long as due process regarding that is followed.
The Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that criminal punishment against sodomites is unconstitutional. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the case you are quoting Scalia's dissenting opinion from, they formally guaranteed same-sex couples the right to marry, specifying that the State must perform and recognize them - This formalizes the concept of same-sex marriage in law, as being equal to heterosexual marriage in law and would not in plain language apply to religious ceremony.
This means that same-sex couples are guaranteed the right to marriage in a civil (secular) ceremony, if not a religious one.
As for your claim that same sex marriages were not acceptable in any culture for any reason, pre-Islamic Egyptians and Canaanites both allowed such in the 3rd century. The outright forbiddance of same-sex relationships is virtually unique to Abrahamic religions and the governments that institutionalized them, as the pre-Christian societal expectation was for procreation. Pagans, for instance, penalized those who would not take wives because of sexuality, but they did not forbid homosexual acts.
In short, homosexuality has actually been acceptable in nearly all cultures prior to the advent of Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), occasionally with the condition that one is not exclusively homosexual to the point of avoiding heterosexual conduct altogether.
You: "You clearly didn't read what I posted very well. Consenting adults, exclusively with consenting adults. Minors are obviously not included. Pedophilia is absolutely still a crime as it should be."
Oh I read exactly what you posted. The problem is that it is irrational drivel that goes out in all directions and adds up to nothing.
1."consenting adults." Define that. It is as low as 12 in some European countries, and amounts to nothing more than a cultural value. You propose that it is immutable? NAMBLA and other organizations you appear to promote propose that it be reduced to infancy. Crazy? Couldn't happen? Those exact words were universally normal about homosexual marriage until very recently.
You: "The government cannot make laws regarding behaviors on the basis of religious dogma"
EIGHTH COMMANDMENT: "thou shalt not steal." There you go trying to legalize Bank robbery again.
You: "This means that same-sex couples are guaranteed the right to marriage in a civil (secular) ceremony, if not a religious one."
Everyone knows, including the Justices that voted in favor of that, that if anyone at the Constitutional Convention had stated that the Constitution they adopted guaranteed the right to homosexual marriage, that man would not have lived to make it to the insane asylum. He would have been lynched on the spot as a mortal danger to the Republic.
You: "In short, homosexuality has actually been acceptable in nearly all cultures prior to the advent of Abrahamic religions"
Droolingly uninformed statement. Cultures have from the beginning of time acknowledged the obvious - homosexuality is certain extinction for any culture that promotes it. At least for those that survived long enough to leave historical information. The practice is expressly condemned in the Egyptian Book of The Dead. That's about as far back as written assessments on the topic go.
There is one glaring exception within the Pagan system. Some men from elite families did participate in Satanic sex magic cults which included homosexual rituals. But that is the only known exception that is noted. And even in that atmosphere heterosexual relations were exclusively approved for the production of offspring.
Someone at or above the nationally recognized age of majority in the United States (18 years), which should be painfully obvious given that this conversation is more or less specifically about law in the United States.
The concept of owning property and defending that property from theft, damage, and/or destruction is not solely a religious concept. Forbidding gay marriage because it says in the bible that marriage must be between one man and one woman is. This is such an obvious misrepresentation of my argument that it appears to be mere trolling and almost bears ignoring altogether, but I nevertheless find myself compelled to address your strawman.
Society changes over time. Need you be reminded that some of the first European settlers to land in the New England region were the Puritans? This being the religion largely responsible for the Salem witch trials. Puritan is, in the modern age, used derisively to refer to moral authoritarians.
No historically proven cultures explicitly promoted exclusive homosexuality to my knowledge, but many pre-Christian cultures did allow homosexual activity, provided those who took part in it also took wifes and procreated. Others chose not to explicitly disallow it.
It is my turn to call you droolingly uninformed. Paganism is not an Abrahamic religion, and did not have 'Satanic' rituals because they had no name for Satan. Norse culture, for instance, derided men who would 'flee women's genitals' or would assume a submissive role in same-sex conduct. It did not forbid such conduct, however.
The name Satan is derived from Ha-Satan ('the Accuser'), which was the title of Samael, an angel of Jewish lore who was supposedly the "Left Hand of God." Congratulations, today you have learned something new about the religion that you clearly only see fit to quote when it suits the argument you are making.
Because it would have violated 1A and 4A. What consenting adults do exclusively with consenting adults in the privacy of home is no business of the Federal government's. If they can criminalize gay marriage, the precedent is set that they could also criminalize heterosexual marriage.
We are not a Democracy, we are a Republic, and thank god for that, or 13% of the nation's land mass would be solely responsible for governing 100% of American citizens. The Supreme Court exists not only to recognize and uphold the constitution, but also to recognize that mob rule is fucking stupid and that people can be manipulated into giving up essential freedoms for the 'good of society' which will then come back to bite all of us in the ass later.
Or have you forgotten about all this mask and vaccine bullshit so soon already?
your reasoning just legalized pedophilia and bank robbery.
If a government cannot make laws regarding behaviors, there can be no law.
Beyond that, the Court didn't criminalize or decriminalize anything. Homosexual "marriage" did not exist. It had never existed here or in any country from the beginning of time to the present. It created law and precedent that had never been accepted by any culture at any time for any reason. And as noted by Justice Scalia, did so not out of thin air, but out of total vacuum of any historical, legal, or rational basis of support.
You clearly didn't read what I posted very well. Consenting adults, exclusively with consenting adults. Minors are obviously not included. Pedophilia is absolutely still a crime as it should be.
The government cannot make laws regarding behaviors on the basis of religious dogma, because to do so would be to institutionalize that religion above all others. They can obviously still arrest people in their homes that are committing criminal acts so long as due process regarding that is followed.
The Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that criminal punishment against sodomites is unconstitutional. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the case you are quoting Scalia's dissenting opinion from, they formally guaranteed same-sex couples the right to marry, specifying that the State must perform and recognize them - This formalizes the concept of same-sex marriage in law, as being equal to heterosexual marriage in law and would not in plain language apply to religious ceremony.
This means that same-sex couples are guaranteed the right to marriage in a civil (secular) ceremony, if not a religious one.
As for your claim that same sex marriages were not acceptable in any culture for any reason, pre-Islamic Egyptians and Canaanites both allowed such in the 3rd century. The outright forbiddance of same-sex relationships is virtually unique to Abrahamic religions and the governments that institutionalized them, as the pre-Christian societal expectation was for procreation. Pagans, for instance, penalized those who would not take wives because of sexuality, but they did not forbid homosexual acts.
In short, homosexuality has actually been acceptable in nearly all cultures prior to the advent of Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), occasionally with the condition that one is not exclusively homosexual to the point of avoiding heterosexual conduct altogether.
You: "You clearly didn't read what I posted very well. Consenting adults, exclusively with consenting adults. Minors are obviously not included. Pedophilia is absolutely still a crime as it should be."
Oh I read exactly what you posted. The problem is that it is irrational drivel that goes out in all directions and adds up to nothing.
1."consenting adults." Define that. It is as low as 12 in some European countries, and amounts to nothing more than a cultural value. You propose that it is immutable? NAMBLA and other organizations you appear to promote propose that it be reduced to infancy. Crazy? Couldn't happen? Those exact words were universally normal about homosexual marriage until very recently.
You: "The government cannot make laws regarding behaviors on the basis of religious dogma"
You: "This means that same-sex couples are guaranteed the right to marriage in a civil (secular) ceremony, if not a religious one."
You: "In short, homosexuality has actually been acceptable in nearly all cultures prior to the advent of Abrahamic religions"
There is one glaring exception within the Pagan system. Some men from elite families did participate in Satanic sex magic cults which included homosexual rituals. But that is the only known exception that is noted. And even in that atmosphere heterosexual relations were exclusively approved for the production of offspring.
Someone at or above the nationally recognized age of majority in the United States (18 years), which should be painfully obvious given that this conversation is more or less specifically about law in the United States.
The concept of owning property and defending that property from theft, damage, and/or destruction is not solely a religious concept. Forbidding gay marriage because it says in the bible that marriage must be between one man and one woman is. This is such an obvious misrepresentation of my argument that it appears to be mere trolling and almost bears ignoring altogether, but I nevertheless find myself compelled to address your strawman.
Society changes over time. Need you be reminded that some of the first European settlers to land in the New England region were the Puritans? This being the religion largely responsible for the Salem witch trials. Puritan is, in the modern age, used derisively to refer to moral authoritarians.
No historically proven cultures explicitly promoted exclusive homosexuality to my knowledge, but many pre-Christian cultures did allow homosexual activity, provided those who took part in it also took wifes and procreated. Others chose not to explicitly disallow it.
It is my turn to call you droolingly uninformed. Paganism is not an Abrahamic religion, and did not have 'Satanic' rituals because they had no name for Satan. Norse culture, for instance, derided men who would 'flee women's genitals' or would assume a submissive role in same-sex conduct. It did not forbid such conduct, however.
The name Satan is derived from Ha-Satan ('the Accuser'), which was the title of Samael, an angel of Jewish lore who was supposedly the "Left Hand of God." Congratulations, today you have learned something new about the religion that you clearly only see fit to quote when it suits the argument you are making.