By Steve BousquetFox News: This morning, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of same-gender marriage in the Texas Supreme Court case, Obergefell v.
In its unanimous decision, the court overturned a lower court decision that had allowed the state to ban gay couples from marrying in the state.
In a rare act of dissent, the nine justices said the court did not have the power to decide whether marriage is a union between one man and one woman or between two men and two women.
We cannot pass judgment on this issue, nor can we ignore the fact that same-gendered marriage has become the law of the land.
That is why the United States Supreme Court has always stood firmly in the side of traditional marriage.
And we do so because we know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which guarantees religious liberty and religious freedom, are under threat.
The justices said they would be watching closely to see whether the ruling will have an impact on the state’s efforts to defend its ban.
For the first time in its history, the U.S. Supreme Court said that marriage is between a man and a woman.
The decision also came in the wake of the Supreme court’s landmark decision in May 2016 to legalize gay marriage in Massachusetts.
If a state law banning gay marriage violates the U,S.
Constitution, then it is a violation of the U Constitution as well, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the nine-member court.
When I join my colleagues to say that marriage between one person and one person only is a contract between one husband and one wife, I do not mean to diminish the value of a marriage between two people, Kennedy wrote.
But marriage is one of the most fundamental forms of human association.
“Marriage is a bond between a couple,” he continued.
A marriage between a woman and a man is a fundamental contract between two human beings.
It is the union of a man with a woman, the union between two persons who have entered into the most intimate and intimate relationship of their lives.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissent that the Obergeff v.
Hogan decision “shatters the very foundation upon which our Nation was founded.”
In her dissent, Ginsburg argued that same sex marriage should not be allowed to become law because of the “fundamental nature of the relationship.”
“If it were to be allowed, then same- sex couples, and other couples of the same sex, could marry and take their vows to each other as soon as a court would recognize their legal marriage,” Ginsburg said.
I cannot, I repeat, cannot accept a marriage that does not recognize the institution of marriage, she added.
Ginsburg said same- gender marriage “cannot be the same as heterosexual marriage.”
“The fact that a person of the opposite sex who is in a same- status relationship may marry in the same manner as heterosexual couples does not change the fundamental nature of that relationship,” Ginsberg said.
Ginsberg said that she did not think the Obergfell decision was about the ability of same sex couples to marry.
“I am not persuaded by the majority that the right to marry is a ‘fundamental right,'” Ginsburg continued.
“I do not think that same men and women, with their different sexualities, are incapable of entering into an institution that makes it possible for them to enjoy the benefits of marriage.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling was a major blow to the states’ ban, which has been in place since 2013.
It will now be up to the federal government to try to overturn the state bans.
According to the New York Times, Justice Clarence Thomas will lead the court’s majority, which will be comprised of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy.
Roberts, Kennedy, and Alito are all likely to join the conservative bloc that is opposed to gay marriage.
Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alitos, Justice John Alito, and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.