BREAKING>>>>Supreme court declares same-sex marriage a right in 5-4 vote

[mountaineer]

He would not likely appointed liberals like Obama did; Kagan and Sotomeyer.

Didn't a Repub president appoint Breyer?

[olde north church]

Didn't a Repub president appoint Breyer?

No.  Clinton did.

[Relic]

Didn't a Repub president appoint Breyer?

No, but Bush appointed Roberts.

[DCPatriot]

No, but Bush appointed Roberts.

Well, damnit!  There you have it.

It's Bush's fault.   

[Luis Gonzalez]

Well, damnit!  There you have it.

It's Bush's fault.   

Roberts is a conservative jurist.

The fact that he doesn't overturn liberal laws does not make him less of a conservative. It's not his job to judge on the validity of laws based on their relative position on one end or another of the political spectrum.

Obamacare sucks because it is a liberal wet dream of a law, but we, The People, elected a bunch of liberal wet dreamers to the Federal government and they did what liberal wet dreamers do when they have the chance.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,173435.0.html

[olde north church]

I really couldn't care one iota less about "Homosexual Nuptials".  Actually, the revenues derived have the potential to reduce some sort of government attacks on my wallet --- HA!
It's not marriage though.  Marriage is a sacrament.  A religious bonding, although one could say any Presbyterian order or another could be willing to jump into the fray as the Epicopals and Anglicans.
Anyway, I'm really not going to worry about brimstone and sulfur dropping from the sky upon a once God blessed (placing hat over heart) nation.
The real disservice is the obamacare ruling.  We all know why.  So what are we going to do about it?

[kevindavis007]

Quite a number of them, and many, many more outside of here.

Now, there's a number of them pledging to not vote for Jeb Bush if he wins the nomination,

I can only take people by their stated positions.

I'm supporting whoever is the nominee..

[kevindavis007]

I wonder how much Reagan love will be left after his pick to the supreme court made this bs decision.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I really couldn't care one iota less about "Homosexual Nuptials".  Actually, the revenues derived have the potential to reduce some sort of government attacks on my wallet --- HA!
It's not marriage though.  Marriage is a sacrament.  A religious bonding, although one could say any Presbyterian order or another could be willing to jump into the fray as the Epicopals and Anglicans.
Anyway, I'm really not going to worry about brimstone and sulfur dropping from the sky upon a once God blessed (placing hat over heart) nation.
The real disservice is the obamacare ruling.  We all know why.  So what are we going to do about it?

The Obamacare ruling was arguably the Roberts Court acting in a conservative manner. Many here have made the argument, over and over again, that it isn't the Court's place to write (or re-write) law, and that's exactly what the majority did. It ruled that if the verbiage didn't portray exactly what the government said that it portrayed, it was up to Congress to fix that, and that Congress has had ample opportunity to fix it. Had the SCOTUS re-written the law it would be usurping the Legislative Branch's constitutional authority and powers.

So what we need to do about it is exactly what Roberts and the SCOTUS have now suggested TWICE. Elect a Congress that will change, fix, or repeal the law,.

As for the SSM thing... I've pointed out for years now that defending marriage as a sacrament when most marriage ceremonies in the US are presided over by legal magistrates of no known (or existing) religious convictions s more than a little messed up.

You may walk into your City Hall and be married by a homosexual atheist and walk out thinking that you have just entered into a sacred union and a sacrament.

That's absurd.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'm supporting whoever is the nominee..

You and me brother.

[kevindavis007]

You and me brother.

I just hope that Trump is not the nominee.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I just hope that Trump is not the nominee.

I'll still vote GOP.

Hell... I'll vote for Santorum or Huckabee if I have to.

[kevindavis007]

I'll still vote GOP.

Hell... I'll vote for Santorum or Huckabee if I have to.

To be honest from 92 to 04 I flirted with the idea of voting third party but eventually voted for the GOP.  What got me off the third party idea was the 04 election. Well mainly the Losertarian party trying to help John Kerry win the election. Since then, that flirtation is over. No more.

[olde north church]

The Obamacare ruling was arguably the Roberts Court acting in a conservative manner. Many here have made the argument, over and over again, that it isn't the Court's place to write (or re-write) law, and that's exactly what the majority did. It ruled that if the verbiage didn't portray exactly what the government said that it portrayed, it was up to Congress to fix that, and that Congress has had ample opportunity to fix it. Had the SCOTUS re-written the law it would be usurping the Legislative Branch's constitutional authority and powers.

So what we need to do about it is exactly what Roberts and the SCOTUS have now suggested TWICE. Elect a Congress that will change, fix, or repeal the law,.

As for the SSM thing... I've pointed out for years now that defending marriage as a sacrament when most marriage ceremonies in the US are presided over by legal magistrates of no known (or existing) religious convictions s more than a little messed up.

You may walk into your City Hall and be married by a homosexual atheist and walk out thinking that you have just entered into a sacred union and a sacrament.

That's absurd.

The government, local, state or federal has no business in the marriage business.  "True" marriage is a religious ceremony, regardless of what it has become or how many end in divorce.  Ergo the phrase "living in sin" as opposed to "being contractually obligated".

[massadvj]

So what we need to do about it is exactly what Roberts and the SCOTUS have now suggested TWICE. Elect a Congress that will change, fix, or repeal the law,.

We did and they didn't.

You may walk into your City Hall and be married by a homosexual atheist and walk out thinking that you have just entered into a sacred union and a sacrament.

If you happen to be a liberal, not so absurd.  They worship government instead of God. 

[240B]

The path the American Liberals have chosen is unique in the world.

There is no other nation on Earth who is following the hippy weirdo culture of America.

China, an atheist State, just ignores religion, which is an authentic place to be.
Russia, an atheist State, has respect and reverence for the history and culture of religion, which is an authentic place to be.

America, an atheist State, wants to own religion. They want to dominate and change religion to suit their own perverted ideas. They want to own God, and make him their bitch. Liberals cannot stand the idea that there is something out there that they cannot control.

These gays are not entering into of covenant, or a holy sacrament, and they know it full well. Their goal is to piss on God and religion, in its face.

It is about power and domination. It has nothing to do with actual 'belief' in any religion. What, are you kidding me? They only want to jab the fools who actually believe in all that crap, and show them that the gays rule everything, even God.

[Luis Gonzalez]

We did and they didn't.

I get that the whole thing around these parts is to slam the GOP, but we didn't elect enough people to Congress to override a Presidential veto. You may be impressed by empty, fruitless legislative gestures (which is what trying to change or overturn Obamacare without the necessary votes to overcome Obama's veto would amount to) but I'm not.

If you happen to be a liberal, not so absurd.  They worship government instead of God.

Then again, it's not liberals that are trying to preserve the sacrament of marriage as dispensed by an atheist homosexual magistrate in City Hall, is it?

[Free Vulcan]

I really couldn't care one iota less about "Homosexual Nuptials".  Actually, the revenues derived have the potential to reduce some sort of government attacks on my wallet --- HA!
It's not marriage though.  Marriage is a sacrament.  A religious bonding, although one could say any Presbyterian order or another could be willing to jump into the fray as the Epicopals and Anglicans.
Anyway, I'm really not going to worry about brimstone and sulfur dropping from the sky upon a once God blessed (placing hat over heart) nation.
The real disservice is the obamacare ruling.  We all know why.  So what are we going to do about it?

It may be a religious bonding, but it has real world secular implications. Taxes, wills, estates, 'discrimination', school education, religion and a great deal more. They are going to use this to drive out all dissent against gays and gay marriage, particularly from a religious position. Then they will hammer the transsexual lifestyle down our throats, which they are already doing, and then come the group marriage advocates, and finally the pedophiles. Because that's what they are ultimately after, using and exploiting the kids for the sexual 'preferences',and making every child a ward of the state.

This will be a fast and slippery slope. It's just getting started now that Pandora's box is open.

[andy58-in-nh]

I get that the whole thing around these parts is to slam the GOP, but we didn't elect enough people to Congress to override a Presidential veto. You may be impressed by empty, fruitless legislative gestures (which is what trying to change or overturn Obamacare without the necessary votes to overcome Obama's veto would amount to) but I'm not.

I have to admit that I've come around to your point of view on this strategic matter. We cannot change the direction of our country (read: roll back our headlong descent into lawlessness via the cynical promotion of ends over means) unless we have a strong GOP Congress and a Republican President. Passing doomed legislation is a fruitless waste of time and energy.

What Republicans can and must do is to make their case thoughtfully, consistently, passionately, and publicly. And compromise will be necessary with respect to all things, save our core values.

I have my doubts that we can succeed, absent the plain arrival of disaster as a motivating force. But if we truly believe what we all claim to believe, then we must try.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I have to admit that I've come around to your point of view on this strategic matter. We cannot change the direction of our country (read: roll back our headlong descent into lawlessness via the cynical promotion of ends over means) unless we have a strong GOP Congress and a Republican President. Passing doomed legislation is a fruitless waste of time and energy.

What Republicans can and must do is to make their case thoughtfully, consistently, passionately, and publicly. And compromise will be necessary with respect to all things, save our core values.

I have my doubts that we can succeed, absent the plain arrival of disaster as a motivating force. But if we truly believe what we all claim to believe, then we must try.

Been trying to do that here for a while now.

The fact that you have come around to my point of view validates my efforts.
Thanks.

[Free Vulcan]

I get that the whole thing around these parts is to slam the GOP, but we didn't elect enough people to Congress to override a Presidential veto. You may be impressed by empty, fruitless legislative gestures (which is what trying to change or overturn Obamacare without the necessary votes to overcome Obama's veto would amount to) but I'm not.

Right, but they also need to quit tying to make a bipartisan deal before Obama finishes his proposal speech. That and try being some real opposition instead of wanting to hold hands and sing kumbayah so they can be media darlings.

Then again, it's not liberals that are trying to preserve the sacrament of marriage as dispensed by an atheist homosexual magistrate in City Hall, is it?

Actually, it's liberals wanting to force conservative churches to marry, hire, and accept anyone with any kind of lifestyle and stifle all dissent against them, with the ultimate goal of indoctrinating, corrupting, and exploiting the children for their agenda.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Right, but they also need to quit tying to make a bipartisan deal before Obama finishes his proposal speech. That and try being some real opposition instead of wanting to hold hands and sing kumbayah so they can be media darlings.

We're supposed to have a bipartisan government, not a partisan dictatorship where the ruling party rides roughshot over the other. The fact that we don't have that is one of our biggest problems.

Actually, it's liberals wanting to force conservative churches to marry, hire, and accept anyone with any kind of lifestyle and stifle all dissent against them, with the ultimate goal of indoctrinating, corrupting, and exploiting the children for their agenda.

Actually, the Roberts Court upheld the right of religious establishments (churches) to hire and fire people according to their religious beliefs, and I don't see any movement trying to force conservative churches to conduct same sex marriages. Can you show me examples of that happening?

[Free Vulcan]

We're supposed to have a bipartisan government, not a partisan dictatorship where the ruling party rides roughshot over the other. The fact that we don't have that is one of our biggest problems.

Says who? Upon what holy book is that written? Not the Constitution. Why even try to get the Presidency or a supermajority you're talking about if that is the case? I'm not interested in working with liberals, I'm interested in driving them out of existence. If the Dem party wants to be worked with, they can become more workable.

Actually, the Roberts Court upheld the right of religious establishments (churches) to hire and fire people according to their religious beliefs, and I don't see any movement trying to force conservative churches to conduct same sex marriages. Can you show me examples of that happening?

Of course not, quit deflecting and being circumspect. The gay marriage decision was only a few days ago. However, the dissenting justices themselves warned what it could mean for religious liberty, and the liberals are ready to pounce on forcing homosexuality into the church. They are already saying so and gathering their forces. The chess game is afoot and you're denying that there even is a game, drawing lines in the sand you can't enforce, once again.

[olde north church]

It may be a religious bonding, but it has real world secular implications. Taxes, wills, estates, 'discrimination', school education, religion and a great deal more. They are going to use this to drive out all dissent against gays and gay marriage, particularly from a religious position. Then they will hammer the transsexual lifestyle down our throats, which they are already doing, and then come the group marriage advocates, and finally the pedophiles. Because that's what they are ultimately after, using and exploiting the kids for the sexual 'preferences',and making every child a ward of the state.

This will be a fast and slippery slope. It's just getting started now that Pandora's box is open.

My only point was they can try to call it "marriage" but it ain't.  As the saying goes, my Grandma has four wheels and sleeps in the garage but it don't make her a Buick.  Words mean things.

[Free Vulcan]

My only point was they can try to call it "marriage" but it ain't.  As the saying goes, my Grandma has four wheels and sleeps in the garage but it don't make her a Buick.  Words mean things.

Gotcha. Understand what you are saying now.