The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: jmyrlefuller on June 26, 2015, 02:23:45 pm
-
In favor: Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
Against: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas Alito
Kennedy writing the decision.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-06-26-10-16-58
Ironic quote, from Roberts's dissent: "But this court is not a legislature."
-
Jun 26, 10:16 AM EDT
Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court declared Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States.
Gay and lesbian couples already could marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court's 5-4 ruling means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage.
The outcome is the culmination of two decades of Supreme Court litigation over marriage, and gay rights generally.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, just as he did in the court's previous three major gay rights cases dating back to 1996. It came on the anniversary of two of those earlier decisions.
"No union is more profound than marriage," Kennedy wrote, joined by the court's four more liberal justices.
The four dissenting justices each filed a separate opinion explaining their views.
"But this court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in dissent. Roberts read a summary of his dissent from the bench, the first time he has done so in nearly 10 years as chief justice.
Justice Antonin Scalia said he is not concerned so much about same-sex marriage, but about "this court's threat to American democracy." Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas also dissented.
The ruling will not take effect immediately because the court gives the losing side roughly three weeks to ask for reconsideration. But some state officials and county clerks might decide there is little risk in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The cases before the court involved laws from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Those states have not allowed same-sex couples to marry within their borders and they also have refused to recognize valid marriages from elsewhere.
Just two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal anti-gay marriage law that denied a range of government benefits to legally married same-sex couples.
The decision in United States v. Windsor did not address the validity of state marriage bans, but courts across the country, with few exceptions, said its logic compelled them to invalidate state laws that prohibited gay and lesbian couples from marrying.
The number of states allowing same-sex marriage has grown rapidly. As recently as October, just over one-third of the states permitted same-sex marriage.
There are an estimated 390,000 married same-sex couples in the United States, according to UCLA's Williams Institute, which tracks the demographics of gay and lesbian Americans. Another 70,000 couples living in states that do not currently permit them to wed would get married in the next three years, the institute says. Roughly 1 million same-sex couples, married and unmarried, live together in the United States, the institute says.
The Obama administration backed the right of same-sex couples to marry. The Justice Department's decision to stop defending the federal anti-marriage law in 2011 was an important moment for gay rights and President Barack Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage in 2012.
-
JOHN ROBERTS ON GAY RULING:
'If you are among the many Americans--of whatever sexual orientation--who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not Celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it'
-
If you are part of a Christian church that believes that such ceremonies are contrary to your religious beliefs, and wonder what to do about this, I suggest starting with the Alliance Defending Freedom (https://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/issues/church).
-
So, today, Roberts decides the SC should ignore the effects of a positive ruling and decide based on the law.
Yesterday, Roberts said the SC has to consider the effects of a negative ruling and decide based on the outcomes.
Schizophrenic doesn't BEGIN to describe this clown.
-
If you are part of a Christian church that believes that such ceremonies are contrary to your religious beliefs, and wonder what to do about this, I suggest starting with the Alliance Defending Freedom (https://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/issues/church).
If you are part of a Christian denomination, you may as well prepare for your church to lose its tax exemption within five years. The gay lobby is not done forcing their views down your throat.
-
Next there will be cases by fundamentalist Mormons, and by muslims, desirous of their religious freedom, too.
Both fundamentalist Mormons, and muslims, already practice polygamy in America, but they will want to come out in the open.
They will want their religious freedom, too.
-
So, today, Roberts decides the SC should ignore the effects of a positive ruling and decide based on the law.
Yesterday, Roberts said the SC has to consider the effects of a negative ruling and decide based on the outcomes.
Schizophrenic doesn't BEGIN to describe this clown.
It is called "making it up as you go" (majority rules with no protection for the minority). It is the way things are done throughout America in this brave new day. Hillary will enjoy it so.
This is just another step along the path.
-
dont give a damm what the Supreme court says
gay marriage is and aways will be a abomination against god and nature
Homosexually will always be outside normal humanity
all the liberal whining will not change that
-
Next there will be cases by fundamentalist Mormons, and by muslims, desirous of their religious freedom, too.
Both fundamentalist Mormons, and muslims, already practice polygamy in America, but they will want to come out in the open.
They will want their religious freedom, too.
Polygamy has deep Biblical and cultural roots across multiple centuries and religious polygamy is supposed to be protected by the First Amendment.
-
Next there will be cases by fundamentalist Mormons, and by muslims, desirous of their religious freedom, too.
Both fundamentalist Mormons, and muslims, already practice polygamy in America, but they will want to come out in the open.
They will want their religious freedom, too.
And Muslims will get it...Mormons I'm not so sure. We pick and choose our winners in America today based on how well they support the dominant social culture or on how well they hate the country that we formerly had in America. The Mormons may have some problems on both those fronts.
-
It is called "making it up as you go" (majority rules with no protection for the minority). It is the way things are done throughout America in this brave new day. Hillary will enjoy it so.
This is just another step along the path.
Agreed. The path is clear, the endpoint is not pretty, but easily identified.
Those who think like us are outnumbered and out gunned. There's no turning back.
-
This ruling was fully expected, and very much in the tradition of Roe v Wade and other recent instances of very bad law.
The USA is now a lonely, desolate place place indeed for anyone who believes in traditional values, natural rights, or even states' rights. Federal institutionalism is the omnipotent tyrant, and it simply does not matter one whit what the constitution says, or even what the people say.
Warning to all the progressives: you will rue the day you wished for this all-encompassing federal government.
-
- The PJ Tatler - http://pjmedia.com/tatler -
Supreme Court Forces Gay Marriage Upon All 50 States: Federalism Is Dead
Posted By Michael van der Galien On June 26, 2015 @ 7:25 am In News | No Comments
The Supreme Court has just ruled that gay marriage has to be legal in all 50 states. Although I personally support the right of gays to marry, this is an incredibly bad decision.
The “right” of gays to marry has never existed. It isn’t protected by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, because of the 10th Amendment this issue (marriage) is completely left to the individual states. In other words, marriage is none of the federal government’s business; it’s up to individual states to decide whether to legalize it or not.
Combined with yesterday’s ruling on ObamaCare (read my article on that one here), we can only conclude that federalism is no more. America is now a centralized country, comparable to individual European states.
Federalism is dead. And that’s all because of the robed Houdinis who have taken America hostage. These men and women in black have decided that text of laws and the Constitution no longer matter.
Article printed from The PJ Tatler: http://pjmedia.com/tatler
URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/06/26/supreme-court-forces-gay-marriage-upon-all-50-states-federalism-is-dead/
-
If you are part of a Christian denomination, you may as well prepare for your church to lose its tax exemption within five years. The gay lobby is not done forcing their views down your throat.
I fear you are correct. All the statements of faith and facilities use policies in the world will not help us at some point. The Bible-believing churches of the USA will, in the near future, look like the underground churches of the USSR, China and other officially atheist countries.
As an aside, here's the RNC platform plank on marriage:
RNC Platform: Preserving and Protecting Traditional Marriage
"The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity "
-
This ruling was fully expected, and very much in the tradition of Roe v Wade and other recent instances of very bad law.
The USA is now a lonely, desolate place place indeed for anyone who believes in traditional values, natural rights, or even states' rights. Federal institutionalism is the omnipotent tyrant, and it simply does not matter one whit what the constitution says, or even what the people say.
Warning to all the progressives: you will rue the day you wished for this all-encompassing federal government.
In general, Americans 40 and under see the government as the answer to all problems. They have no sense of history, and only wish for the government to take control of people who "don't do as they should".
It saddens me to realize that these people aren't smart enough to see what's coming. And when they do get the governmental nightmare they wish for, they won't be smart enough to understand they facilitated their own misery.
-
So, today, Roberts decides the SC should ignore the effects of a positive ruling and decide based on the law.
Yesterday, Roberts said the SC has to consider the effects of a negative ruling and decide based on the outcomes.
Schizophrenic doesn't BEGIN to describe this clown.
Perhaps it's not all that "schizophrenic" if you understand this consistency: the Court in both instances is trying to advance a favored outcome, irrespective of the plain meaning of words in laws as they are written.
-
Statement of Franklin Graham, posted on Facebook:
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled today that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states. With all due respect to the court, it did not define marriage, and therefore is not entitled to re-define it.
Long before our government came into existence, marriage was created by the One who created man and woman—Almighty God—and His decisions are not subject to review or revision by any manmade court. God is clear about the definition of marriage in His Holy Word: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).
I pray God will spare America from His judgment, though, by our actions as a nation, we give Him less and less reason to do so.
-
Perhaps it's not all that "schizophrenic" if you understand this consistency: the Court in both instances is trying to advance a favored outcome, irrespective of the plain meaning of words in laws as they are written.
SCOTUS is now KING and this once great Republic is DEAD!
-
Judicial Activism From Supreme Court on Marriage. Here’s How to Respond.
Ryan T. Anderson / June 26, 2015
Today is a significant setback for all Americans who believe in the Constitution, the rule of law, democratic self-government, and marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The U.S. Supreme Court got it wrong: It should not have mandated all 50 states to redefine marriage.
This is judicial activism: nothing in the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage, and the court imposed its judgment about a policy matter that should be decided by the American people and their elected representatives. The court got marriage and the Constitution wrong today just like they got abortion and the Constitution wrong 42 years ago with Roe v. Wade. Five unelected judges do not have the power to change the truth about marriage or the truth about the Constitution.
The court summarized its ruling in this way—which highlights that they have redefined marriage, substituting their own opinion for that of the citizens:The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest.
Manifest to five unelected judges that is. Not to the majority of American citizens who voted to define marriage correctly. As Chief Justice Roberts pointed out in dissent:
If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.
That’s exactly right. When it comes to the majority opinion, the Constitution “had nothing to do with it.”
We must work to restore the constitutional authority of citizens and their elected officials to make marriage policy that reflects the truth about marriage. We the people must explain what marriage is, why marriage matters, and why redefining marriage is bad for society.
For marriage policy to serve the common good it must reflect the truth that marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mother and a father. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.
The government is not in the marriage business because it’s a sucker for adult romance. No, marriage isn’t just a private affair; marriage is a matter of public policy because marriage is society’s best way to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage acts as a powerful social norm that encourages men and women to commit to each other so they will take responsibility for any children that follow.
Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs—or rights—of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.
Because the court has inappropriately redefined marriage everywhere, there is urgent need for policy to ensure that the government never penalizes anyone for standing up for marriage. As discussed in my new book, “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” we must work to protect the freedom of speech, association and religion of those who continue to abide by the truth of marriage as union of man and woman.
At the federal level, the First Amendment Defense Act is a good place to start. It says that the federal government cannot discriminate against people and institutions that speak and act according to their belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. States need similar policies.
Recognizing the truth about marriage is good public policy. Today’s decision is a significant set-back to achieving that goal. We must work to reverse it and recommit ourselves to building a strong marriage culture because so much of our future depends upon it.
The Daily Signal (http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/26/judicial-activism-from-supreme-court-on-marriage-heres-how-to-respond/)
-
Next there will be cases by fundamentalist Mormons, and by muslims, desirous of their religious freedom, too.
Both fundamentalist Mormons, and muslims, already practice polygamy in America, but they will want to come out in the open.
They will want their religious freedom, too.
And the pedophiles are right behind them. Not to mention transsexual rights, and forced morality to accept all these different 'lifestyles'.
The goal is the kids, the secondary goal is the domination of hetero white males. We're just getting started.
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/246255-obama-justice-arrives-like-a-thunderbolt (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/246255-obama-justice-arrives-like-a-thunderbolt)
Obama: Justice arrives 'like a thunderbolt'
By Jordan Fabian - 06/26/15 11:26 AM EDT
President Obama on Friday hailed a Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, saying justice has arrived “like a thunderbolt” for gay and lesbian couples.
“They’ve reaffirmed that all Americans are entitled to the equal protection of the law, that all people should be treated equally,” Obama said in the Rose Garden.
Obama said the ruling ends uncertainty for same-sex couples by ending the “patchwork” system of marriage laws in the United States.
“Sometimes there are days like this, when that slow, steady effort is rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt,” Obama said.
Obama opposed same-sex marriage when he was first elected president in 2008. He backed it before the 2012 election, saying his views had been “evolving” during his time in the White House.
The president did, however, endorse the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits to same-sex married couples.
In a 5-4 ruling, the high court ruled same-sex couples have the right to marry under the 14th amendment of the Constitution. That means the 14 states that still have bans on same-sex marriage can no longer enforce them.
“Today, we can say in no uncertain terms that we have made our union a little more perfect," Obama said from the Rose Garden.
He credited the efforts of gay-rights advocates, saying they displayed "thousands of small acts of courage" to advance their cause.
Just before making his statement, Obama called the plaintiff in the case, Jim Obergefell, to congratulate him on the ruling, according to CNN.
Obama also encouraged respect for "Americans of goodwill" who oppose the ruling because of "sincere and deeply held beliefs."
Dozens of White House staff members, including senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, stood along the colonnade next to the Rose Garden to watch Obama’s remarks.
It was the second day in a row Obama appeared in the Rose Garden to celebrate a major Supreme Court decision. He told the nation Thursday his signature healthcare law is “here to stay” after the court ruled in its favor.
Obama ended the speech by quoting Robert Kennedy, who said individual actions by people can be like pebbles thrown into a still lake, as “ripples of hope cascade outwards and change the world.”
“Those countless, often anonymous heroes, they deserve our thanks. They should be very proud. America should be very proud,” he said before walking back to the Oval Office.
In a rare sight, aides lining the colonnade between his office and the Rose Garden applauded as Obama walked by.
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/246248-gop-candidates-rip-imperial-court (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/246248-gop-candidates-rip-imperial-court)
June 26, 2015, 10:55 am
GOP candidates rip 'imperial court' for legalizing gay marriage
By Jonathan Easley
Republican presidential candidates are slamming the Supreme Court for legalizing same-sex marriage, calling Friday’s ruling an assault against Christian values and religious liberty.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who has made religious liberty a major theme of his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, said the decision will “pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision.”
"The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states' rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution,” Jindal said in a statement. “Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that.”
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee vowed not to “acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch.”
"The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do — redefine marriage,” Huckabee said. “We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.”
Next week, Huckabee will embark on a “Religious Liberty Townhall Tour” through Iowa.
He called the ruling the “irrational, unconstitutional rejection of the expressed will of the people in over 30 states,” and said it would go down in history as “one of the court's most disastrous decisions.”
“The only outcome worse than this flawed, failed decision would be for the President and Congress, two co-equal branches of government, to surrender in the face of this out-of-control act of unconstitutional, judicial tyranny,” Huckabee said. “The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature's God on marriage than it can the laws of gravity.”
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker called the court’s decision a “grave mistake,” and called for an amendment to the Constitution to strip the courts of their authority on the issue.
“As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage,” Walker said.
“The states are the proper place for these decisions to be made,” he continued. “As we have seen repeatedly over the last few days, we will need a conservative president who will appoint men and women to the Court who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our land without injecting their own political agendas.”
Carly Fiorina said Friday’s ruling is “the latest example of an activist Court ignoring its constitutional duty,” declaring that the Supreme Court “did not and could not end this debate today.”
“I do not agree that the Court can or should redefine marriage,” Fiorina said. “I believe that responsibility should have remained with states and voters where this conversation has continued in churches, town halls and living rooms around the country. Moving forward, however, all of our effort should be focused on protecting the religious liberties and freedom of conscience for those Americans that profoundly disagree with today's decision.”
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum vowed to keep fighting against the implementation of same-sex marriage, saying “the stakes are too high and the issue too important to simply cede the will of the people to five unaccountable justices."
“Leaders don't accept bad decisions that they believe harm the country, they have the courage of their convictions and lead the country down the better path,” Santorum said. “As president … I will stand for the preservation of religious liberty and conscience, to believe what you are called to believe free from persecution. And I will ensure that the people will have a voice in decisions that impact the rock upon which our civilization is built.”
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson had the most tempered responses of the 2016 hopefuls.
“Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage,” Bush said. “I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision.”
However, Bush added that he also believes “we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments.”
“In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side,” he said. “It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate.”
Carson said that he strongly disagrees with the court’s decision, but supports same-sex civil unions.
“To me, and millions like me, marriage is a religious service not a government form,” Carson said.
“Their ruling is now the law of the land,” he continued. “I call on Congress to make sure deeply held religious views are respected and protected. The government must never force Christians to violate their religious beliefs.”
-
Gay Marriage Won't Be Controversial
Jonathan Bernstein
Bloomberg View
June 26, 2015
Marriage equality is the law of the land.
Perhaps the most amazing thing about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Friday in Obergefell, which recognizes marriage as a basic right, is that it’s not going to be very controversial.
More, with reader comments (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-26/gay-marriage-won-t-be-controversial)
-
I'm thinking of transitioning.
That's right, I want to be on the winning team so I'm declaring here and now I'm becoming a democrat.
The surgery is scheduled for next month. My surgeon assures me I can function just fine without my frontal lobes – democrats have been doing it for decades.
-
There will be no controversy whatsoever, all anyone will see is victory lap after victory lap from the left, breathlessly reported by the media. One Hollywood celebration after another. Any opposition has been successfully ostracized and driven underground. Who won the Cold War?
And after the many rounds of celebration are over, the next steps will begin, after some time has passed of course to consolidate and enforce the popular opinion. And those will not be controversial either...for nothing truly can be for long in a country with such a well-established popular culture. And then tax status for the holdouts still in existence will come into question, and follow the same path. Opposition - or alternative thinking - will be deemed criminal. Religious liberty will fall with barely a whimper. And guns - the second Amenment will fall as well one day - will be Hollywood's next campaign. And that too will succeed in the same manner. The path is set and no real opposition is possible with America's current population.
-
All the attention is paid to those faith denominations which oppose this ruling, but what about those denominations which approve of it?
Isn't that religious freedom, too? Or does the religious right hold that their beliefs are superior, to all others? And they desire the state to hold that to be so?
-
I'm thinking of transitioning.
That's right, I want to be on the winning team so I'm declaring here and now I'm becoming a democrat.
The surgery is scheduled for next month. My surgeon assures me I can function just fine without my frontal lobes – democrats have been doing it for decades.
Good luck on your Trans-Idiot surgery. I know it's a difficult decision, but after it's done, you won't ever recall being concerned about it. :tongue2:
-
There will be no controversy whatsoever, all anyone will see is victory lap after victory lap from the left, breathlessly reported by the media. One Hollywood celebration after another. Any opposition has been successfully ostracized and driven underground. Who won the Cold War?
And after the many rounds of celebration are over, the next steps will begin, after some time has passed of course to consolidate and enforce the popular opinion. And those will not be controversial either...for nothing truly can be for long in a country with such a well-established popular culture. And then tax status for the holdouts still in existence will come into question, and follow the same path. Opposition - or alternative thinking - will be deemed criminal. Religious liberty will fall with barely a whimper. And guns - the second Amenment will fall as well one day - will be Hollywood's next campaign. And that too will succeed in the same manner. The path is set and no real opposition is possible with America's current population.
That is exactly the way it is going.
-
All the attention is paid to those faith denominations which oppose this ruling, but what about those denominations which approve of it?
Isn't that religious freedom, too? Or does the religious right hold that their beliefs are superior, to all others? And they desire the state to hold that to be so?
Right, but the conservatives aren't asking that those pro-gay churches lose their tax exempt status, and no one is wanting to dictate what they believe, how they hire, and who they marry. The religious right ultimately will not be allowed to speak their beliefs or practice their faith unless it falls under state mandated political correct guidelines of forced thought and morality.
-
Well the wild card in this is going to be the Blacks and Hispanics
the Hispanics are predominantly Catholic
and a lot of black churches ,despite what the NAACP and the media say,
are opposed to gay marrige
-
This ruling was fully expected, and very much in the tradition of Roe v Wade and other recent instances of very bad law.
The USA is now a lonely, desolate place place indeed for anyone who believes in traditional values, natural rights, or even states' rights. Federal institutionalism is the omnipotent tyrant, and it simply does not matter one whit what the constitution says, or even what the people say.
Warning to all the progressives: you will rue the day you wished for this all-encompassing federal government.
I was nodding in agreement until your warning. To "rue" they have to understand what they've thrown away. And they do not.
-
I was nodding in agreement until your warning. To "rue" they have to understand what they've thrown away. And they do not.
You may be right, but sooner or later they will age and look at the things -- both tangible and intangible -- that their parents had that they do not.
-
You may be right, but sooner or later they will age and look at the things -- both tangible and intangible -- that their parents had that they do not.
And they will wallow in their victimhood. They will curse the "new normal", and wish they had been "lucky" like their parents.
The only hope for change is a new generation, hardened by tough economic times, and oppression. A generation made strong by working for necessities will be strong enough to reject the indoctrination, and find their own truth.
-
Take heart guys, there are gays all over the country who are crapping in their pants right now. In some, not all, gay people, the idea of being gay is all about a Miltonesque kind of rebellion against God, society, norms, and institutions.
The very last thing these people want to think about is marriage. This agenda is being pushed primarily not by average homosexuals, but rather by militant, activist, homosexuals who have a specific agenda against Christianity and the Church. This is a small percentage of all homosexuals. Most homosexuals have no interest whatsoever in being 'married', and most have an deep aversion to it. I mean, after all, no marriage, no kids, was part of the allure of homosexuality to begin with for most of them.
Now, with Robert's latest royal edict (which, as usual, is not based on any law or precedent), they are going to face pressure to 'marry', which they never expected and do not want. This is more of a problem for the homosexuals than it is for us.
In exceedingly typical fashion, the Liberals who, as always, "only want to help", have screwed everything up for the very people they intended to babysit, and take care of.
-
This whole push for marriage equality is nothing but a cabal cooked up by divorce lawyers.
Just trying to lighten the mood here.
-
Take heart guys, there are gays all over the country who are crapping in their pants right now. In some, not all, gay people, the idea of being gay is all about a Miltonesque kind of rebellion against God, society, norms, and institutions.
The very last thing these people want to think about is marriage. This agenda is being pushed primarily not by average homosexuals, but rather by militant, activist, homosexuals who have a specific agenda against Christianity and the Church. This is a small percentage of all homosexuals. Most homosexuals have no interest whatsoever in being 'married', and most have an deep aversion to it. I mean, after all, no marriage, no kids, was part of the allure of homosexuality to begin with for most of them.
Now, with Robert's latest royal edict (which, as usual, is not based on any law or precedent), they are going to face pressure to 'marry', which they never expected and do not want. This is more of a problem for the homosexuals than it is for us.
In exceedingly typical fashion, the Liberals who, as always, "only want to help", have screwed everything up for the very people they intended to babysit, and take care of.
agreed I hope this blows up in their faces
I just talked to my mother on cell phone and she mentioned a lot of recent talk in the local news about a convention of states, also what the reaction of the black churches and black muslims will be to this crap
Obozo can take his blackness only so far
-
http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/246341-cruz-scotus-rulings-plunge-nation-into-darkest-hours (http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/246341-cruz-scotus-rulings-plunge-nation-into-darkest-hours)
Cruz: Rulings among the 'darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history'
By Ben Kamisar - 06/26/15 05:56 PM EDT
Supreme Court decisions affirming ObamaCare and granting a national right to same sex marriage have brought “some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history,” Sen. Ted Cruz said Friday.
“Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history,” he said on The Sean Hannity Show, the Fox pundit’s radio program, on Friday.
“Yesterday and today were both naked and shameless judicial activism.”
While many other Republican presidential hopefuls sent out statements deriding the Friday decision, Cruz’s campaign did not.
He took to the Senate floor to slam the Affordable Care Act ruling on Thursday, panning it as “disgraceful.”
“Six justices joined the Obama administration, you now have Barack Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, and six justices responsible for forcing failed disaster of a law on millions of Americans, and simply rewriting the law in a way that is fundamentally contrary to their judicial oath,” he told Hannity Friday.
He then shifted to Friday’s decision.
“Today, this radical decision purporting to down the marriage laws of every state. It has no connection to the United States Constitution,” he said.
“They are simply making it up. It is lawless, and in doing so, they have undermined the fundamental legitimacy of the United States Supreme Court.”
Cruz has warned against this decision for months and filed text for a constitutional amendment in April that defines marriage as heterosexual.
In a narrow victory for advocates of same-sex marriage, Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the four liberal-leaning justices on Friday to make those marriages legal across the country. He framed marriage as a fundamental right and argued that it would be a violation of the Constitution’s equal protection clause to bar same-sex couples from marrying.
But all four conservative justices penned dissents criticizing that ruling. Chief Justice John Roberts warned that the decision has “nothing to do” with the constitution. Fresh off of his scathing dissent in Thursday’s 6-3 decision to back the administration’s expansion of health care subsidies to those in states that hadn’t set up localized exchanges, Justice Antonin Scalia also penned his own dissent.
“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy,” he wrote.
“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”
-
sinkspur wrote above:
[[ If you are part of a Christian denomination, you may as well prepare for your church to lose its tax exemption within five years. The gay lobby is not done forcing their views down your throat. ]]
Listen folks, I'm not the brightest guy in this room, but I've been wondering...
...what would happen if churches were to "lose their tax exemption"?
Let's suppose a small church in smalltown USA can no longer claim a tax exemption on the basis of being a "religious institution".
Why couldn't churches simply declare themselves to be "for profit" organizations?
When you consider the assets a particular church owns, vis-a-vis the "revenue" it takes in at collection time on Sunday, how many "for profit" churches would actually be operating "at a profit", and how many would be engendering losses?
Considering the cost of maintenance, and the cost of paying the staff, cost of paying property taxes, etc., most churches would be money-losing organizations. They wouldn't be paying federal, state, or local income taxes. In many cases, they might even qualify for tax breaks.
It's time to stop wringing hands about religions losing tax exemptions, and to start thinking about how they could go on -- and perhaps even do better financially -- in the wake of such government action.
If we're not willing to consider this now, we will be forced to consider it later...
-
This whole push for marriage equality is nothing but a cabal cooked up by divorce lawyers.
Exactly... how you gonna decide who's going to be the 'husband' who gets reamed in court?
-
Hoestly....what is the big deal?
More than 50% of 'regular' marriages end in divorce. So much for reverent unions, etc.. Gimme a break.
If two people love each other and care enough that the living partner enjoys the legal protections afforded heterosexual man/woman marriage...I fail to see what there is that we need to get bent out of shape over it.
I just don't get or understand the hand wringing over this.
Compared to what happened the day prior regarding 'Obamacare', this doesn't phase me. :shrug:
-
I fail to see what there is that we need to get bent out of shape over it.
Well stay tuned... this is only the beginning, not the end... and it won't be about 'two people who love each other'...
-
Well stay tuned... this is only the beginning, not the end... and it won't be about 'two people who love each other'...
Well said ! This is the trial lawyer full employment wet dream!
-
Well said ! This is the trial lawyer full employment wet dream!
And why is that? 'They' only represent less than 2% of the population...supposedly.
....although everything seems "gay" today. LOL!
-
And why is that? 'They' only represent less than 2% of the population...supposedly.
....although everything seems "gay" today. LOL!
Just take a seat and watch what comes down the pike because of this idiocy!
-
And why is that? 'They' only represent less than 2% of the population...supposedly.
Because any of the remaining 98% who disagree can now be legally attacked by said 2%.
Dissent is now against the Constitution...
-
Because any of the remaining 98% who disagree can now be legally attacked by said 2%.
Dissent is now against the Constitution...
But that's the point. Maybe it's time for the rest of us to get with the program.
Sure, I quite aware of the flaming queens and bull dykes that are among that protected group.
But we all know some beautiful and wonderful people that come from that group too, don't we?
-
But that's the point. Maybe it's time for the rest of us to get with the program.
Sure, I quite aware of the flaming queens and bull dykes that are among that protected group.
The point is that you won't have any choice but to 'get with the program'.
Unfortunately, it will be the flaming queens and bull dykes that drive said 'program' because perversion has been normalized and dissent is now illegal...
-
The point is that you won't have any choice but to 'get with the program'.
Unfortunately, it will be the flaming queens and bull dykes that drive said 'program' because perversion has been normalized and dissent is now illegal...
It's weird...but just like they tell us about Islam....the crazies are in the minority.
And that holds true in every group.
We're not all Dylan Roof, ya know! :laugh:
-
That is the most ironic piece of the puzzle. NOBODY is getting married these days. The millennial disdain marriage. It is so common to meet a couple who have been together 10+ years, have a home together, have multiple children, and have never been married.
When you ask them why they didn't get married, they do not even understand the question. They ask you back, Why? Why should we? We are not religious.
In these times, there really is not much point to being married. All the child support laws, and separation laws, and tax/health laws apply nearly equally whether a couple is married or not. It is all part of the decades long plan to secularize society.
In fact, again ironically, the only people who seem to 'want' to get married, are a small percentage of radical gays, with a transgendered, transracial, homosexual, hermaphrodite, cross dressing, formerly jewish 'sort of' priest. But they missed the bus. Nobody else is doing it these days.
Their straight friends might go to their gay wedding and wish them well, but on the drive home the straight normal guys are laughing their ass off and saying, 'What? Are these guys freakin' crazy?'. Who gets married anymore? That is so last century.
Before you know it, "marriage", as it is called, is going to be strictly a 'gay' thing. No one else wants anything to do with it.
And from my life experience, I don't blame them. Just ask all the gay guys who have been divorced. Ask them how much fun that is. Welcome to the real world, perverts.
-
It's weird...but just like they tell us about Islam....the crazies are in the minority.
And that holds true in every group.
We're not all Dylan Roof, ya know! :laugh:
And those crazies will cause a whole lot of damage... just like in Islam.
And actually... just FYI, if you're a white male... you are assumed to be Dylan Roof...
-
That is the most ironic piece of the puzzle. NOBODY is getting married these days. The millennial disdain marriage. It is so common to meet a couple who have been together 10+ years, have a home together, have multiple children, and have never been married.
When you ask them why they didn't get married, they do not even understand the question. They ask you back, Why? Why should we? We are not religious.
In these times, there really is not much point to being married. All the child support laws, and separation laws, and tax/health laws apply nearly equally whether a couple is married or not. It is all part of the decades long plan to secularize society.
In fact, again ironically, the only people who seem to 'want' to get married, are a small percentage of radical gays, with a transgendered, transracial, homosexual, hermaphrodite, cross dressing, formerly jewish 'sort of' priest. But they missed the bus. Nobody else is doing it these days.
Their straight friends might go to their gay wedding and wish them well, but on the drive home the straight normal guys are laughing their ass off and saying, 'What? Are these guys freakin' crazy?'. Who gets married anymore? That is so last century.
Before you know it, "marriage", as it is called, is going to be strictly a 'gay' thing. No one else wants anything to do with it.
And from my life experience, I don't blame them. Just ask all the gay guys who have been divorced. Ask them how much fun that is. Welcome to the real world, perverts.
Great rant. 240B! And good points made.
-
And those crazies will cause a whole lot of damage... just like in Islam.
And actually... just FYI, if you're a white male... you are assumed to be Dylan Roof...
Reading all this crap going on today...sometimes I feel like I'm working on it! :laugh:
-
Hoestly....what is the big deal?
More than 50% of 'regular' marriages end in divorce. So much for reverent unions, etc.. Gimme a break.
If two people love each other and care enough that the living partner enjoys the legal protections afforded heterosexual man/woman marriage...I fail to see what there is that we need to get bent out of shape over it.
I just don't get or understand the hand wringing over this.
Compared to what happened the day prior regarding 'Obamacare', this doesn't phase me. :shrug:
I'm not bent out of shape over gays getting married -frankly I am fine with gay civil marriage. I am bent out of shape over the way the Constitution was trashed in order to achieve it. And the second any church gets in legal trouble for refusing to marry them, I will be fine with the US breaking up over it.
-
The Supreme court can declare a dog a cat or a fish to be a horse,for I care
It still cant change the laws of laws of God and nature
progressives and the lavender mob can try to legitimize deviancy all they want
but they will never gain my acceptance nor anything but my contempt for this abomination or the mindless lemmings cheering this as they follow the rest of society in stampeding over a cliff
Both funny and pathetic when I really look at it :silly: **nononono*
-
Reading all this crap going on today...sometimes I feel like I'm working on it! :laugh:
Look at the bright side.
At least Mitt Romney isn't POTUS.
-
Look at the bright side.
At least Mitt Romney isn't POTUS.
Point taken.
-
I'm not bent out of shape over gays getting married -frankly I am fine with gay civil marriage. I am bent out of shape over the way the Constitution was trashed in order to achieve it. And the second any church gets in legal trouble for refusing to marry them, I will be fine with the US breaking up over it.
Pretty much my thoughts as well, although expressed much more succinctly.
-
All timed with Pride Week, did you notice? Which is growing in popularity ten-fold each year and will soon be our largest Nation wide summer celebration. Yes, bigger than the 4th of July soon.
-
All timed with Pride Week, did you notice? Which is growing in popularity ten-fold each year and will soon be our largest Nation wide summer celebration. Yes, bigger than the 4th of July soon.
July 4 merely celebrates old, white slaveholders, anyway. **nononono*
-
I'm not bent out of shape over gays getting married -frankly I am fine with gay civil marriage. I am bent out of shape over the way the Constitution was trashed in order to achieve it. And the second any church gets in legal trouble for refusing to marry them, I will be fine with the US breaking up over it.
It's not so much that the Constitution was thrashed, but more that Kennedy's decision was incoherently imprecise.
He could have grounded his decision on the Due Process Clause and arrived at the verdict of fairly solid ground, or on the Equal Protection Clause, but he sort of married them together in a way that the SCOTUS hasn't done before.
-
I'm not bent out of shape over gays getting married -frankly I am fine with gay civil marriage. I am bent out of shape over the way the Constitution was trashed in order to achieve it. And the second any church gets in legal trouble for refusing to marry them, I will be fine with the US breaking up over it.
goopo
-
Gay marriage is not, and never has been, about gay people getting married. They don't want to get married any more than anyone else wants to get married.
It is about them shoving their perversion down society's throat using the force of government and courts. It is, and always has been, about absolute power, and nothing more than that.
It is an attack on religion, primarily Christianity, norms, history, the Constitution, and American society as a whole.
Gay marriage has nothing to do with 'love' or 'commitment' or any of the things normally associated with marriage. It is purely an act of defiance against what is considered normal cultural behavior. They want to tear it all down by force, by force of government and law. That is why these, so called, 'marriages' with have the staying power of weeks or months. Once they commit their 'act of defiance' and 'victory' over the prudes in society, then the reality of what they have done will start to hit. Since their are no children involved, no generational concerns, it can never be a complete family structure. It will always be just two dudes, or two girls, living together which is what it always was with or without a sham 'marriage'.
I don't understand. I would never eat a cake baked by a person who was forced to do it under force of law. Who knows what they would do to that cake?
I would never be married by a priest who was theoretically 'blessing me' because some lawyer is standing off the side with a gun to his head. Who knows what kind of curses and bad karma would come from that.
They can dance and scream and 'make a point' if they want, but I stand by my earlier statement. This will work out to be the worst thing that could have ever been done to 'the homosexual community' as it is called. This ruling is going to lead to a world of trouble for them. And there is no longer a safe way out.
-
Conservative Lawmakers and Faith Groups Seek Exemptions After Same-Sex Ruling
Erik Eckholm
The New York Times
June 26, 2015
Within hours of the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, an array of conservatives including the governors of Texas and Louisiana and religious groups called for stronger legal protections for those who want to avoid any involvement in same-sex marriage, like catering a gay wedding or providing school housing to gay couples, based on religious beliefs.
They demanded establishing clear religious exemptions from discrimination laws, tax penalties or other government regulations for individuals, businesses and religious-affiliated institutions wishing to avoid endorsing such marriages.
More (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/conservative-lawmakers-and-faith-groups-seek-exemptions-after-same-sex-ruling.html)
-
Look at the bright side.
At least Mitt Romney isn't POTUS.
Good one, Luis! That's gonna leave on mark on some people here. :beer:
-
Good one, Luis! That's gonna leave on mark on some people here. :beer:
Who here did not support Mitt Romney in the general election of 2012? As I recall we all had R-squareds in our handles.
-
Who here did not support Mitt Romney in the general election of 2012? As I recall we all had R-squareds in our handles.
Some people are here for the sole purpose of tweaking others.
I supported Romney as much as I've ever supported any candidate. But I don't think Romney would have made any difference in this case. Americans under 40 are social liberals, and that's where we are headed.
-
Who here did not support Mitt Romney in the general election of 2012? As I recall we all had R-squareds in our handles.
I may be mistaken but I could have sworn at least a couple to a few here declared they would not vote for Romney, but would either abstain or vote 3rd party or write-in.
-
Some people are here for the sole purpose of tweaking others.
I supported Romney as much as I've ever supported any candidate. But I don't think Romney would have made any difference in this case. Americans under 40 are social liberals, and that's where we are headed.
We do like to "tweak" those who said Romney was the ultimate RINO who essentially gave Massachusetts his version of Obamacare...claiming that he didn't pass the Conservative purity test.
-
Conservative Lawmakers and Faith Groups Seek Exemptions After Same-Sex Ruling
Erik Eckholm
The New York Times
June 26, 2015
More (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/conservative-lawmakers-and-faith-groups-seek-exemptions-after-same-sex-ruling.html)
The Roberts Court has been very consistent on defending religious liberties.
From Lobby Hobby to the religious liberties of prisoners, their opinions have consistently protected individual religious freedom.
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summon - In a 9-0 decision, the Court upheld the right of a religious group to put up a display the Ten Commandments in a public park
- Salazar, et al v. Buono - In a 5-4 decision the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Mojave Cross being displayed in a National Park
- Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation - In a 5-4 decision the Court rejected the plaintiff's standing in challenging the allocation of government funds to faith-based organizations.
- Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v EEOC - in a 9-0 decision the Court defended the right of a religious institution to select its ministers
- Burwell V. Hobby Lobby - In a 5-4 decision, the SCOTUS ruled that for-profit institutions run by religious individuals would not be required to pay for contraceptives for their employees.
- Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn - In a 5-4 decision the Court denied Arizona taxpayers the right to challenge tax credits for tuition payments to a parochial school.
-
Who here did not support Mitt Romney in the general election of 2012? As I recall we all had R-squareds in our handles.
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 supported Romney as much as I've ever supported any candidate. But I don't think Romney would have made any difference in this case. Americans under 40 are social liberals, and that's where we are headed.
That is kind of the point. Since the American Government and Media have been promoting their secularist ideals over the last half century, the zeitgeist of modern America is that religion is stupid, marriage is stupid, and nothing has any meaning, except the power of the State.
So, why shouldn't gays be married? Why shouldn't dogs be married? (which is a real thing in America). Why can't I marry my two canaries? This is what we have become. Marriage is meaningless. So, I would let a gay couple marry the same way I would marry my dog to another dog. What does it matter?
Why shouldn't anything be 'married' to anything? Since marriage is stupid and does not exist, and nothing means anything, then why not?
This is what the radical Left have constructed. This is what our culture has bought into.
It will culminate and explode. It has to. Because what they are constructing is entirely against the normal ebb and flow of even basic human nature. But, the Left thinks they can get away with it. I doubt it. I think they will be the first ones led to the guillotines, when this all boils to a head. Just as they have been, countless times before us.
-
Some people are here for the sole purpose of tweaking others.
I supported Romney as much as I've ever supported any candidate. But I don't think Romney would have made any difference in this case. Americans under 40 are social liberals, and that's where we are headed.
He would not likely appointed liberals like Obama did; Kagan and Sotomeyer.
-
After Gay Marriage Decision, Mississippi May Stop Issuing All Marriage Licenses
Polly Mosendz
Newsweek
June 26, 2015
Mississippi is considering pulling the plug on issuing marriage licenses altogether after the Supreme Court struck down bans on gay marriage Friday morning.
As the state's governor and lieutenant governor condemned the court's decision, state House Judiciary Chairman Andy Gipson began studying ways to prevent gay marriage in Mississippi. Governor Phil Bryant said he would do all he can "to protect and defend the religious freedoms of Mississippi." To Bryant's point of doing "all" the state could do, Gipson, who is a Baptist minister, suggested removing marriage licenses entirely.
More (http://www.newsweek.com/following-supreme-court-decision-mississippi-may-stop-issuing-any-marriage-347740)
Related thread: Alabama moves to do away with marriage licenses (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,172057.0.html)
-
He would not likely appointed liberals like Obama did; Kagan and Sotomeyer.
Maybe. But, Romney did tend to bend to the prevailing winds.
-
He would not likely appointed liberals like Obama did; Kagan and Sotomeyer.
Didn't a Repub president appoint Breyer?
-
Didn't a Repub president appoint Breyer?
No. Clinton did.
-
Didn't a Repub president appoint Breyer?
No, but Bush appointed Roberts.
-
No, but Bush appointed Roberts.
Well, damnit! There you have it.
It's Bush's fault. :laugh:
-
Well, damnit! There you have it.
It's Bush's fault. :laugh:
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 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,173435.0.html)
-
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?
-
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..
-
I wonder how much Reagan love will be left after his pick to the supreme court made this bs decision.
-
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.
-
I'm supporting whoever is the nominee..
You and me brother.
-
You and me brother.
I just hope that Trump is not the nominee.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Cartoonists Commemorate the Supreme Court's Gay Marriage Decision
Polly Mosendz
Newsweek
June 27, 2015
After the Supreme Court on Friday ruled gay marriage bans were unconsitutional, opening the door to gay marriage in every state, thousands of people rushed to courthouses to get married and even the most conservative states started issuing marriage licenses (though some were still fighting it).
Others celebrated by heading to the Stonewall Inn in New York City, a newly landmarked site for its role in the fight for gay rights, and to the Supreme Court itself. Meanwhile, amateur and professional cartoonists around the nation commemorated the day in their own way: ...
More (http://www.newsweek.com/cartoonists-commemorate-supreme-courts-gay-marriage-decision-347765)
-
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.
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.
The speculations of dissenting jurists and alarmists across the board aside, this Court has consistently upheld religious rights every time the issue has been brought to them.
The difference between the day before the SSM ruling by the Court and the day after is that 14 States must now issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, just like the other 36 States had been doing before the ruling, and those marriages will enjoy full Constitutional protection under the Full Faith and Credit clause.
Same sex marriage has been legal in the U.S. for nearly a decade now and we're still a nation under God.
-
The speculations of dissenting jurists and alarmists across the board aside, this Court has consistently upheld religious rights every time the issue has been brought to them.
The difference between the day before the SSM ruling by the Court and the day after is that 14 States must now issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, just like the other 36 States had been doing before the ruling, and those marriages will enjoy full Constitutional protection under the Full Faith and Credit clause.
Same sex marriage has been legal in the U.S. for nearly a decade now and we're still a nation under God.
No it hasn't, not even factually close. We've had nothing federal overturning DOMA, just state decisions with Iowa being the first only a few years ago. But now that there is something federal, it will give the lefties new ammo to revisit religious freedom decisions with this new precedent, and it's very possible that they will be overturned. If that does happen then the Federal leviathan will make it's move.
I'll take the warnings of the dissenting SCOTUS justices opinions over yours. We will have a constitutional battle to see which amendment has supremacy, the 1st, or the 14th. Causes have effects and unintended consequences. You can continue to think statically and draw lines you can't enforce, but that is exactly what the endgame is with them.
-
The 'gay agenda' much like the 'black agenda' or the 'muslim agenda', is not to be a 'part' of society. It not about 'equality', it never was. It was and always has been about 'domination'.
It is all about domination. They do not want to be respected. They want to be revered. And if that takes force, then so be it. I will be revered, at any cost.
This is a cultural war, and they are winning. Primarily because they do not care what it takes to win. They will lie, they will distort, they will become violent. They will do whatever they have to do, to 'win'. This is a concerted war against religion. It is a war against God.
I do not know how many of you have read 'Paradise Lost'. I have, many times. And lately I feel like my life has become ... like that.
I respect Satan. I understand him. And he is an implacable enemy. Give him this, and he only wants more. If no one is willing to draw a line, then there is no line, and anything goes.
-
No it hasn't, not even factually close. We've had nothing federal overturning DOMA, just state decisions with Iowa being the first only a few years ago. But now that there is something federal, it will give the lefties new ammo to revisit religious freedom decisions with this new precedent, and it's very possible that they will be overturned.
Causes have effects and unintended consequences. You can continue to think statically and draw lines you can't enforce, but that is exactly what the endgame is with them.
The Federal DoMA was unconstitutional. The Federal government lacks any constitutional power to legislate a definition of marriage for any reason at all.
The State-level decisions were arrived at as a result of laws being enacted which violated State Constitutions.
The rest of your post is every bit as speculative as mine, and I don't engage in debates over whose Nostradamus powers are more precise.
-
The 'gay agenda' much like the 'black agenda' or the 'muslim agenda', is not to be a 'part' of society. It not about 'equality', it never was. It was and always has been about 'domination'.
It is all about domination. They do not want to be respected. They want to be revered. And if that takes force, then so be it. I will be revered, at any cost.
This is a cultural war, and they are winning. Primarily because they do not care what it takes to win. They will lie, they will distort, they will become violent. They will do whatever they have to do, to 'win'. This is a concerted war against religion. It is a war against God.
I do not know how many of you have read 'Paradise Lost'. I have, many times. And lately I feel like my life has become ... like that.
I respect Satan. I understand him. And he is an implacable enemy. Give him this, and he only wants more. If no one is willing to draw a line, then there is no line, and anything goes.
Well said, and I'm glad there are some who get it. This is a street battle for ultimate control, and I'm not in the mood to be bipartisan with them.
-
Does anyone know whether or not Godwyn's law covers Satan?
-
For years now, more than a decade in fact, I've been participating in these forums, and for as long as I've been participating in these forums I've read posts by conservatives where they've suggested that the best thing that they could do was to abstain from the electoral process and by their actions, allow the country to fall apart and descend into liberal Hell.
Now I see conservatives alarmed by the idea that the country may be scending into liberal Hell.
Wasn't that the game plan?
-
The Federal DoMA was unconstitutional. The Federal government lacks any constitutional power to legislate a definition of marriage for any reason at all.
The State-level decisions were arrived at as a result of laws being enacted which violated State Constitutions.
The rest of your post is every bit as speculative as mine, and I don't engage in debates over whose Nostradamus powers are more precise.
Your reasoning is based on the supremacy of the 14th over all other amendments, a fiction that's been created by liberals and unfortunately successfully applied in the courts. The supremacist tenet is bogus of course, but it seems to sell in our judicial system, and in a very one sided way at that. If they can regulate intrastate commerce, they can regulate marriage, or at least the secular effects of it.
The dissenting SCOTUS justices disagree with you, and frankly their opinion carries more weight than yours, as do the prominent liberals already speaking out about what they plan to do and wish to be done, as well as what is already happening with the various battles over providing services to gay weddings. There is no 'speculation' here, just your denial of what is already happening. You're just too much of an academic thinker to see it happening.
-
The Federal DoMA was unconstitutional. The Federal government lacks any constitutional power to legislate a definition of marriage for any reason at all.
The State-level decisions were arrived at as a result of laws being enacted which violated State Constitutions.
31 states had constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. How could those violate their own constitutions?
-
As I have said before, 'gay marriage' has nothing to do with 'gay marriage'. That is not at all what it is about.
This is about the Federal Government saying that they have control over every aspect of a human being, that they control whatever 'reality' that they dictate.
They are saying that all State functions are dominated by them, and all personal functions of any human, including religion, is dominated, controlled, and dictated by them.
You are not "allowed" to be against gay marriage. The Federal Government has told you so.
It is no coincident that the "States rights" flag would be torn down, while the "Sodomy flag" is being raised.
This ruling is telling you, as a person, what you 'must' believe. Even if you do not. They do not care. You will obey! You will do as we tell you to do! You will believe what we tell you to believe! And we are not going to let any silly GOD get in our way.
-
31 states had constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. How could those violate their own constitutions?
I can't recall every single State case, but many also had provisions outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation in the very same Constiturions.
-
As I have said before, 'gay marriage' has nothing to do with 'gay marriage'. That is not at all what it is about.
This is about the Federal Government saying that they have control over every aspect of a human being, that they control whatever 'reality' that they dictate.
They are saying that all State functions are dominated by them, and all personal functions of any human, including religion, is dominated, controlled, and dictated by them.
You are not "allowed" to be against gay marriage. The Federal Government has told you so.
It is no coincident that the "States rights" flag would be torn down, while the "Sodomy flag" is being raised.
This ruling is telling you, as a person, what you 'must' believe. Even if you do not. They do not care. You will obey! You will do as we tell you to do! You will believe what we tell you to believe! And we are not going to let any silly GOD get in our way.
That Egyptian river runs strong through your veins.
One of the first gay couples to marry in Texas was a pair of &0+ year old men who had been living as a couple for over than half a century. Yet, in spite of that half century of being together, it wasn't until yesterday that they could legally act on behalf of one another as next of kin in medical emergencies, file joint tax returns and many other benefits afforded to even common law marriages
I don't know how much revolution is left in a pair of octogenarian gay guys, but I for one am impressed at how long they've stayed together in face of what's going on in today's world.
-
That Egyptian river runs strong through your veins.
One of the first gay couples to marry in Texas was a pair of &0+ year old men who had been living as a couple for over than half a century. Yet, in spite of that half century of being together, it wasn't until yesterday that they could legally act on behalf of one another as next of kin in medical emergencies, file joint tax returns and many other benefits afforded to even common law marriages
I don't know how much revolution is left in a pair of octogenarian gay guys, but I for one am impressed at how long they've stayed together in face of what's going on in today's world.
Total intellectually dishonest bullsqueeze. This isn't just about gays getting married or tax benefits. You're completely denying the fallout from this decision, the same fallout that has come from state decisions, which is to establish a precedent which can then be used to force businesses to provide services to gay weddings and ultimately, make churches perform them, while threatening tax exempt status of churches to denounce homosexuality.
-
Total intellectually dishonest bullsqueeze. This isn't just about gays getting married or tax benefits. You're completely denying the fallout from this decision, the same fallout that has come from state decisions, which is to establish a precedent which can then be used to force businesses to provide services to gay weddings and ultimately, make churches perform them, while threatening tax exempt status of churches to denounce homosexuality.
You're engaging in soothsaying and predicting the future, but you call my posts "intellectually dishonest bullsqueeze".
That's rich.
-
You're engaging in soothsaying and predicting the future, but you call my posts "intellectually dishonest bullsqueeze".
That's rich.
You are deflecting and denying with attempts at pithy turnabouts. The rhetoric has already started, with media, and even with Obama, that conservatives must surrender their beliefs. If we don't, they will make it law and regulation to do so or suffer the consequences. We already seen decisions and lawsuits and fallout in states like Colorado, New Mexico, Indiana and Kentucky while you blindly ignore those facts.
Now that they have a SCOTUS precedent, they will attempt to bring down the weight of the entire Federal govt to bear. You have no evidence that Obama will act any differently on this issue than any other liberal cause, and he will use his pen to enforce it. Your dismissal of 'speculation' is just vague unsupported hand waving to draw a line you can't enforce and that we have already moved past.
As Justice Roberts has stated, churches that don't support gay marriage are in danger of losing their tax exempt status, echoed by Alito. Their opinions have far more weight than yours.
-
You are deflecting and denying with attempts at pithy turnabouts. The rhetoric has already started, with media, and even with Obama, that conservatives must surrender their beliefs. If we don't, they will make it law and regulation to do so or suffer the consequences. We already seen decisions and lawsuits and fallout in states like Colorado, New Mexico, Indiana and Kentucky while you blindly ignore those facts.
Now that they have a SCOTUS precedent, they will attempt to bring down the weight of the entire Federal govt to bear. You have no evidence that Obama will act any differently on this issue than any other liberal cause, and he will use his pen to enforce it. Your dismissal of 'speculation' is just vague unsupported hand waving to draw a line you can't enforce and that we have already moved past.
As Justice Roberts has stated, churches that don't support gay marriage are in danger of losing their tax exempt status, echoed by Alito. Their opinions have far more weight than yours.
I won't surrender any belief I hold until at least someone shows up with the thumb screws or I see lions being released into the arena.
Hell, I'll hold on to them even stronger when that happens.
When did tax exempt status become part of religious freedom anyway?
P.S. You're still engaging in future telling and calling it fact.
-
I won't surrender any belief I hold until at least someone shows up with the thumb screws or I see lions being released into the arena.
Hell, I'll hold on to them even stronger when that happens.
When did tax exempt status become part of religious freedom anyway?
P.S. You're still engaging in future telling and calling it fact.
Its hard to call it fortune telling when it's already beginning to happen and has happened. You apparently are willing to let them do that till they come for you, and then hang on to your beliefs even more with a strongly worded letter or something, or fart in their general direction, or whatever.
I find it funny that you're such a 14th Amendment supremacist but seem fine with churches that lose their tax exempt status over gay marriage while truly noxious organizations get to keep it because they follow the govt line. Equal treatment anyone? I'd bring up the 1st Amendment here too but I realize you are a 14th Supremcist, so that doesn't mean anything.
But while you're not caring, losing tax exempt will force many churches to close their doors, closing off one outlet for people to express their beliefs. Then they'll go after businesses with the fairness and non-discrimination boards, and any public statements with speech codes, leaving you only to express your beliefs in your private homes and the few places of worship that are left.
And then they'll find ways to end that by denying govt benefits or some other creative attempts at ending dissent via the law while enlisting citizens to report their neighbors. Most of these have already been floated or tried in some form, so the 'speculation' part is actually your own form of speculation. Hard to deny what is already happening.
-
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.
I see it quite differently! Passing so called fruitless legislation is perhaps the ONLY way to bring issues to the forefront given the attitude of the press these days.
-
Its hard to call it fortune telling when it's already beginning to happen and has happened. You apparently are willing to let them do that till they come for you, and then hang on to your beliefs even more with a strongly worded letter or something, or fart in their general direction, or whatever.
I find it funny that you're such a 14th Amendment supremacist but seem fine with churches that lose their tax exempt status over gay marriage while truly noxious organizations get to keep it because they follow the govt line. Equal treatment anyone? I'd bring up the 1st Amendment here too but I realize you are a 14th Supremcist, so that doesn't mean anything.
But while you're not caring, losing tax exempt will force many churches to close their doors, closing off one outlet for people to express their beliefs. Then they'll go after businesses with the fairness and non-discrimination boards, and any public statements with speech codes, leaving you only to express your beliefs in your private homes and the few places of worship that are left.
And then they'll find ways to end that by denying govt benefits or some other creative attempts at ending dissent via the law while enlisting citizens to report their neighbors. Most of these have already been floated or tried in some form, so the 'speculation' part is actually your own form of speculation. Hard to deny what is already happening.
What Church has lost their tax exempt status over gay marriage?
-
it wasn't until yesterday that they could legally act on behalf of one another as next of kin in medical emergencies
One of the fallacies perpetuated by gay marriage supporters. They always could do this by means of a medical power of attorney.
-
One of the fallacies perpetuated by gay marriage supporters. They always could do this by means of a medical power of attorney.
A step not necessary for married couples.
-
A step not necessary for married couples.
But marriage is not necessary for those who use medical power of attorney. The sword cuts both ways.
-
But marriage is not necessary for those who use medical power of attorney. The sword cuts both ways.
Exactly. Homosexuals could have many of the "rights" they seek through marriage simply by signing a POA or other legal agreement.
-
Exactly. Homosexuals could have many of the "rights" they seek through marriage simply by signing a POA or other legal agreement.
Or they could be treated like everyone else and just get married.
Equal Protection Under the Law.
-
Or they could be treated like everyone else and just get married.
Equal Protection Under the Law.
They were equally allowed to marry any willing partner of the opposite sex as anyone. The fact is, they didn't want to—and so they attached emotions such as "happiness" and that completely undefinable concept of "love"—as the sole reason for it, a notion Kennedy used to reach his ruling.
-
Exactly. Homosexuals could have many of the "rights" they seek through marriage simply by signing a POA or other legal agreement.
In Texas, one of the 14 States that did not allow same-sex marriage, if two people live together for even one day and either tell their friends and neighbors that they were married or refer to each other as husband and wife, they would receive all rights and benefits afforded to legally married couples without the need of a formal marriage license or ceremony.
That's Texas style sanctity of traditional marriage.
-
They were equally allowed to marry any willing partner of the opposite sex as anyone. The fact is, they didn't want to—and so they attached emotions such as "happiness" and that completely undefinable concept of "love"—as the sole reason for it, a notion Kennedy used to reach his ruling.
Please Jimmy, don't insult my intelligence with worn-out BS arguments like that one.
-
Has anyone noticed how many transgender "reality" programs are popping up all over television, along with a number of transgender fictional programs? There is no way this many programs appear without it representing some sort of campaign. I'm guessing health care plans will soon be required to cover "gender reassignment" "treatment".
-
Please Jimmy, don't insult my intelligence with worn-out BS arguments like that one.
Translation: you don't want to rebut it.
-
Translation: you don't want to rebut it.
Yes, I've rebutted that many times, and it's been rebutted so often that most intelligent posters don't even bother putting that pig of an excuse for logic up anymore.
I'm gleaming from some posts in this forum that you may not have a real clear understanding on the subject of marriage, or even relationships, so this may be a little difficult for you to comprehend, but being told you're free to marry anyone except that person that you do want to marry is not freedom Jimmy. It's not having a choice. It's being denied your right to decide who it is that you want to marry. It's the exact opposite of freedom.
Your BS "logic" amounts to telling an Orthodox Jew that the law making religious circumcision illegal does not single out their religion for discrimination because it applies to everyone equally.
My marrying a Chinese woman, a black woman, a one-legged woman, a Jewish woman, an atheist woman, an Eskimo woman, a Communist woman or a Catholic woman has no more of an impact on your life than if I were to marry a man.
It may offend you that I do, but you don't have a right to not be offended by legal activities that you may not approve of.
-
Has anyone noticed how many transgender "reality" programs are popping up all over television, along with a number of transgender fictional programs? There is no way this many programs appear without it representing some sort of campaign. I'm guessing health care plans will soon be required to cover "gender reassignment" "treatment".
You all waste so much time looking for boogeymen everywhere.
They're on TV because it's all we're talking about right now, and producers think that we'll watch out of morbid curiosity.
It will run it's course.
-
In Texas, one of the 14 States that did not allow same-sex marriage, if two people live together for even one day and either tell their friends and neighbors that they were married or refer to each other as husband and wife, they would receive all rights and benefits afforded to legally married couples without the need of a formal marriage license or ceremony.
That's Texas style sanctity of traditional marriage.
Actually, that's Common Law marriage, found in a hell of a lot more places than Texas, and derived from a tradition going back to at least medieval times; and when sodomy was punishable in all the same places Common Law marriage was allowed, by death. So what's your point?
-
Actually, that's Common Law marriage, found in a hell of a lot more places than Texas, and derived from a tradition going back to at least medieval times; and when sodomy was punishable in all the same places Common Law marriage was allowed, by death. So what's your point?
The point is that cohabitation is a sin, and that there's little sanctity to a "marriage" that's not even registered. So Texas gave legal standing to hook ups while claiming that they would defend the sanctity of marriage.
P.S. Polygamy has an older history than hook ups, as well as Biblical blessings. So by your logic, it should also be legal in Texas... right?
-
Interesting how the 14th Amendment now protects classes of people based on their sexual behavior. I'm sure that's what was intended. **nononono*
-
The point is that cohabitation is a sin, and that there's little sanctity to a "marriage" that's not even registered. So Texas gave legal standing to hook ups while claiming that they would defend the sanctity of marriage.
P.S. Polygamy has an older history than hook ups, as well as Biblical blessings. So by your logic, it should also be legal in Texas... right?
[1] Polygamy has an older history than hookups, but not in Western culture [You know, the Greeks and romans, the Europeans, those guys], and that issue, in the U.S. anyway, was settled in the 1850s-1860s during the confrontation between Brigham Young's Mormons and the U.S. Army, so, No, it wouldn't be, shouldn't be legal, in Texas.
[2] Common Law marriage was a response, in part, to a dearth of houses of worship and preachers in the less populated reaches of Coonial and western expansion America.
[3] In New York, which has no Common Law marriage provision, a Common Law marriage from a state that DOES recognize Common Law Marriage, will be recognized if the couple holds themselves out in New York as married.
[5] In none of those instances, was a "same-sex" marriage covered by the tradition or statutes.
-
Yes, I've rebutted that many times, and it's been rebutted so often that most intelligent posters don't even bother putting that pig of an excuse for logic up anymore.
I'm gleaming from some posts in this forum that you may not have a real clear understanding on the subject of marriage, or even relationships, so this may be a little difficult for you to comprehend, but being told you're free to marry anyone except that person that you do want to marry is not freedom Jimmy. It's not having a choice. It's being denied your right to decide who it is that you want to marry. It's the exact opposite of freedom.
Your BS "logic" amounts to telling an Orthodox Jew that the law making religious circumcision illegal does not single out their religion for discrimination because it applies to everyone equally.
My marrying a Chinese woman, a black woman, a one-legged woman, a Jewish woman, an atheist woman, an Eskimo woman, a Communist woman or a Catholic woman has no more of an impact on your life than if I were to marry a man.
It may offend you that I do, but you don't have a right to not be offended by legal activities that you may not approve of.
I want to marry, but I don't have that choice, so your logic is just as full of BS.
-
Interesting how the 14th Amendment now protects classes of people based on their sexual behavior. I'm sure that's what was intended. **nononono*
It was intended, according to the people who framed it, to protect all rights from being violated by State governments.
It protects your right to not be discriminated against in the workplace, when choosing where you want to live, and who you wish to marry (Loving v. Virginia, "marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'"). Once all laws making homosexuality and homosexual acts illegal were brought down in Lawrence v. Texas, legal same-sex marriage was an inevitability because it made no sense to continue denying a government-issued license to consenting adults of sound body and mind based on a general animus toward a legal activity.
-
But marriage is not necessary for those who use medical power of attorney. The sword cuts both ways.
Touché! Jim.
-
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,173504.msg682317.html#msg682317 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,173504.msg682317.html#msg682317)
"Justice Kennedy’s opinion was nine parts romantic poetry and one part legal analysis (if that)." -- David French
I agree with Mr. French
-
I want to marry, but I don't have that choice, so your logic is just as full of BS.
Translation: you don't want to can't rebut it.
-
adults of sound body and mind
A reminder that homosexual attraction used to be considered a mental illness. Who might be of sound mind could be debated.
-
Translation: you don't want to can't rebut it.
Translation: you're just going to ignore the first half of the sentence. I've heard of selective hearing, but this is ridiculous.
Marriage is an inherently discriminatory practice. If we accept marriage, we must recognize the purpose of it. It's not just to consummate some form of nebulous concept of "love," but a union between the two sides of the human species. If we cannot do that, then we're treating people with partners differently under the law than those who can't have them, a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.
-
A reminder that homosexual attraction used to be considered a mental illness. Who might be of sound mind could be debated.
The co-occurrence of the two phenomena, homosexuality and mental illness, is well-attested, so yes, that's true.
-
Touché! Jim.
Which makes a homosexual some sort of second rate citizen based on their engaging in a legal activity and lifestyle.
There are man privileges and immunities automatically available to married couples that are not accessible to unmarried couples, via any legal document other than a marriage license.
Among them are:
Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings.
Unmarried couples denied are access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs.
Unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.
Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage.
If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, or to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner.
I don't get the animus.
People outside my marriage getting married or divorced or opting to live together without the benefit of marriage have zero impact on my marriage and family life. It "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" that homosexuals get married.
Why the animus toward a group of people who actually want to be married during a period of time in our culture when those who CAN marry are opting not to do so in ever increasing numbers and when almost 45% of all children are born out of wedlock?
If we are really all that concerned about preserving and "saving" traditional marriage, why aren't we addressing the issues with traditional marriage?
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" - Mathew 7:3
-
Translation: you're just going to ignore the first half of the sentence. I've heard of selective hearing, but this is ridiculous.
Besides, sometimes basic biology prevents us from having what we want.
Just as you ignored the substance of the post.
-
A reminder that homosexual attraction used to be considered a mental illness. Who might be of sound mind could be debated.
Do you know any homosexuals?
-
Which makes a homosexual some sort of second rate citizen based on their engaging in a legal activity and lifestyle.
Only made legal by the same Supreme Court Justice's writing 12 years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, which started this whole mess.
There are man privileges and immunities automatically available to married couples that are not accessible to unmarried couples, via any legal document other than a marriage license.
Among them are:
Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings.
Unmarried couples denied are access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs.
Unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.
Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage.
If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, or to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner.
All things I, as a single person, will never be able to access. Thus, marriage is inherently discriminatory, as I said.
I don't get the animus.
People outside my marriage getting married or divorced or opting to live together without the benefit of marriage have zero impact on my marriage and family life. It "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" that homosexuals get married.
Why the animus toward a group of people who actually want to be married during a period of time in our culture when those who CAN marry are opting not to do so in ever increasing numbers and when almost 45% of all children are born out of wedlock?
If we are really all that concerned about preserving and "saving" traditional marriage, why aren't we addressing the issues with traditional marriage?
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" - Mathew 7:3
Who said we weren't? I see these problems all the time: people get together, have kids, then split up without any regard. Bristol Palin is only one of the many who do it. Of course it's a problem. It does need to be addressed. But at least we acknowledge that fault. At least I'd hope.
-
Do you know any homosexuals?
I do, and there is truth to it.
-
Do you know any homosexuals?
Yes. And I love them. So what?
-
Yes. And I love them. So what?
So are they crazy and that's why they're homosexuals?
-
I want to marry, but I don't have that choice, so your logic is just as full of BS.
What's that got to do with the price of eggs?
You have the right to marry. The fact that you can't, or won't, or whatever in no way invalidates that right.
You have the right to life. No one is obliged to keep you alive.
You have the right to liberty. Unless your own actions remove that for the safety of the rest of the community.
You have the right to pursue happiness. No ones business but yours if you find it.
You have the right to remain silent. No one is making you exercise that right.
You have the right to an attorney. Better call one right now and book him. Exercise that right of yours!
Sheesh, go away for a bit and the world goes crazy over something so inherently stupid I'm shocked it even gets mentioned, never mind creating one of the longest threads I've seen here in a while.
-
So are they crazy and that's why they're homosexuals?
Really, "crazy"? Is that how you refer to people with mental issues?
-
So are they crazy and that's why they're homosexuals?
(http://i1310.photobucket.com/albums/s658/GourmetDan/dilbert_zpsgxo3xjum.jpg)
-
You have the right to marry. The fact that you can't, or won't, or whatever in no way invalidates that right.
Of course, the exact same point could be made wrt homosexual 'marriage'. They too have the exact same right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
The fact that they can't, or won't, or whatever in no way invalidates that right...
-
What Church has lost their tax exempt status over gay marriage?
As of right now none, it's only been a few days. But there is already clarion calls for it. Since it can be done by executive action, it will be quick when it does.
-
You have the right to marry. The fact that you can't, or won't, or whatever in no way invalidates that right.
OK, I have a right to marry. Let's say I live in a town with one single woman remaining, but she refuses to date or marry anyone. I'll marry her. It's my right, right? Of course not. She has the right to refuse to marry if she wants. This isn't a country where we can force arranged marriages on people.
Now, let's expand that to EVERY WOMAN I'VE EVER MET. Every one says no to even the first step. Obviously, it is their right to do so. Yet what about my right to marry? How is it a right to have a married status if I cannot actually exercise it?
If I cannot marry, then I don't have the right to marry. It's as simple as that.
-
OK, I have a right to marry. Let's say I live in a town with one single woman remaining, but she refuses to date or marry anyone. I'll marry her. It's my right, right?
Now, let's expand that to EVERY WOMAN I'VE EVER MET. Every one says no to even the first step. Obviously, it is their right to do so. Yet what about my right to marry? How is it a right to have a married status if I cannot actually exercise it?
If I cannot marry, then I don't have the right to marry. It's as simple as that.
I think the right to marry includes two consenting adults. If the other person isn't consenting (I know this isn't always the case in real life) - it invalidates the right (for now anyway).
-
Translation: you're just going to ignore the first half of the sentence. I've heard of selective hearing, but this is ridiculous.
Marriage is an inherently discriminatory practice. If we accept marriage, we must recognize the purpose of it. It's not just to consummate some form of nebulous concept of "love," but a union between the two sides of the human species. If we cannot do that, then we're treating people with partners differently under the law than those who can't have them, a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.
Well then, I suppose your only recourse is to get a wooden club...go out and find a woman you like....whack her on the head and drag her off by the hair.
[/s]
In marriage however, at least in Western culture I believe, the two participants need to be free to choose their respective mates. :laugh:
-
Sheesh, go away for a bit and the world goes crazy over something so inherently stupid I'm shocked it even gets mentioned, never mind creating one of the longest threads I've seen here in a while.
Yeah....it got to be quite the pissing contest, didn't it? It should have quietly died long ago, but nobody wants to be the one to say, "uncle".
Gives a more recent example of the absurdity in parsing words.
-
OK, I have a right to marry. Let's say I live in a town with one single woman remaining, but she refuses to date or marry anyone. I'll marry her. It's my right, right? Of course not. She has the right to refuse to marry if she wants. This isn't a country where we can force arranged marriages on people.
Correct. She has the right of refusal, just as you would if your case was reversed.
The right to do something is not a guarantee you will do something. I have the right, codified in law and in my property deeds, to allow my pig to graze on the town common. Don't mean I'm going out to buy a pig just for that.
If she indeed has the same rights you have, then you simply can't argue your right takes precedence - you best brush up your persuasion skills instead.
Even where there are arranged marriages and the woman gets little to no say, the husband's "right" to get married doesn't remove the fact it is his responsibility to be considered a good catch. It merely moves the act of persuasion from the woman to her owner.
-
Correct. She has the right of refusal, just as you would if your case was reversed.
The right to do something is not a guarantee you will do something. I have the right, codified in law and in my property deeds, to allow my pig to graze on the town common. Don't mean I'm going out to buy a pig just for that.
If she indeed has the same rights you have, then you simply can't argue your right takes precedence - you best brush up your persuasion skills instead.
Even where there are arranged marriages and the woman gets little to no say, the husband's "right" to get married doesn't remove the fact it is his responsibility to be considered a good catch. It merely moves the act of persuasion from the woman to her owner.
You're missing the point, EC. There is no inherent right to marry. Just as there is no inherent right to someone else's food, clothing or shelter, all of which we may very well consider an important part of living, neither is there a right to marry. It is dependent on receiving something from someone else. There may be a right NOT to marry (right to liberty), but no true right to marry exists. It is a privilege, one that not all of us have. Please recognize that, everyone.
-
You're missing the point, EC. There is no inherent right to marry. Just as there is no inherent right to someone else's food, clothing or shelter, all of which we may very well consider an important part of living, neither is there a right to marry. It is dependent on receiving something from someone else. There may be a right NOT to marry (right to liberty), but no true right to marry exists. It is a privilege, one that not all of us have. Please recognize that, everyone.
I would say that most everyone understands what you are saying Jimmy.
Some are just willing to say absolutely anything to avoid acknowledging your point...
-
You're missing the point, EC. There is no inherent right to marry. Just as there is no inherent right to someone else's food, clothing or shelter, all of which we may very well consider an important part of living, neither is there a right to marry. It is dependent on receiving something from someone else. There may be a right NOT to marry (right to liberty), but no true right to marry exists. It is a privilege, one that not all of us have. Please recognize that, everyone.
Interesting argument. If marriage is indeed a fundamental right, and there must be equality, then it should equally apply to all fundamentals - food, shelter, clothing, etc. Which the socialists will argue is correct, but that also means we would be a communist state. Kind of shoots the idea in the foot.
-
NSFW for profanity
So You Think That Rainbow Makes You Look Cool?
Christopher Cantwell
christophercantwell.com
June 29, 2015
I have an important public service announcement for everyone who changed their Facebook and other profile photos to a rainbow recently. Absent some massive desire for more color in your life, you probably did this to celebrate the United States Supreme Court magically creating a constitutional "right" to a marriage license for gay people. Didn't you?
I suppose you think this makes you quite tolerant, and forward thinking, but it doesn't. I imagine you think you're advancing freedom, but you're not. You probably feel really good about yourself for helping gay people gain acceptance in society, but that's not even remotely close to what you're actually doing.
By making this display, you have done nothing but tell the world that you are a useful idiot.
More, with reader comments and video (http://christophercantwell.com/2015/06/29/so-you-think-that-rainbow-makes-you-look-cool/)
-
Interesting argument. If marriage is indeed a fundamental right, and there must be equality, then it should equally apply to all fundamentals - food, shelter, clothing, etc. Which the socialists will argue is correct, but that also means we would be a communist state. Kind of shoots the idea in the foot.
You have a fundamental right to food, food, shelter, clothing, etc, but you don't have a right to someone else's property, so you can't "take" any one of those things simply because you need them. That's called theft, and when the government takes them from some to give to others, that's called Socialsm or Communism.
Fundamental rights are rights that a person can exercise without cost to others, or that by their exercise, do not diminish the rights of others.
Marriage is one of the fundamental rights of man.
-
You have a fundamental right to food, food, shelter, clothing, etc, but you don't have a right to someone else's property, so you can't "take" any one of those things simply because you need them. That's called theft, and when the government takes them from some to give to others, that's called Socialsm or Communism.
Fundamental rights are rights that a person can exercise without cost to others, or that by their exercise, do not diminish the rights of others.
Marriage is one of the fundamental rights of man.
Stop. Just stop.
You just contradicted yourself. You agree with me on the point that fundamental rights cannot infringe on others' fundamental rights, then you turn around and try to claim that marriage fits that category, even though it doesn't. To claim my supposedly fundamental right to marry I must diminish the right of the partner I choose. Therefore, it cannot be a fundamental right. I don't have a right to take someone else's liberty, any more than I can take their property.
Thus, as I said before, marriage is not a right, but a privilege.
-
If this thread was a horse, you'd have to shoot it. :whistle:
-
Marriage is a religious thing. Marriage was creating and controlled by humans, all over the the Earth, for 100,000 years. We made this. We built this.
Now we have a Supreme Court who says, You know what? Those last tens of thousands of years were all wrong. We know best.
So, screw your religion. Screw your thousands of years of success. We don't care. We want marriage to be the way that WE say it is. F**k reality. And screw you!
We will do whatever we want, and you can all go f**k yourself.
Brought to you by, your Supreme Court! Thank you very much.
-
Luis wrote:
[[ You have a fundamental right to food, food, shelter, clothing, etc ]]
I thought you were a self-proclaimed libertarian?
No one has a "fundamental right" to such things.
Or do you consider "the social safety net", the food stamps, the EBT cards, the obamaphones, the free section 8 housing -- all to be "fundamental rights" ...?
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-upWGy5k4OLA/TdM45-SubtI/AAAAAAAABfk/Dchto7-rXks/s1600/beating+a+dead+horse.jpg#beating%20a%20dead%20horse%20637x494)
-
FDR's 4 Freedoms. Please note #3.
1.Freedom of speech
2.Freedom of worship
3.Freedom from want
4.Freedom from fear
1941 speech.
-
FDR's 4 Freedoms. Please note #3.
1.Freedom of speech
2.Freedom of worship
3.Freedom from want
4.Freedom from fear
1941 speech.
I wasn't even a gleam in my daddy's eye when FDR made that speech, and yet it's a critical point being made here that Barack Obama isn't the first 'Socialist' to reside in the White House.
I'll accept that. However, Barack Obama isn't merely a Socialist. He's an anti-American racist bigot toward the white man. Our own Che', so to speak. History may judge him as a Revolutionary....if the Left gets to write the history.
Question: Would Barack Obama have made the "Day of Infamy" Speech? I think not.
He would have said that our chickens came home to roost.
Furthermore, I feel that I'm an somewhat educated man. The Millennial today and the generation that is being spawned now can't even point out Joe Biden out of a lineup. :whistle: They're too busy with their noses in their...excuse the term..."smart" phones.
-
I wasn't even a gleam in my daddy's eye when FDR made that speech, and yet it's a critical point being made here that Barack Obama isn't the first 'Socialist' to reside in the White House.
I'll accept that. However, Barack Obama isn't merely a Socialist. He's an anti-American racist bigot toward the white man. Our own Che', so to speak. History may judge him as a Revolutionary....if the Left gets to write the history.
Question: Would Barack Obama have made the "Day of Infamy" Speech? I think not.
He would have said that our chickens came home to roost.
Furthermore, I feel that I'm an somewhat educated man. The Millennial today and the generation that is being spawned now can't even point out Joe Biden out of a lineup. :whistle: They're too busy with their noses in their...excuse the term..."smart" phones.
Very well said DC. One of them loved his Country; one doesn't.
-
You have a fundamental right to food, food, shelter, clothing, etc, but you don't have a right to someone else's property, so you can't "take" any one of those things simply because you need them. That's called theft, and when the government takes them from some to give to others, that's called Socialsm or Communism.
Fundamental rights are rights that a person can exercise without cost to others, or that by their exercise, do not diminish the rights of others.
Marriage is one of the fundamental rights of man.
As long as it is a right to pursue and not an entitlement, then yes. What it does not mean is that I'm required bake you a cake, make you a dress, plan your wedding, marry you in my church, or not tell you what I think about your homofascist, transsexual, polygamist, or Muslim wedding. Nor should we be required that a 5 year old learn about their anal buggaring in school or endure sex in public simply because they have a new legal status granted to them by the 14th Supremacists.
I was all set to let gays have civil unions so they could get their 'spousal' bennies, but then they went for the throat and demanded it all. Now I don't care if they get anything.
-
You have a fundamental right to food, food, shelter, clothing, etc, but you don't have a right to someone else's property, so you can't "take" any one of those things simply because you need them. That's called theft, and when the government takes them from some to give to others, that's called Socialsm or Communism.
Fundamental rights are rights that a person can exercise without cost to others, or that by their exercise, do not diminish the rights of others.
Marriage is one of the fundamental rights of man.
A few quick points. If you have a fundamental right to those things above and cannot afford them, then there are only three ways to get them: You steal them; someone gives them to you as in charity; the government provides them, which results in tax collections from someone else. If you meant they have a right to purchase those things, then within the legal limitations, I agree.
Marriage isn't a fundamental right as an activity. If it is a right at all, it is through the equal protection clause. Driving isn't a fundamental right, but if certain people such as gays or blacks are denied licenses and the state cannot provide a compelling rationale, those groups will have a "right" to the license because of the equal protection and due process clauses. If marriage were a fundamental right, then a parent could marry his child, and groups could marry each other. So far, I don't think those things are permitted.
-
A few quick points. If you have a fundamental right to those things above and cannot afford them, then there are only three ways to get them: You steal them; someone gives them to you as in charity; the government provides them, which results in tax collections from someone else. If you meant they have a right to purchase those things, then within the legal limitations, I agree.
Marriage isn't a fundamental right as an activity. If it is a right at all, it is through the equal protection clause. Driving isn't a fundamental right, but if certain people such as gays or blacks are denied licenses and the state cannot provide a compelling rationale, those groups will have a "right" to the license because of the equal protection and due process clauses. If marriage were a fundamental right, then a parent could marry his child, and groups could marry each other. So far, I don't think those things are permitted.
Marriage is a fundamental right insofar as it could be achieved without governmental interference, but for many reasons, including the ones you mentioned, government took it upon itself to regulate it.
Before government regulated marriage, marriage was largely managed by the Church as a Sacrament, and they didn't permit child/parent marriages. Once Martin Luther decided that marriage was not the business of the Church, government took over, and the infamous slippery slope of redefining marriage began.
I guess I should quote Earl Warren in Loving v. Virginia, which agrees with your point:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
-
Marriage is a fundamental right insofar as it could be achieved without governmental interference, but for many reasons, including the ones you mentioned, government took it upon itself to regulate it.
Before government regulated marriage, marriage was largely managed by the Church as a Sacrament, and they didn't permit child/parent marriages. Once Martin Luther decided that marriage was not the business of the Church, government took over, and the infamous slippery slope of redefining marriage began.
I guess I should quote Earl Warren in Loving v. Virginia, which agrees with your point:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
In 2006 the 8th Circuit Court entertained an appeal on a same-sex marriage case. In finding that states did not violate the rights of same-sex couples, it made two points. First this case was not comparable to Loving because race was a suspect classification while sexual orientation wasn't. Second these laws didn't amount to bills of attainder. Additionally, in the majority opinion, the judge said that should the definition of marriage be changed on constitutional grounds, then the slippery slope concerns we have heard much about cannot be ignored.
Having said that, the SCOTUS has put all of that to rest. Now we move on.
As to Luther, I had never heard that he wanted the Church out of marriage. He is quoted as saying: "Marriage is the God-appointed and legitimate union of man and woman in the hope of having children or at least for the purpose of avoiding fornication and sin and living to the glory of God".
Of course in those days the Church and government were very much together in most areas, and for a thousand years marriage had been as much a political joining as a purely religious one.
-
I married my dog to another dog. And the Supreme Court says that I am great!
I just married a rock in my garden to another rock, and the Supreme Court loves me!
I was just about to marry a snail to a piece of wood, but then I go hungry, I cooked it and ate it. I am guessing that I have failed the supreme court.
-
I married my dog to another dog. And the Supreme Court says that I am great!
I just married a rock in my garden to another rock, and the Supreme Court loves me!
I was just about to marry a snail to a piece of wood, but then I go hungry, I cooked it and ate it. I am guessing that I have failed the supreme court.
If you're single, you can now marry your house-plant (which you love and loves you back) so that you can file your taxes 'married filing jointly' and save on taxes...
-
I guess I should quote Earl Warren in Loving v. Virginia, which agrees with your point:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
That quote needs clarification, Luis. And, I'm not trying to poke you in the eye, here.
I have a problem with the underlined. "Survival"?? I don't think so. Blacks currently are doing just 'fine' existing outside of marriage.
There's a reason that one of the Ten Commandments deals with coveting a neighbor's wife.
Overall, civilization mandates that a man should be able to not sleep with one eye open...in case his neighbor covets his chosen mate...otherwise, as in a lion pride, for example...the day will come when he loses a challenge by a younger, quicker and stronger male.
A "right"....as has been covered/explained here ad nauseum...doesn't mean that each man or women is guaranteed a mate. It just means that a government can't forbid or withhold your choice. Siblings and 1st cousins..incest...excepted of course, in order to stem inbreeding, resulting in lower intelligence and poorer overall health.
Everybody here in the forum already knows all this....but I just felt compelled to argue that quote/definition. :laugh:
-
11513 11513 11513 11513 11513
Nope. Thread still alive .....
8888madkitty 8888madkitty 8888madkitty 8888madkitty 8888madkitty
Still Alive!
:drunk:
-
A "right"....as has been covered/explained here ad nauseum...doesn't mean that each man or women is guaranteed a mate. It just means that a government can't forbid or withhold your choice. Siblings and 1st cousins..incest...excepted of course, in order to stem inbreeding, resulting in lower intelligence and poorer overall health.
Everyone here avocating for gay marriage equality thinks there will be these restrictions and lines on marriage now that this is out there.There won't. The left wants incest, pedophilia, and will even agree to polygamy, Mormon distaste aside. Nor will there be any restriction of attacks on everyone's rights who disagree. Gay marriage is just a sledgehammer for tearing down bigger things.
-
Gay marriage is just a sledgehammer for tearing down bigger things.
Exactly
-
11513 11513 11513 11513 11513
Nope. Thread still alive .....
8888madkitty 8888madkitty 8888madkitty 8888madkitty 8888madkitty
Still Alive!
:drunk:
All threads eventually die on their own, and in the vast majority of cases, they should be allowed to die on their own.
-
Under his holiness, Mustafa Umgurue Huessin Obmamama, Americas will be detroryed.
An average human has 98% of monkey DNA. Obama and his friends have 99.9 monkey DNA. I don't know? Maybe it is just me?
Bit do you really think that electing a monkey as President will make everything "all better?"
-
All threads eventually die on their own, and in the vast majority of cases, they should be allowed to die on their own.
Makes one wonder why some are so interested in a thread dying that they feel it necessary to monitor said thread and post said opinion multiple times... thereby keeping the thread going...
-
All threads eventually die on their own, and in the vast majority of cases, they should be allowed to die on their own.
Every thread I've seen here for months dies on its own including the 99% with no responses. At least with this one, there have been interesting comments on all sides of the issue. I'm with Dan on this one. Why is anyone worried that there are too many posts?
-
That quote needs clarification, Luis. And, I'm not trying to poke you in the eye, here.
I have a problem with the underlined. "Survival"?? I don't think so. Blacks currently are doing just 'fine' existing outside of marriage.
There's a reason that one of the Ten Commandments deals with coveting a neighbor's wife.
Overall, civilization mandates that a man should be able to not sleep with one eye open...in case his neighbor covets his chosen mate...otherwise, as in a lion pride, for example...the day will come when he loses a challenge by a younger, quicker and stronger male.
A "right"....as has been covered/explained here ad nauseum...doesn't mean that each man or women is guaranteed a mate. It just means that a government can't forbid or withhold your choice. Siblings and 1st cousins..incest...excepted of course, in order to stem inbreeding, resulting in lower intelligence and poorer overall health.
Everybody here in the forum already knows all this....but I just felt compelled to argue that quote/definition. :laugh:
You'll have to reanimate Earl Warren to do that.
-
I guess I should quote Earl Warren in Loving v. Virginia, which agrees with your point:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
You know I hold absolutely ZERO respect for Earl Warren and what he, William Brennan and his merry band of iconoclasts did to this country.
-
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
For what it's worth, neither the Loving case, nor the Skinner case from which the quote was actually taken were in any way attempting to redefine the meaning of marriage. In fact the original quote had the term and procreation and finished with fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race..
So actually the case of same-sex marriage had nothing to do with either of those cases, and it's very doubtful that either majority opinion would have even thought about changing the definition of marriage since SSM may be politically correct today, but is hardly fundamental to our very existence and survival, and certainly wouldn't have been considered such in the 1940s and 1960s.
-
Episcopalians vote to allow gay marriage in churches
Brady McCombs and Rachel Zoll
AP via Yahoo
July 1, 2015
Episcopalians voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to allow religious weddings for same-sex couples, solidifying the church's embrace of gay rights that began more than a decade ago with the pioneering election of the first openly gay bishop.
The vote came in Salt Lake City at the Episcopal General Convention, just days after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide. It passed in the House of Deputies, the voting body of clergy and lay participants at the meeting. The House of Bishops had approved the resolution Tuesday by 129-26 with five abstaining.
More (http://news.yahoo.com/episcopalians-vote-allowing-gay-marriage-churches-064849720.html)
-
For what it's worth, neither the Loving case, nor the Skinner case from which the quote was actually taken were in any way attempting to redefine the meaning of marriage. In fact the original quote had the term and procreation and finished with fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race..
So actually the case of same-sex marriage had nothing to do with either of those cases, and it's very doubtful that either majority opinion would have even thought about changing the definition of marriage since SSM may be politically correct today, but is hardly fundamental to our very existence and survival, and certainly wouldn't have been considered such in the 1940s and 1960s.
The thing that really amuses me is how many people are all up in arms about "changing the definition of marriage".
As if this was the first time the definition of marriage had been changed.
It went from a sacrament to a license.
From 'til death do us part to no-fault divorce.
From love---> marriage---> children, to love---> children---> maybe marriage.
From courtship and asking for her hand in marriage, to first prize in a TV reality show.
Marriage has been in a constant state of flux for quite a long time.
The SCOTUS settled this issue, and I'm done beating this horse to death.
-
The thing that really amuses me is how many people are all up in arms about "changing the definition of marriage".
As if this was the first time the definition of marriage had been changed.
It went from a sacrament to a license.
From 'til death do us part to no-fault divorce.
From love---> marriage---> children, to love---> children---> maybe marriage.
From courtship and asking for her hand in marriage, to first prize in a TV reality show.
Marriage has been in a constant state of flux for quite a long time.
The SCOTUS settled this issue, and I'm done beating this horse to death.
Luis: excellent post, as usual. Thank you.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbqv3MwwVd8
-
The "procreation argument" is indicative of a juvenile mind. Children link babies with marriage, it's all their minds can grasp. One would expect a mature response. It does however, go to the warped mind of the homosexual. Trapped indefinitely in childhood, tantrums and all.
-
The thing that really amuses me is how many people are all up in arms about "changing the definition of marriage".
As if this was the first time the definition of marriage had been changed.
It went from a sacrament to a license.
From 'til death do us part to no-fault divorce.
From love---> marriage---> children, to love---> children---> maybe marriage.
From courtship and asking for her hand in marriage, to first prize in a TV reality show.
Marriage has been in a constant state of flux for quite a long time.
The SCOTUS settled this issue, and I'm done beating this horse to death.
Don't look to me to defend the history of marriage, as it's had some strange twists and turns throughout the ages. My point was simply to show that the "fundamental right" you quoted actually had nothing to do with gay marriage, but simply reinforced the age old definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, and referred to procreation as a purpose. It just shows we can take any quote regardless of its meaning and intent and use it for whatever contemporary issue we want.
I know this is a done deal as far as two gay adults goes, but there's more to come, and we'll have to see how quickly our culture changes on those new "distinctions". My only hope is for now the election doesn't get bogged down with this issue.
-
The "procreation argument" is indicative of a juvenile mind. Children link babies with marriage, it's all their minds can grasp. One would expect a mature response. It does however, go to the warped mind of the homosexual. Trapped indefinitely in childhood, tantrums and all.
Procreation was the "compelling state interest" that kept marriage between one man and one woman, at least as far as the courts saw it. A state can "discriminate" if it can show a compelling state interest in the discrimination. Today the SCOTUS didn't accept that argument. On another note, that's been almost the sole purpose of planned marriages for ages.
-
The thing that really amuses me is how many people are all up in arms about "changing the definition of marriage".
As if this was the first time the definition of marriage had been changed.
It went from a sacrament to a license.
From 'til death do us part to no-fault divorce.
From love---> marriage---> children, to love---> children---> maybe marriage.
From courtship and asking for her hand in marriage, to first prize in a TV reality show.
Marriage has been in a constant state of flux for quite a long time.
The SCOTUS settled this issue, and I'm done beating this horse to death.
Goodness, what a load of crap. Quit mixing liberal driven pop culture with legal status for your rhetorical smokescreen. Marriage in this country has always been licensed. I have the county list of my gg-grandparents getting their marriage license in the 1840's, a few years after Iowa became a state. Divorce has nothing to do with a legal application for marriage or it's definition.
You can marry anywhere by anyone, but for legal purposes it has to be recognized by the govt. We continue to refuse certain types of marriage in this country for various reasons. Under your 14th Supremacist view those are unequal treatment.
Which does nothing to address the legal fallout. Is my church required to marry, is my business required to cater to, am I allowed to speak out against, every homo, transexual, polygamist, pedophile, Satanist, Muslim, or any other kind of wedding I may disagree with? Forced thought, agreement, and morality?
-
Goodness, what a load of crap. Quit mixing liberal driven pop culture with legal status for your rhetorical smokescreen. Marriage in this country has always been licensed. I have the county list of my gg-grandparents getting their marriage license in the 1840's, a few years after Iowa became a state. Divorce has nothing to do with a legal application for marriage or it's definition.
You can marry anywhere by anyone, but for legal purposes it has to be recognized by the govt. We continue to refuse certain types of marriage in this country for various reasons. Under your 14th Supremacist view those are unequal treatment.
Which does nothing to address the legal fallout. Is my church required to marry, is my business required to cater to, am I allowed to speak out against, every homo, transexual, polygamist, pedophile, Satanist, Muslim, or any other kind of wedding I may disagree with? Forced thought, agreement, and morality?
You want to talk about loads of crap?
You talk about the traditional, historical and biblical roots of marriage until it's no longer convenient to do so, then you shift to marriage on this country, as if the history of marriage confined itself to this country.
There were no "no fault" divorces (what I referred to in my post) in this country until 1969.
"Your" Church may decide to conduct same-sex marriages, the Episcopalian Church has already decided they will, if that happens, you'll have to either deal with it, or find another Church.
You can speak out against anything that you want to. Your problem, as I see it, is that you don't want anyone who disagrees with you to have the reciprocal right, when they do exercise that right.
You don't have to agree with, accept or engage in any activity that you don't want to, but you want to disallow people from engaging in activities that do not fit your morals, so who is forcing morality on whom?
We continue to refuse certain types of marriage in this country for various reasons. Under your 14th Supremacist view those are unequal treatment.
Laws forbidding religious plural marriages are a direct violation of the First Amendment and as such, they are unconstitutional.
-
You want to talk about loads of crap?
You talk about the traditional, historical and biblical roots of marriage until it's no longer convenient to do so, then you shift to marriage on this country, as if the history of marriage confined itself to this country.
I've never done any of what you've stated. Furthermore, all I care about is what's happened and what is going on in this country. If you want to include Scottish law Mr. Hatch and lead us off on all sorts of rabbit trails distracting from the issue, that's your problem.
There were no "no fault" divorces (what I referred to in my post) in this country until 1969.
Who cares? There will still divorces, and more importantly marriage licenses. Non sequitor.
"Your" Church may decide to conduct same-sex marriages, the Episcopalian Church has already decided they will, if that happens, you'll have to either deal with it, or find another Church.
Quit shifting the argument. I've already said anyone can marry anyone else anywhere anytime, that doesn't mean the govt will or should recognize it.
You can speak out against anything that you want to. Your problem, as I see it, is that you don't want anyone who disagrees with you to have the reciprocal right, when they do exercise that right.
I've never said that, but the homofascist gaystapo has made it clear that NO ONE has the right to refuse whatever they want, and whenever they want, and don't you dare complain. They have already used the govt and every other tool they have to destroy anyone that even says they disagree with them.
You don't have to agree with, accept or engage in any activity that you don't want to, but you want to disallow people from engaging in activities that do not fit your morals, so who is forcing morality on whom?
Which is a bald face lie on your part. You are already of the position here that anyone conducting business or a church wishing to have tax-exempt status must comply with gay demands. If they gays would be happy with a civil union for spousal bennies, I could compromise on that. They are not happy with that.
We continue to refuse certain types of marriage in this country for various reasons. Under your 14th Supremacist view those are unequal treatment.
Laws forbidding religious plural marriages are a direct violation of the First Amendment and as such, they are unconstitutional.
In a church yes, but there's no valid reason for the govt to recognize them, incest marriages, or pedophile marriages. Unless you want to apply Mr. Hatch's Scottish law principle bring in the culture of Muslim countries into the discussion. The govt and society has an interest in not recognizing every marriage out there, not matter how much the 14th Supremacists want to believe it. There will always be some inqeuality in society, and the 14th wasn't meant to create a national system of forced morality in the name of 'equality'.