SUPREME COURT EXTENDS GAY MARRIAGE NATIONWIDE

[drbrumley]

4 out of 5 republicans voted against same sex marriage
4 out of 4 democrats voted for it

are you for same sex marriage?

that would explain it

We Need to Elect a Republican President So He Can Appoint Conservative Supreme Court Justices

Laurence M. Vance


Like Anthony Kennedy? He just wrote the Supreme Court decision that redefined marriage that every conservative in the country is upset about. He was appointed by President Ford (a Republican) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1975. Then he was appointed by President Reagan (a Republican) to the Supreme Court in 1988. His nomination was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 97-0, which means that every Republican in the Senate at the time who voted voted for Kennedy.

And then there is Justice John “Obamacare” Roberts.

“We need to elect a Republican president so he can appoint conservative Supreme Court justices” is just another GOP myth to sucker conservatives into voting Republican.

 

[drbrumley]

Re: The Gowned Clowns’ Run of More-Blatant-Than-Usual Lunacy

Becky Akers


It wasn’t enough for the Supreme Dorks to uphold our enslavement to the medical-insurance conglomerate. Now they’ve tried to redefine “marriage,” too. Funny, I don’t see “lexicography” anywhere in their job-description, no doubt because it’s above their pay-grade. Yo, Bozos: east doesn’t become west nor up down just because you say so.

As Satan’s citadel, the State is unalterably and eternally opposed to decency, goodness and Biblical truth. No surprises there. Let’s hope the Dorks’ patent absurdity recruits as many people to liberty as the TSA’s gropefest and the NSA’s espionage against us have. Perhaps, finally, pastors will quit misinterpreting Romans 13, find the cojones God gave ‘em, and lead by example as they call their congregations to stand against the utter wickedness that is the Federal government (and all others, too).

Meanwhile, I offer these lyrics from one of my favorite hymns to anyone whom evil’s seeming triumph has discouraged:


This is my Father’s world.

O let me ne’er forget

that though the wrong seems oft so strong,

God is the ruler yet.

Amen. May He guide and protect us as we seek to “[restore] the Sovereign, to whom alone men ought to be obedient.“

 

[Granite]

I see this as a slide into approval of the "anything goes" mentality.
You may rest assured that polygamy shall soon be a challenge to the law. And just as soon as animals can be taught to bark, moo, baa and whinny once for yes that will be the next agenda!
For such a mentality Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed utterly.

No, they were (supposedly) wiped out because of their pride and refusal to help the needy.

That's...well. That's what the Bible actually says.

 

[Town Heretic]

....Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg have both performed same-sex weddings. Why didn’t they recuse themselves?

Because having an opinion on the matter isn't a bar to issuing a holding. Or does the writer of that piece believe that Roberts and company had never considered the matter or formed an opinion?

 

[Jonahdog]

Jesus loves you, but he is sending you to lake of fire to be tormented day and night forever.

Tough love, I guess. Well I would never send someone I love to be tortured. Guess you would be happy doing that Nick. You are certainly a tough guy.

 

[Shasta]

I'll note there are a number of additional considerations in the consideration that complicate it. But it is a cause that can be advanced with a compelling challenge to societal interest and standard in opposition. It may be the only one remaining with that weight to it. It even has Biblical precedent to muddy the waters of religious opposition.


Sure there is. How do you think slavery was defeated as a legal institution, ultimately? It wasn't by a Court ruling.

No, a devastating War followed by a unilateral Executive proclamation ended slavery and I would not want either of these to be repeated. Of course, had the South not rebelled in the first place legislation and the democratic process would have extinguished the practice of slavery. They rebelled because they knew the North would get a majority of free states.

At least Legislatures reflect the will of voters and voters can always elect a new president or impeach a sitting president but what recourse is there for a people ruled by an Oligarchy whose rulings are virtually irreversible and cannot be appealed to any higher authority? Think about this if they can legislate at their whim policies you do like then they can do the same with those you do not like. If there is ever a very strong conservative majority then perhaps we also can legislate beyond your power to resist our own ideas. Think of what that would mean to you.

BTW that laws about marriage should exist is not just part of some Christian theocracy. They are assumed in all nations and rightfully so, since stable family-building contributes to the order and longevity of every society. The reproductive unit of one man one woman is the most logical, the general presumption being that they will care more for their own genetic offspring.

 

[Shasta]

Because having an opinion on the matter isn't a bar to issuing a holding. Or does the writer of that piece believe that Roberts and company had never considered the matter or formed an opinion?

Presiding over or officiating in a legal or paralegal ceremony is quite a bit different than merely thinking about it. Surely you can see this.

 

[Town Heretic]

Presiding over or officiating in a legal or paralegal ceremony is quite a bit different than merely thinking about it. Surely you can see this.

Different, but not in any substantive way that would impact their participation in the holding. Now were the justices in the business of presiding then they'd have a conflict of interest. But they aren't. Their presiding isn't any more problematic than, say, Scalia holding forth on the subject in a speech. The rest is legal reasoning.

I'm going to work through the opinion later in my legal thread. I think there are points worth considering in both the majority holding and the dissents.

 

[Town Heretic]

No, a devastating War followed by a unilateral Executive proclamation ended slavery

No, an amendment to the Constitution ended it. Nothing else, legally.

Of course, had the South not rebelled in the first place legislation and the democratic process would have extinguished the practice of slavery. They rebelled because they knew the North would get a majority of free states.

Of course. It was, as I mentioned in answering Granite, the power brokers best hope to preserve their economic engine.

At least Legislatures reflect the will of voters and voters can always elect a new president or impeach a sitting president but what recourse is there for a people ruled by an Oligarchy whose rulings are virtually irreversible and cannot be appealed to any higher authority?

That's not the case here, though the history of the Court is mostly a history aligned with the mean.

Think about this if they can legislate at their whim policies you do like then they can do the same with those you do not like.

They haven't done that (the whim bit) though I've objected strongly to a few recent rulings, from corporate speech to expanding the reach of eminent domain.

If there is ever a very strong conservative majority then perhaps we also can legislate beyond your power to resist our own ideas. Think of what that would mean to you.

I don't favor either side of the aisle at the extremes and think the republic will never see either of those in control of it.

BTW that laws about marriage should exist is not just part of some Christian theocracy.

Who said otherwise? The right to marry, in our compact, is simply not a reflection of our religious conviction. That is, you can marry without any belief in or reliance upon God. Atheists marry every day here. And if you have a belief you can wed that to the ceremony.

They are assumed in all nations and rightfully so, since stable family-building contributes to the order and longevity of every society.

We also let the infertile and elderly marry. It makes for happier and more stable, productive citizens.

The reproductive unit of one man one woman is the most logical, the general presumption being that they will care more for their own genetic offspring.

But reproduction isn't a requirement for marriage. We don't ask and if you tell us you have no desire or ability to procreate no one will refuse you a license.

 

[drbrumley]

We shall see.

I'm guessing in a year or two you might be proven wrong.

Seems one or two years to late.

It begins ...ACLU: time to bayonet the enemy wounded:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...6ab94b5_story.html?postshare=6841435415156741

As the events of the past couple of years amply illustrate, our fears were well-founded. While the RFRA may serve as a shield to protect Singh, it is now often used as a sword to discriminate against women, gay and transgender people and others. Efforts of this nature will likely only increase should the Supreme Court rule — as is expected — that same-sex couples have the freedom to marry.

 

[Apostle Of Yeshua]

We have all heard the news plastered in every corner of every aspect of social media, television, and radio. The Supreme Court declared Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States.

Those in favor of such a ruling are running their parade lap while those opposed are recoiling.

But what does it all really mean?

This ruling is only part of what has been prophesied, both in Scripture and from the pulpit of Churches across the country for some time now. This ruling will give way to more court actions and more infringes on the very idea of "freedom of religion". The next round will be the government stepping into churches to force Pastors to perform gay ceremonies, then more gay ministers, then no real houses of worship...just as Scripture said in 2 Timothy 4:3-4.

What will this mean for religious liberty in this country?

Legislation will continue in this vein of anti-Christian until there are few, if any, truly obedient churches left.

Is that officially dead now?

Not yet, but the war has begun. Now, who is going to battle?
We all need to step up to the call.
As we have all heard, evil needs do nothing to win if good people say nothing, or something like that.

One of the more interesting facts I read today is that there are only 390,000 married same-sex couples in the United States and another 70,000 couples living in states that do not currently permit them to wed. That's an incredibly small number when you think about it. Yet that tiny fraction of the population has just slew religious liberty which was one of the pillars of this nation's heritage.

The tail wags the dog.

 

[Ktoyou]

What If the Rainbow Flag Offends Me?

If the Confederate flag must be taken down because it offends someone, then can rainbow flags be taken down if they offend me? Of course not. Wanting to take them down would make me a bigot and a homophobe.

I have one and do not care if anyone calls me meaningless names. They are like a secret club, one I know not the password. Also, I never seen the rainbow flag, not sure I ever heard of it?

 

[Ktoyou]

Presiding over or officiating in a legal or paralegal ceremony is quite a bit different than merely thinking about it. Surely you can see this.

Town is correct here

No, an amendment to the Constitution ended it. Nothing else, legally.

Here too, as the war was not over slavery, it was over the concept of nation building.

They haven't done that (the whim bit) though I've objected strongly to a few recent rulings, from corporate speech to expanding the reach of eminent domain.

there has to be some quid pro quo ?

Who said otherwise? The right to marry, in our compact, is simply not a reflection of our religious conviction. That is, you can marry without any belief in or reliance upon God. Atheists marry every day here. And if you have a belief you can wed that to the ceremony.


We also let the infertile and elderly marry. It makes for happier and more stable, productive citizens.


But reproduction isn't a requirement for marriage. We don't ask and if you tell us you have no desire or ability to procreate no one will refuse you a license.

I do not think it follows from English common law, or any precedent in American law. All it does is make marriage meaningless and give reason to not marry.
a definitive difference based on ceremonial marriage. No, it will not change the legality, yet it will further legitimatize marriage as a religious institution. As you well know the Court is not looking at marriage as a religious institution.
There is one way to deal with it, have

 

[Stripe]

And yet, Christians would agree that most of history is comprised of men outside of the faith doing a variation of that while general conditions in compacts continue to improve. Slavery, by way of, is now mostly eliminated in the world where it once was largely the rule.

Speaking of straw men...

Nobody said anything of men needing to be "of the faith."

The law is not directed at people of a particular type; it applies to all.

Marriage isn't and hasn't been a singularly or even necessarily religious institution for a very long time where the law is concerned.

The regulations men make up do not change reality. Marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman to live in a lifelong, monogamous relationship with the aim being to build a family.

Anyone who says otherwise — courts included — is wrong, regardless of how "legal" you call it.

So this has nothing to do with the belief system of a couple who want to get married; it has to do with their genders.

The country actually doesn't do that

Sure, it does. Your nation murders about 1 million a year.

The law that allows it is a deeply mistaken one.

The "law" that regulates it is another that has been invented by man in rebellion against God.

I suspect the end of abortion will resemble the end of slavery, at least in terms of the Constitutional address.

You mean where Godly people fight for decades to end it and then liberals claim the victory as their own once history has been rewritten?

Ultimately we're a country that grants greater freedom of conscience and action than any that existed before us in the history of man.

That's nice.

You also have a regulation that says homos can marry.

 

[Repentance96]

The US from day one has never been a nation of God.

 

[seehigh]

Meh, so what if Johnny and Suzy marry not each other but Johnny marries Bobby and Suzy marries Janet.

It only affects them, not you, me or society. We all can still go to church, synagogue, mosque or temple, we can still hunt or fish, drive, pay taxes and vote.

Now if the court had ruled we could only marry the same sex, then we could all get upset.

 

[Town Heretic]

Speaking of straw men...

Nobody said anything of men needing to be "of the faith."

The moment you made a purely religious, particularly religious objection that's precisely what you have to be arguing out of to be anything other than hypocritical. Because if you don't have that objection what objection have you? (we'll get to the attempt in a moment)

Your objection is God based. Your view of God is particular.

The law is not directed at people of a particular type; it applies to all.


The regulations men make up do not change reality.

The reality is that the law is subject to alteration, so that today's ban on interracial marriage is tomorrows dust bin prohibition.

Marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman to live in a lifelong, monogamous relationship with the aim being to build a family.

It was. And now it's that very thing between two individuals, regardless of gender.

Anyone who says otherwise — courts included — is wrong, regardless of how "legal" you call it.

See the problem with that stand yet? You're trying to sneak the eternal arbiter into the equation and call it "the law". But that's not what the law is and it isn't predicated upon that notion. The law is fluid, not static. It may only change incrementally over time. Some of it may never change, but the nature of it is rooted in alteration, from slavery to womens suffrage to gender equality to our current consideration.

So this has nothing to do with the belief system of a couple who want to get married; it has to do with their genders.

No, it has to do with your value system or you don't have an argument, supra.

Sure, it does. Your nation murders about 1 million a year.

As wrong headed as saying our nation emails X amount of racist propaganda each year because it allows the Klan to.

The "law" that regulates it is another that has been invented by man in rebellion against God.

No, but I can see why you feel that way and I see you've dropped the "isn't about God" routine, which is helpful.

You mean where Godly people fight for decades to end it and then liberals claim the victory as their own once history has been rewritten?

No. The thing is that once upon a time men of God who mostly championed the end of slavery were also the progressives and liberals of their day. The steady schism between a large section of liberal thinking and those gentlemen is one of the more disappointing parts of modern life. Had liberalism remained rooted where it was we'd be arguing over the human right to health care and wages instead of it championing the horrifically errant notion of abortion.

I wrote: Ultimately we're a country that grants greater freedom of conscience and action than any that existed before us in the history of man.

That's nice.

It's a bit more than that unless you believe in overwhelming understatement, which would be funny.

You also have a regulation that says homos can marry.

Yep. People are free to exercise their own consciences and make many a good and many a bad decision. Oh, and women have the vote. A lot of things, really. lain:

 

[Stripe]

The moment you made a purely religious, particularly religious objection that's precisely what you have to be arguing out of to be anything other than hypocritical. Because if you don't have that objection what objection have you? (we'll get to the attempt in a moment)Your objection is God based. Your view of God is particular.

My "objection" is that the word marriage has a meaning. Homo marriage is a non sequitur given that meaning. People deciding on some other meaning does not change the truth.

I'm not sure how anything you have said shows that what I hold is untenable.

The reality is that the law is subject to alteration

The law can only be changed by the person who made it. The law "Do not murder" is not open to change by any man.

So with the definition of what it is to be married.

The SCOTUS decision is not a law; it's a regulation created by man in rebellion to God and every God-fearing person should ignore it.

It was. And now it's that very thing between two individuals, regardless of gender.

Because a bunch of perverts say so? I don't think so. :nono:

You're trying to sneak the eternal arbiter into the equation and call it "the law".

I'm not trying to sneak anything. God is the highest authority, not man. If you make up a regulation that breaks His command, you are not writing anything legally binding.

But that's not what the law is and it isn't predicated upon that notion.

Because you say so?

The law is fluid, not static.

Straw man again.

As wrong headed as saying our nation emails X amount of racist propaganda each year because it allows the Klan to.

Nope. It is not a crime to send racist e-mails and nor should it be. However, your nation does have the blood of what must be closing in on 100 million murdered babies because it decided it knew better than God's standard of "do not murder."

 

[Dan Emanuel]

I think I know the answer, but let me ask anyway.

Does the marriage contract require marital relation's to be valid? For the Church, marriage require's consummation to be valid.


Daniel

 

[Town Heretic]

My "objection" is that the word marriage has a meaning.

Declared and answered as a point of law, though any number of definitions change over time. Bread once meant only a consumable substance. Fag was something else. You can't rest on a dictionary for an unchanging authority.

Homo marriage is a non sequitur given that meaning.

Supra and prior. But you're not really concerned about or arguing from the sanctity of dictionaries approach, are you. :nono:

People deciding on some other meaning does not change the truth.

If they're judges and/or legislators and the topic is legal it does. Otherwise it's about usage over time, though that won't control the legal import or use.

I'm not sure how anything you have said shows that what I hold is untenable.

Then you haven't read me and/or supra.

The law can only be changed by the person who made it. The law "Do not murder" is not open to change by any man.

And now you're back openly where you always were and my answer was given a while back: our compact isn't predicated on your moral understanding, or the Muslim's down the street from you or the Buddhists or Hindu's, etc. Though all of you are free to think and speak about your foundational truth here, in this country, any time you like. And to live by your truths so long as you don't attempt, in the exercise of your right, to infringe upon the right of the next fellow.

The SCOTUS decision is not a law; it's a regulation created by man in rebellion to God and every God-fearing person should ignore it.

You're free to believe that or anything else you like that won't alter how right and exercise is actually accounted here.

Because a bunch of perverts say so? I don't think so. :nono:

No, because the highest Court, charged with the interpretation of the guiding document on right in this land has said so. What you think is your right as is your ability to voice it. But it won't bar or open a door here.

God is the highest authority, not man. If you make up a regulation that breaks His command, you are not writing anything legally binding.

Well, no. You mean a law violating God's law can't negate God's law. Which is true, in a kingdom not of this earth.

Nope. It is not a crime to send racist e-mails and nor should it be.

I didn't say anything about sending emails being a crime. What I noted in the illustration was the mistake of laying a practice of some at the feet of everyone in a country.

However, your nation does have the blood of what must be closing in on 100 million murdered babies because it decided it knew better than God's standard of "do not murder."

And that's wrong too. To begin with the country never voted on the measure and most people here could be set against it without being able to do anything about it. We're going to have to affect a deep sea change to move toward the means of overwhelming that decision.