[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

AI is exhausting the power grid. Tech firms are seeking a miracle solution.

Rare Van Halen Leicestershire, Donnington Park August 18, 1984 Valerie Bertinelli Cameo

If you need a Good Opening for black, use this.

"Arrogant Hunter Biden has never been held accountable — until now"

How Republicans in Key Senate Races Are Flip-Flopping on Abortion

Idaho bar sparks fury for declaring June 'Heterosexual Awesomeness Month' and giving free beers and 15% discounts to straight men

Son of Buc-ee’s co-owner indicted for filming guests in the shower and having sex. He says the law makes it OK.

South Africa warns US could be liable for ICC prosecution for supporting Israel

Today I turned 50!

San Diego Police officer resigns after getting locked in the backseat with female detainee

Gazan Refugee Warns the World about Hamas

Iranian stabbed for sharing his faith, miraculously made it across the border without a passport!

Protest and Clashes outside Trump's Bronx Rally in Crotona Park

Netanyahu Issues Warning To US Leaders Over ICC Arrest Warrants: 'You're Next'

Will it ever end?

Did Pope Francis Just Call Jesus a Liar?

Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version

There can never be peace on Earth for as long as Islamic Sharia exists

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Back PRIORS AND PRECEDENT Same-Sex Marriage Gets Its Big Day At The Supreme Court
Source: FiveThirtyEight
URL Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ ... -big-day-at-the-supreme-court/
Published: Apr 28, 2015
Author: Oliver Roeder
Post Date: 2015-04-29 12:33:58 by Jameson
Keywords: SCOTUS, Marraige, 538
Views: 22982
Comments: 119

The question of whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage will finally have its day in court this week. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear two and a half hours of oral argument in a quartet of cases on this subject. If the court reverses lower court rulings that upheld bans on same-sex marriage, it could mean that every state would have to honor such marriages performed in other states, and could require every state to permit them. A decision is expected this summer, most likely in late June. In this edition of Priors and Precedent, we’ll dig into some data and two sources of predictions for this landmark case. First, some background.

The Case

The petitioners are 12 couples and two widowers from states that bar same-sex marriage. A recent profile by NPR dubbed them “‘accidental activists,’ meaning they filed lawsuits not to further a cause but because of the way the bans affected their lives.”

The challenge to the bans, known as Obergefell v. Hodges, is actually four cases rolled into one.1 The court consolidated them and limited its consideration to these two questions:

Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? Does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

The first is called the “marriage” question, the second the “recognition” question. The court will hear 90 minutes of argument on the former and an hour of argument on the latter. Civics refresher: The 14th Amendment guarantees certain rights under its “due process” and “equal protection” clauses.

If the answer to the first question is “yes,” then the answer to the second is irrelevant, of course.

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-31) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#32. To: Jameson, redleghunter (#29)

Their [normal, heterosexual] lives haven't been affected - that is why a majority of the population is OK with marriage equality.

The Leather District of Frisco or Greenwich Village don't count.

The majority of the population are NO "ok," but are DISGUSTED with polls, not-stop coercion, shaming young-people with non-stop propaganda, and lies that supposedly normalize fake "marriage."

"Marriage" of Two men or two women is definitively impossible and unprecedented. Its "equality" can only be a matter of "rights" as a "partner."

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   12:25:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Jameson (#17)

Why would an ultra-liberal interpretation not apply to protect the love expressed by those of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)? Are those not persons?

Why would a certain judge in New York not apply her interpretation of person to protect the love of a chimpanzee and any other(?) person.

Yes....the slippery slope argument....

It is a constitutional argument. Justice Alito raisded the question "Well, what if there no -- these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it not - it's not the sort of polygamous relationship ... [a]nd lets say they're all consenting adults, highly educated. They're all lawyers."

Why would the legal logic offered for same-sex marriage not extend to polygamous marriage? Or Man-boy marriage?

The 14th amendment provides that "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If the 14th amendment is the basis, what persons does it not apply to? How is it limited? What are the possible unintended consequences?

For real resistance, picture an orthodox rabbi being ordered to perform a marriage between a gay Jew and a gay non-Jew.

Quite obviously, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," applies to anchor babies, even babies born of two illegal aliens in a detention center awaiting deportation.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-30   14:09:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: nolu chan (#33)

Why would the legal logic offered for same-sex marriage not extend to polygamous marriage?

Don't know, maybe it would... I have always believed that the whole multi-spouse deal was settled in the 1800's....

Or Man-boy marriage?

Maybe because one is a minor?

For real resistance, picture an orthodox rabbi being ordered to perform a marriage between a gay Jew and a gay non-Jew.

I don't think this decision if it is rendered "forces" any member of the clergy to do anything - it would, I think compel states to issue licenses to same-sex couples and recognize same sex marriages performed in other states.

"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.

Jameson  posted on  2015-04-30   14:20:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: redleghunter (#31)

Great rebuttal to Jameson's, "Lives haven't been affected - that is why a majority of the population is OK with marriage equality."

Your money quote: "The only reason gay 'marriage' is on the SCOTUS docket is because Christians don't burn and loot entire cities when the political masters and kings and queens in court try to change our society to the philosophy and practice of the souless minions of liberal marxism."

NAILED. (ONLY a righteous anger tempered by the Lord withholds an unleashed wrath from Believers.)

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   17:41:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: buckeroo (#11)

Does anyone really care about gay/lesbian marriages? I don't care at all.

What if one sued you for "speaking to my "husband disrespectfully"?

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   17:45:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Jameson (#34)

Maybe because one is a minor?

That sounds rational but the law gets in the way. The age to get legally married goes as low as 13. If opposite-sex marriage is permitted at 13, age does not seem a legal barrier to man-boy marriage if same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.

JUSTICE ALITO: Well -- well, I had asked a simple question. At the present time, what is the next most dramatic variation in the marriage laws of the States?

MR. HALLWARD-DRIEMEIER: It probably is age.

JUSTICE ALITO: And what is the -- what -- what's the range?

MR. HALLWARD-DRIEMEIER: The -- the -- I think it goes from 13 to 18. And -- but -- but as I said before, the tradition of the States the issue does not come up that much, but the tradition of the States is to recognize a marriage that was entered into by someone of an age that could not have been entered within the State, because of the nature of the marriage once it's established, recognizing that the fundamental nature of that relationship is not one that the State should put asunder.

JUSTICE ALITO:

Well, I thought you answered me earlier that a State could refuse to recognize a marriage in -- contracted in another State where the minimum age was puberty.

MR. HALLWARD-DRIEMEIER:

Well, they they could, and I do believe that if, in the individual case, it was shown that it was because of lack of consent, the the State could decide not to recognize the marriage.

But with respect to the categorical nature

JUSTICE GINSBURG:

It would have to be shown, I think, the presumption would be in such a State that someone age 13 can't consent.

MR. HALLWARD-DRIEMEIER:

The age 13, I think probably you're right, but if it is a matter of 15 instead of 16, that the courts probably would recognize it, especially if, in reliance on their marriage, the the couple had already conceived of a child, it would do no one any good -- to destroy that marriage and the stable environment that it might provide for the children, just as it does no one any good it certainly doesn't advance the interests of the children of oppositesex couples to destroy the marriages that provide stability to the children of samesex couples who are already married under the laws of other States.

- - - - -

I have always believed that the whole multi-spouse deal was settled in the 1800's....

The issue of polygamy was addressed in a federal case against the LDS/Mormans, but that did not involve a state but a territory.

Here is what the Federal government did to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) in 1890 over the issue of polygamy.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/136/1/case.html

U.S. Supreme Court

Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U.S. 1 (1890)

The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States

Nos. 1031, 1054
Argued January 16-18, 1889
Decided May 19, 1890

136 U.S. 1

Syllabus

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was incorporated February, 1851, by an act of assembly of the so-called State of Deseret, which was afterwards confirmed by act of the Territorial Legislature of Utah, the corporation being a religious one, and its property and fund, held for the religious and charitable objects of the society, a prominent object being the promotion and practice of polygamy, which was prohibited by the laws of the United States. Congress, in 1887, passed an act repealing the act of incorporation and abrogating the charter and directing legal proceedings for seizing its property and winding up its affairs.

Held that

(1) The power of Congress over the territories is general and plenary, arising from the right to acquire them, which right arises from the power of the government to declare war and make treaties of peace and also, in part, arising from the power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States.

(2) This plenary power extends to the acts of the legislatures of the territories, and is usually expressed in the organic act of each by an express reservation of the right to disapprove and annul the acts of the legislature thereof.

Page 136 U. S. 2

(3) Congress had the power to repeal the act of incorporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints not only by virtue of its general power over the territories, but by virtue of an express reservation in the organic act of the Territory of Utah of the power to disapprove and annul the acts of its legislature.

(4) The act of incorporation being repealed and the corporation dissolved, its property, in the absence of any other lawful owner, devolved to the United States, subject to be disposed of according to the principles applicable to property devoted to religious and charitable uses, the real estate, however, being also subject to a certain condition of forfeiture and escheat contained in the act of 1862.

(5) The general system of common law and equity, except as modified by legislation, prevails in the Territory of Utah, including therein the law of charitable uses.

(6) By the law of charitable uses, when the particular use designated is unlawful and contrary to public policy, the charity property is subject to be applied and directed to lawful objects most nearly corresponding to its original destination, and will not be returned to the donors or their heirs or representatives, especially where it is impossible to identify them.

(7) The court of chancery, in the exercise of its ordinary powers over trusts and charities, may appoint new trustees on the failure or discharge of former trustees, and may compel the application of charity funds to their appointed uses, if lawful, and, by authority of the sovereign power of the state, if not by its own inherent power, may reform the uses when illegal or against public policy by directing the property to be applied to legal uses, conformable as near as practicable to those originally declared.

(8) In this country, the legislature has the power of parens patriae in reference to infants, idiots, lunatics, charities, etc., which in England is exercised by the Crown, and may invest the court of chancery with all the powers necessary to the proper superintendence and direction of any gift to charitable uses.

(9) Congress, as the supreme legislature of Utah, had full power and authority to direct the winding up of the affairs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a defunct corporation, with a view to the due appropriation of its property to legitimate religious and charitable uses conformable, as near as practicable, to those to which it was originally dedicated. This power is distinct from that which may arise from the forfeiture and escheat of the property under the act of 1862.

(10) The pretense of religious belief cannot deprive Congress of the power to prohibit polygamy and all other open offenses against the enlightened sentiment of mankind.

On behalf of the Court, MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY stated the case as follows:

[...]

On the 1st of July, 1862, the following act of Congress was approved, to-wit:

"An act to punish and prevent the Practice of Polygamy in the Territories of the United States, and other Places, and disapproving and annulling Certain Acts of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah."

[...]

That therefore the real estate referred to, owned by the corporation, is subject to escheat to the United States;

That on the 19th day of February, 1887, by the said act of that date, the charter and act of incorporation of the corporation aforesaid was disapproved, repealed, and annulled by Congress, and the corporation was dissolved, and all the real estate owned and occupied by it in excess of $50,000, not held or occupied for the worship of God, etc., was subject to escheat to the United States;

One might ask, if polygamy is an offense against the enlightened sentiment of mankind, is same-sex marriage an affirmative statement of the enlightened sentiment of mankind?

In biblical terms, polygamy was accepted, but homosexuality was abomination, and remans repugnant to many religions.

If SCOTUS holds that same-sex marriage is a protected constitutional right, Congress is powerless to reverse that decision. It would take a SCOTUS reversal, or a constitutional amendment. Whatever the results would be merits careful attention before acting.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-30   18:54:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: misterwhite, Jameson, redleghunter, Liberator (#4) (Edited)

Why not one man and one cow or one woman (a car creeper) and one shetland pony??

That is where this is all heading no matter how much the homos and APA protest or deny it, all they know is how to lie.

Oh BTW why is it that less than 1% of homos are getting married to start with? (So that means all this hubub over fag marriage is for 100,000 people or so who want to feel good about themselves even though they shouldn't). There are already 36 states who are being forced to accept this bullschitt so why aren't they running en masse to those states to get hitched? (HINT, HINT Homosexuality isn't about love)...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-04-30   19:04:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: redleghunter (#31)

Christians don't burn and loot entire cities when the political masters and kings and queens in court try to change our society to the philosophy and practice of the souless minions of liberal marxism.

And the reason why martial law hasn't been instituted yet, once they say enough is enough the Leftards will be tripping all over themselves to proclaim it.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-04-30   19:16:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Jameson, misterwhite (#30)

[misterwhite] What part of the 14th amendment requires this?

The 14th amendment?? Why isn't this covered under Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution -- "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is argued on behalf of the right to enter into same-sex marriage. Article 4 is said to apply to require all states to recognize an existing same-sex marriage, even where it would not be legal to enter into according to the laws of said state.

At 1-4:

ORAL ARGUMENT OF MARY L. BONAUTO

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS ON QUESTION 1

MS. BONAUTO: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:

The intimate and committed relationships of samesex couples, just like those of heterosexual couples, provide mutual support and are the foundation of family life in our society. If a legal commitment, responsibility and protection that is marriage is off limits to gay people as a class, the stain of unworthiness that follows on individuals and families contravenes the basic constitutional commitment to equal dignity.

Indeed, the abiding purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment is to preclude relegating classes of persons to secondtier status.

- - - - -

At 1-31

GENERAL VERRILLI: It is different, I agree.

And I and it leads to the second thing I think that the that the Lawrence catalyzed for our society, was it put gay and lesbian couples, gay and lesbian people, in a position for the first time in our history to be able to lay claim to the abiding promise of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that was just impossible when they were marginalized and ostracized.

- - - - -

At 1-40

GENERAL VERRILLI:

But what these gay and lesbian couples are doing is laying claim to the promise of the Fourteenth Amendment now.

And it is emphatically the duty of this Court, in this case, as it was in Lawrence, to decide what the Fourteenth Amendment requires.

And what I would suggest is that in a world in which gay and lesbian couples live openly as our neighbors, they raise their children side by side with the rest of us, they contribute fully as members of the community, that it is simply untenable untenable to suggest that they can be denied the right of equal participation in an institution of marriage, or that they can be required to wait until the majority decides that it is ready to treat gay and lesbian people as equals.

Gay and lesbian people are equal.They deserve the equal protection of the laws, and they deserve it now. Thank you.

- - - - -

At 2-26

ORAL ARGUMENT OF JOSEPH F. WHALEN

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS ON QUESTION 2

MR. WHALEN: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:

The Fourteenth Amendment does not require States with traditional marriage laws to recognize marriages from other States between two persons of the same sex.

JUSTICE SCALIA: What about Article IV? I'm so glad to be able to quote a portion of the Constitution that actually seems to be relevant. "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State." Now, why doesn't that apply?

MR. WHALEN: Your Honor, this Court's cases have made clear that the Court draws a distinction between judgments between States and the laws of each State. And the reason in part that the Court's decisions have said that is that otherwise, each State would be able to essentially legislate for every other State.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Public acts? It would include the act of marrying people, I assume.

MR. WHALEN: My understanding of this Court's decisions as the reference in the Constitution to public acts is that each State's laws.

JUSTICE SCALIA: So there there's nothing in the Constitution that requires a State to acknowledge even those marriages in other States that that are the same.

MR. WHALEN: That's essentially correct, Your Honor.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Really?

- - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-30   19:32:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: CZ82, misterwhite, Jameson, redleghunter, Liberator (#38)

Why not one man and one cow or one woman (a car creeper) and one shetland pony

Because cows and shetland ponies are not recognized as people.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-30   19:34:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: CZ82 (#38)

"Oh BTW why is it that less than 1% of homos are getting married to start with?"

The "1% of gays" figure is the total number of homosexual "marriages" since it became legal in 2004.

It does not include homosexual "divorces" (assuming they go to the trouble to get one, rather than simply go their separate ways).

The best I can tell, the homosexual "divorce" rate is about 2% per year, so that "1% of gays" figure is more like .8%.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-04-30   19:38:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: nolu chan (#37)

In biblical terms, polygamy was accepted, but homosexuality was abomination, and remans [sic] repugnant to many religions.

Care to reason why societal norms have drifted in this respect?

buckeroo  posted on  2015-04-30   19:59:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Liberator (#36)

What if one sued you for "speaking to my "husband disrespectfully"?

I could care less. Anyone can draw legal suit against anyone in America, at any time. Figuratively speaking, you better show just reason or the matter is thrown out and I don't have to lift a finger.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-04-30   20:02:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: buckeroo (#43)

Care to reason why societal norms have drifted in this respect?

Liberals/Socialists/Democrats?

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-30   21:22:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: nolu chan, sneakypete (#41)

Because cows and shetland ponies are not recognized as people.

Why not sneakypete and that chimpanzee that I read about the other day. It is recognized as a human I believe.

I mean Pete thinks we came from monkeys anyway. Maybe they can have kids.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-30   21:25:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: CZ82 (#38)

John Gotti can marry his hit man.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-30   21:27:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: nolu chan (#40)

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment

And the 14th truthfully wasn't ratified legally.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-30   21:28:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: nolu chan (#45)

Liberals/Socialists/Democrats?

nope.

Way back in the good ol' days of yesteryear, the family unit was held supreme for the purpose of survival; restraints were placed on sexual conduct were imposed to ensure the survival of societies, no matter the size. Homosexuality was abhorred as the act of homosexuality did not contribute to the family or society for and about survival skills as in farm work based on the need to have increasing family members or progeny. On the other hand, having all the wives you wanted (polygamy) was another way to ensure progeny for the farm and required work to perpetuate the family unit.

The reasons of "yesteryear families" doesn't cut it within modern Uber-suburbia families. Perpetuating the family unit today or the farm unit is simply a minor vestige of mankind's history.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-04-30   21:44:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: redleghunter, nolu chan, liberator, GarySpFc, A K A Stone, CZ82 (#22)

Well you may not care but the souless minions of liberal marxism do care.

Again, I don't care. Now, don't think it is an apathetic remarck. I am saying the norms of society are changing and I have no need to cling to some historical social norm.

Also, I have no need to jump on a bandwagon making changes. I am resilient to change, is all.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-04-30   22:08:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: Jameson (#16)

In reality, other people's marital status has no impact on the lives of anyone.

I tend to agree ... but honestly I really don't give a flying consideration other than this forum is preoccupied with queers.

Yukon must have got around a lot, 'eh?

buckeroo  posted on  2015-04-30   22:12:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: A K A Stone (#46)

I mean Pete thinks we came from monkeys anyway.

What's this "we" stuff,monkey? You pregnant?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-04-30   22:16:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: buckeroo, Gatlin (#51)

Yukon must have got around a lot, 'eh?

Just ask Gatlin.

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-01   1:08:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: A K A Stone (#48)

The 14th truthfully wasn't ratified legally.

Wouldn't surprise me. But maybe Satan himself ratified it; That's good enough for all the narcissists, anarchists and Democrats. The 14A killed America, and it's not done burying us.

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-01   1:12:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: nolu chan, Liberator, CZ82 (#37)

That sounds rational but the law gets in the way. The age to get legally married goes as low as 13. If opposite-sex marriage is permitted at 13, age does not seem a legal barrier to man-boy marriage if same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.

Oh boy looks like nolu has stumbled onto something here. Ping.

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-01   1:38:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: A K A Stone (#48)

And the 14th truthfully wasn't ratified legally.

I would agree with you. But its ratification was certified by the Executive Branch and that action is not subject to any judicial review. If you had a truckload of proof, there would be no place to deliver it.

See my post on another thread here for two books on the ratification of the 14th. It's a disgrace, but they got away with it.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-05-01   1:42:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: CZ82 (#38)

Why not one man and one cow or one woman (a car creeper) and one shetland pony??

Be careful. Seeing some of the responses here you might get an answer like "it depends on what the Shetland pony looks like."

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-01   1:44:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: buckeroo (#49)

Perpetuating the family unit today or the farm unit is simply a minor vestige of mankind's history.

The family unit? You mean baby mama and the kids?

nolu chan  posted on  2015-05-01   1:47:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: redleghunter, CZ82 (#57)

Be careful. Seeing some of the responses here you might get an answer like "it depends on what the Shetland pony looks like."

Remember, there was a crazy New York Supreme Court judge who found that two chimps have personhood and granted a writ of habeas corpus. I'm fairly certain she will be overturned, and for clarity note that in New York, the "Supreme" court is the lower Trial court, and the ultimate court is the New York Court of Appeals.

If that were actually law, it would seem chimps would arguably have a right to marry another person.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-05-01   1:53:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: redleghunter (#55)

I actually find one state, with parental consent, permits marriage at age 12.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-05-01   2:00:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: buckeroo, liberator, CZ82 (#50)

Again, I don't care. Now, don't think it is an apathetic remarck. I am saying the norms of society are changing and I have no need to cling to some historical social norm.

Also, I have no need to jump on a bandwagon making changes. I am resilient to change, is all.

I wonder if the Roman emperor Valens thought the same before the Goths sacked him.

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-01   2:08:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: redleghunter (#57)

one woman (a car creeper) and one shetland pony??

That all came from a porno I seen when I was a teen at a bachelor party called "Pony Express". LOL...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-05-01   6:49:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: redleghunter, Liberator, buckeroo (#61) (Edited)

I wonder if the Roman emperor Valens thought the same before the Goths sacked him.

You would think bucky can see that the idiots seem to be taking over in many places of authority and that the homos are in that crowd in large numbers. (Homos make up %10 of the total population in DC and how many of them run in the political circle)?

Wonder how he'll feel in the future if he's to be "sacked" (bent over the kitchen table) at some wacked out homo marriage ceremony/ritual?? (Where's Meguro when you need him he could comment on that)... :)

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-05-01   7:00:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: redleghunter, Liberator (#55) (Edited)

If opposite-sex marriage is permitted at 13, age does not seem a legal barrier to man-boy marriage if same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.

That does seem to be the ultimate goal and has been for quite sometime, the pervs have to make themselves look respectable.

Rules for Leftards: 47). It doesn’t make any difference that I lack morality, integrity and honesty; I’ve convinced myself that I’m still a good person...

(And you had better believe it too or you'll end up in a FEMA camp, can't have the religious disbelievers running loose spreading the truth ya know).

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-05-01   7:08:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: nolu chan, redleghunter, Liberator (#41)

Shhhh, PETA will try to string you up if they hear that.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-05-01   7:14:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: misterwhite (#42)

Tearing apart the fabric of society to please people who should be in a looney bin to start with.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-05-01   7:16:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: redleghunter (#22)

Second, on 'who cares'?...Well you may not care but the souless minions of liberal marxism do care. They are taking advantage of those who don't care or disinterested to change our laws and constitution. That is why on every issue one must take a stand or someone else will take one for you.

Excellent point.

“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-05-01   7:42:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: nolu chan (#40)

States don't have to honor the gun laws of other states (eg., concealed carry). And that's a right that IS protected by it's own amendment.

They don't have to honor the medical marijuana laws of other states.

So why should they honor other states' marriage laws which have been a state-decided issue for hundreds of years?

Finding a hidden constitutional right for gay marriage and forcing it on every state will result in perpetual civil unrest similar to the 40-year-old abortion decision.

Nationwide gay marriage will require a constitutional amendment and there are nowhere near enough votes to pass one. Which should tell you something right there.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-05-01   9:54:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: CZ82 (#66)

"Tearing apart the fabric of society to please people who should be in a looney bin to start with."

Homosexuality should be treated like any other sexual disorder -- and there are many (see: List of paraphilias).

There is no rationale for elevating one over the others and calling it "an acceptable, alternative choice".

misterwhite  posted on  2015-05-01   10:09:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: nolu chan, CZ82, liberator (#59)

Remember, there was a crazy New York Supreme Court judge who found that two chimps have personhood and granted a writ of habeas corpus. I'm fairly certain she will be overturned, and for clarity note that in New York, the "Supreme" court is the lower Trial court, and the ultimate court is the New York Court of Appeals.

I would like to know what law school that clown went to. Probably the school of fun arts:

Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Clown College

Knew this weird Signal officer in the Army who did weekend gigs as a clown. He would drive his 'clown' car to work with his advertisement panel and all. Thought ok, he wants to make a few more bucks.

Well he took command of a training battery a few months later, I was invited. I looked at his bio in the program and he had listed a BA in Fun Arts from the college listed above. Amazing.

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-01   11:17:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: redleghunter (#70)

Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Clown College

Knew this weird Signal officer in the Army who did weekend gigs as a clown. He would drive his 'clown' car to work with his advertisement panel and all. Thought ok, he wants to make a few more bucks.

Well he took command of a training battery a few months later, I was invited. I looked at his bio in the program and he had listed a BA in Fun Arts from the college listed above. Amazing.

ROFL...

(A BA in "Fun Arts" no less...from Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Clown College

Now THAT is sad.

:-)

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-01   12:15:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: redleghunter, nolu chan, CZ82 (#55)

That sounds rational but the law gets in the way. The age to get legally married goes as low as 13. If opposite-sex marriage is permitted at 13, age does not seem a legal barrier to man-boy marriage if same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.

Oh boy looks like nolu has stumbled onto something here. Ping.

Wooooah, Nellie!

Leave it to Chan to un-turn EVERY stone. This one should be Headline News.

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-01   12:18:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (73 - 119) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com