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

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide Source: AP URL Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie ... AULT&CTIME=2015-06-26-10-02-52 Published: Jun 26, 2015 Author: AP staff Post Date: 2015-06-26 10:23:13 by redleghunter Keywords: None Views: 8974 Comments: 101 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. Click for Full Text! Poster Comment: No surprises. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-31) not displayed.       .       .       . #32. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#24) I cannot argue your approach as GOP presidents DID appoint the left leaning justices. The other question is how long can Catholic bishops keep giving communion to the 6 justices who are Roman Catholic? Do statistics provide THE REAL Red Flag and enemy?? Number of Catholics on the US Supreme Court: 6 Number of Protestants on the US Supreme Court: ZERO Conspicuous to say the least. Liberator  posted on  2015-06-26   12:04:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: tomder55 (#29) (Edited) Make them take a stand for religious liberty . But their "religion" is secular humanism. Across the board, the occupying subversives within the political arena, academe and media have redefined the language, ergo "slavery" is now redefined as "liberty." All bets are off. Liberator  posted on  2015-06-26   12:14:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: Vicomte13 (#26) Besides abortion. What do you oppose the democrats on? Say they all changed to pro life. Would you then support them over Republicans? A K A Stone  posted on  2015-06-26   12:25:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: Vicomte13 (#16) Yesterday, the Republican Party gave us Obamacare, via the Supreme Court which they control. Today, the Republican Party gave us universal gay marriage, via the Republican Supreme Court. You sure do spin. Reagan nominated Bork, then Ginsburn. then Kennedy slipped it. The only opposition to the faggots is from Republicans. ' You write well but you sure are wrong a lot. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-06-26   12:35:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: Liberator (#27) Libertator: the buck stops with the Captain of the Ship. If a ship runs aground in the night because the Officer of the Deck read the charts wrong, it's the junior officer's fault, of course, but it's also the Captain's fault for not training the JO, for letting him have the watch when he wasn't prepared. The Captain of the ship cannot escape liability for what his lieutenants do. Do you EVER see Democrat Supreme Court justices are major politicians break ranks on any important issue, ever. EVER? Do they EVER suddenly betray the principles of their party? Ever? Name me an instance where a Democrat Supreme Court justices has suddenly surprised everybody by turning on his or her party? Name me a time, in a vote on anything crucial, where a Democrat ever defaulted? It hasn't happened once in my adult life. Democrats keep discipline. They do not allow people into positions of decision and leadership who do not have the discipline to stand for what the party stands for. They campaign on things, and then when elected they bull forward and DO what they said they were going to do. I don't like a lot of things they do, but I acknowledge their discipline. I acknowledge that their politicians tell the truth about what they're after, and their justices don't hide who and what they are. They say it, they do it, and they bull forward to the finish line if they can. If they are defeated, it is never because some Democrat Supreme Court justice stabs them in the back, or there are a bunch of insurgent Democrats who bring down the President or his party. It never, ever, ever has happened, not even once, in all of the years I have been voting. The Republicans PRETEND that it happens to them all the time. They pretend that Republican Presidents appoint justices but "who knows what the Justices will do"? Who could have predicted? Well, I can predict. And I'm usually right. What I will predict is that the Democrats never, ever, ever, ever, have even one justice who suddenly betrays them and turns on them and torpedoes their platform. It doesn't happen. With Republicans, it happened with abortion (twice), and property rights, and gay marriage, and ObamaCare (twice). Over and over again it happens, and it always happens on the MOST CRITICAL THINGS. When the chips are down and, say, the Republicans are about to force conservatives onto the appeals courts, "suddenly" 4 Republican Senators break ranks and form the "gang of this or that", and the actual victory is lost. But then, do the Republicans DISCIPLINE the Senators who do that? No. Then, in the next election cycle, the Republicans make the guy who torpedoed the conservative court packing policy their friggin' NOMINEE. But you expect people to not hold the REPUBLICAN PARTY accountable for what the leading, powerful Republicans actually DO over and over. You say that we are wrong for maligning the Republican Party for what the Captains of the Ship DO, again and again. Your position is nuts. It's simply nuts. You have affiliated yourself with the Republican Party and given it too much of your heart and soul. Essentially, you've married a cheating wife, and you're ready to beat up anybody who points it out to you. Well, you have. The Republican Party is your harlot wife. The Captains of the Ship fail you, but you still think that, somehow, the galley crew down shoveling coal in the hold is the REAL ship, and that the ship should not be all accountable for the decisions of its leadership. The truth about ships is that when they run into reefs and sink, the crew in the hold all drown too. The Republican Party cannot escape vilification for what its Senators and Supreme Court Justices and Presidents and Congressional leaders do. That IS the Republican Party. Conversatives who cling to them and get the back of the hand all the time are NOT the REAL Republicans. Roberts and Kennedy and Boehner and McConnell and McCain, the real men in real power with the real titles and the real control - THEY are the Republican Party. Republicans like you are just battered girlfriends and cuckolded husbands who don't want to hear or know the truth. You're damned right I malign and vilify the Republicans. Look at what they have DONE. I vilify the rank and file Republicans who won't break ranks with the GOP for being foolish thralls. If you value what you believe in, you need to scrape your Republican Party affiliation off your boots like the shit that it is and stand up and be an independent man. Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas. That's the way it is. You cannot change the Republican ship, but you can stop sailing on it. You choose not to, pretending that its yours. The lawn boy at the country club is there everyday and gets to eat in the back of the clubhouse, but he is not a member and never will be. And that's you in the Republican Party. Get the hell out of there. It's beneath you to keep affiliating with those turds. They're NEVER going to listen to you, because they ARE, in fact, Romney and McCain, Boehner and McConnel and Graham and Roberts and Kennedy. That's the GOP. It's not going to ever be different. Yelling at ME for telling you the truth: Republicans are scum bunks, is willful blindness. Open your eyes, and see, and walk out of there. Reclaim your manhood and your pride. Stop lying down with dogs. Stop defending them. The Captain of the Ship is responsible. The Republican Ship has SHOWN you its colors again and again. You're not going to mutiny and take over. Get off that ship. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-06-26   12:37:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: redleghunter (#24) The Catholic Bishops will keep doing it forever. They're wrong, and the institutional Church has lost its way, just as it did back in the middle ages. Perhaps Christianity lost its way when it institutionalized. It does not seem to serve Christ very well to have sunk all of that money into buildings and lands and vestments and high salaries for priest and preachers. That wasn't how the Apostles lived, or Jesus. They would have taken all that money spent on those things and gained sheep for the flock by feeding the poor. Perhaps that's the problem with the Church, and the churches, all along. They want to be career paths. But they're not intended to be that. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-06-26   12:40:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: Vicomte13, GOP, more bull, shuck 'n jive too, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#17) A vote for Republicans is a vote for having Democrat policies while being able to pretend that you oppose them. That's it in a nutshell. The GOP faithful are more dishonest, that's the only difference. Hondo68  posted on  2015-06-26   12:41:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: redleghunter (#1) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf PDF: 01 - Syllabus 06 - Kennedy, for the Court 40 - Roberts, Dissenting 69 - Scalia, Dissenting 78 - Thomas, Dissenting 96 - Alito, Dissenting 103 - END SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015* Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The petitioners, 14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased, filed suits in Federal District Courts in their home States, claiming that respondent state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed in another State given full recognition. Each District Court ruled in petitioners’ favor, but the Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed. Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28. (a) Before turning to the governing principles and precedents, it isappropriate to note the history of the subject now before the Court. Pp. 3–10. (1) The history of marriage as a union between two persons of the opposite sex marks the beginning of these cases. To the respondents, it would demean a timeless institution if marriage were extended to same-sex couples. But the petitioners, far from seeking to devalue marriage, seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities, as illustrated by the pe- - - - *Together with No. 14–562, Tanco et al. v. Haslam, Governor of Tennessee, et al., No. 14–571, DeBoer et al. v. Snyder, Governor of Michigan, et al., and No. 14–574, Bourke et al. v. Beshear, Governor of Kentucky, also on certiorari to the same court. - - - - - [2] titioners’ own experiences. Pp. 3–6. (2) The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. Changes, such as the decline of arranged marriages and the abandonment of the law of coverture, have worked deep transformations in the structure of marriage, affecting aspects of marriage once viewed as essential. These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution. Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations. This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experience with gay and lesbian rights. Well into the 20th century, many States condemned same-sex intimacy as immoral, and homosexuality was treated as an illness. Later in the century, cultural and political developments allowed same-sex couples to lead more open and public lives. Extensive public and private dialogue followed, along with shifts in public attitudes. Questions about the legal treatment of gays and lesbians soonreached the courts, where they could be discussed in the formal discourse of the law. In 2003, this Court overruled its 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186, which upheld a Georgia law thatcriminalized certain homosexual acts, concluding laws making same-sex intimacy a crime “demea[n] the lives of homosexual persons.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 575. In 2012, the federal Defense of Marriage Act was also struck down. United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___. Numerous same-sex marriage cases reaching the federalcourts and state supreme courts have added to the dialogue. Pp. 6– 10. (b) The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. Pp. 10–27. (1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed. Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. For example, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12, invalidated bans on interracial unions, and Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95, held that prisoners could not be denied the right to marry. To be sure, these cases presumed a relationship in- - - - - - [3] volving opposite-sex partners, as did Baker v. Nelson, 409 U. S. 810, a one-line summary decision issued in 1972, holding that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage did not present a substantial federal question. But other, more instructive precedents have expressed broader principles. See, e.g., Lawrence, supra, at 574. In assessing whether the force and rationale of its cases apply to same-sex couples, the Court must respect the basic reasons why the right to marry has been long protected. See, e.g., Eisenstadt, supra, at 453–454. This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. Pp. 10–12. (2) Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply withequal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. See 388 U.S., at 12. Decisions about marriage are among the most intimatethat an individual can make. See Lawrence, supra, at 574. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation. A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right tomarry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, 381 U. S., at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95. Same-sex couples have the same rightas opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy acriminal offense. See Lawrence, supra, at 567. A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___. This does not mean that the right to marry isless meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate. [4] Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle,yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage. 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. Pp. 12–18. (3) The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. This dynamic is reflected in Loving, where the Court invoked both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause; and in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, where the Court invalidated a law barring fathers delinquent on child-support payments from marrying. Indeed, recognizing that new insights and societal understandings can reveal unjustified inequality within fundamental institutions that once passed unnoticed and unchallenged, this Court has invoked equal protection principles to invalidate laws imposing sex-based inequality on marriage, see, e.g., Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455, 460–461, and confirmed the relation between liberty and equality, see, e.g., M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U. S. 102, 120–121. The Court has acknowledged the interlocking nature of these constitutional safeguards in the context of the legal treatment of gays and lesbians. See Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 575. This dynamic also applies to same-sex marriage. The challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and they abridge central precepts of equality.The marriage laws at issue are in essence unequal: Same-sex couples are denied benefits afforded opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial works a grave and continuing harm, serving to disrespect and subordinate gays and lesbians. Pp. 18–22. (4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protec - - - - - [5] tion Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23. (5) There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. Bowers, in effect, upheld state action that denied gays and lesbians a fundamental right. Though it was eventually repudiated, men and women suffered pain and humiliation in the interim, and the effects of these injuries no doubt lingered long after Bowers was overruled. A ruling against same-sex couples would have the same effect and would be unjustified under the Fourteenth Amendment. The petitioners’ stories show the urgency of the issue they present to the Court, which has a duty to address these claims andanswer these questions. Respondents’ argument that allowing same-sex couples to wed will harm marriage as an institution rests on a counterintuitive view of opposite-sex couples’ decisions about marriage and parenthood. Finally, the First Amendment ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths. Pp. 23–27. (c) The Fourteenth Amendment requires States to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed out of State. Since same-sex couples may now exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States, there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character. Pp. 27–28. 772 F. 3d 388, reversed. KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined. nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-26   13:11:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: Liberator (#25) What -- no Bush?? ;-) LOL haven't you been paying attention to Hondo's posts:)? Bush and Clinton are the same. Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2) redleghunter  posted on  2015-06-26   13:18:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: Vicomte13 (#37) Perhaps Christianity lost its way when it institutionalized. It does not seem to serve Christ very well to have sunk all of that money into buildings and lands and vestments and high salaries for priest and preachers. That wasn't how the Apostles lived, or Jesus. They would have taken all that money spent on those things and gained sheep for the flock by feeding the poor. Perhaps that's the problem with the Church, and the churches, all along. They want to be career paths. But they're not intended to be that. I agree. Seemed worship of the 'called out ones' was even done joyfully by a river: Acts 16: 13 And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there. Simple and practical. A river close so they could baptize! Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2) redleghunter  posted on  2015-06-26   13:28:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: nolu chan (#39) They sure did try hard to use "couples" as often as possible...Of course to rule out using this decision to usher in law suits for polygamy. But that is coming soon to a Mormon theatre near some desert state with a lot of Mormons:) Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2) redleghunter  posted on  2015-06-26   13:33:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: Hondo68 (#40) What -- no Bush?? ;-) LOL haven't you been paying attention to Hondo's posts:)? Bush and Clinton are the same. Apologies...meant to ping you. I want to make sure you get the credit. Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2) redleghunter  posted on  2015-06-26   13:38:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: Vicomte13 (#36) Libertator: the buck stops with the Captain of the Ship. If a ship runs aground in the night because the Officer of the Deck read the charts wrong, it's the junior officer's fault, of course, but it's also the Captain's fault for not training the JO, for letting him have the watch when he wasn't prepared. The Captain of the ship cannot escape liability for what his lieutenants do. Vic, there's been a mutiny within the GOP leadership, yet you've failed to acknowledge it OR notice it. The mutiny began during Reagan's last couple of years as his globalist officers began betraying the Party platform, principles and American sovereignty. There are STILL good Republican-Conservatives battling the subversive tidal wave; If NOT for them, we'd already be drowned in a sea of Fascist-Leftism. Give THEM credit for not bailing out on the ship! Do you EVER see Democrat Supreme Court justices are major politicians break ranks on any important issue, ever. EVER? Do they EVER suddenly betray the principles of their party? Ever? Name me an instance where a Democrat Supreme Court justices has suddenly surprised everybody by turning on his or her party? Name me a time, in a vote on anything crucial, where a Democrat ever defaulted? I agree with your observation that the Dem Party is a monolithic subversive fighting force (aided and abetted by a monolithic attack-dog liberal-Left media and academe), but you're still not GETTING THIS. The point is: The Dems are a cohesive, subversive occupying Army; The GOP is divided and conquered, ruled by it's mutinous Vichy Republicans. This has been the case since Reagan surrendered his admin to the treasonous GH Bush and his cabal of "compassionate conservatives," aka FAKE conservatives. ERGO, you have 100% of the Dems + 50% of the GOP. That imbalance in power (and Vichy "leadership" at the helm of the GOP) can NOT be overcome at this point in time -- if ever. You expect people to not hold the REPUBLICAN PARTY accountable for what the leading, powerful Republicans actually DO over and over. You say that we are wrong for maligning the Republican Party for what the Captains of the Ship DO, again and again. Your position is nuts. It's simply nuts. You have affiliated yourself with the Republican Party and given it too much of your heart and soul. Again, I am emphasizing the root cause of GOP fecklessness, betrayal, and reptilian surrender of moral/ethical principles and sovereignty: A LEADERSHIP THAT HAS BEEN HIJACKED SINCE the last 1980s by pro-globalist, One World Order elites. It's that simple. You still have not provided a political alternative that is a Game-Changer. Moreover, I have NOT give my "heart and soul" to the GOP; Not close. I merely recognize that any kernels and sparks that re-ignite the Founders' spirit of justice and intent in *any* numbers can ONLY be found within the corrupt body of the GOP. Do you think we'll find it in the corpse of the Dem Party? Because NO Third Party has emerged to fill the void, what is YOUR solution? B*tching and moaning about the GOP's known whores and tools isn't helping us win any political battles. Most of us have vilified the Republican Party as phonies since Dubya and a GOP-dominated Congress did NOTHING to promote conservative policies. You cannot change the Republican ship, but you can stop sailing on it. You choose not to, pretending that its yours. Fine. Let EVERY Dem win EVERY election. Remove EVERY sentry from the castle wall. Bend over. Great strategy. (Oh wait -- you HAVE no political strategy, do you?) This is a spiritual war, Vic. The God -fearing and their values are under siege. Your boogieman, your devil, your scapegoat is not the Republican Party; It's those who betray the Lord. They who rule the roost as part of the GOP elite are subversive puppets, doing the bidding of special interests and international elites. "Republican" is just a worn costume. Those Catholics who've voted over the years to keep supporting 0-Care, Gay "Marriage," Abortion, Affirmative Action, Special "Rights," etc., have not only betrayed this Republic, but worse -- they've betrayed God. Half of the current six Catholics are a disgrace and betray not only America, but the Lord. It's quite easy to find fleas amongst us, isn't it? Yelling at ME for telling you the truth: Republicans are scum bunks, is willful blindness. Open your eyes, and see, and walk out of there. Reclaim your manhood and your pride. Stop lying down with dogs. Stop defending them. I defend only those Republican who defend the USCON and the tenets and intent of the Founders. Were it not for them, ALL guns would have already been seized -- as well as your home, the rest of your "rights" -- as well as your property. That pesky 1A? Whatever Republicans are left to do battle -- it is THEY who will retain whatever right you have to speak your mind at a forum like this. NOT Democrats. The Captain of the Ship is responsible. The Republican Ship has SHOWN you its colors again and again. You're not going to mutiny and take over. Get off that ship. Get off this ship and then what? DROWN?? Or swim to *your* island? Who will protect and speak for your "rights"? Democrats? Bernie Sanders? Some yet unknown Third Party savior? We have ONE chance to turn back the enemy. That is within a core of Never-Say-Die conservative GOP stalwarts who never give up. Liberator  posted on  2015-06-26   13:39:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: hondo68, Vicomte13 (#38) (Edited) The GOP faithful are more dishonest, that's the only difference. In a vote for supporting the 2A, who ya gonna call? 1) Democrats. 2) Republicans If it's Dems, then you're NOT posting right now; Instead you're writing with a stick in the mud by the barbed wire fencing. IN A FEMA CAMP. Conservatives have only ONE party to join -- that is the GOP (unfortunately.) They haven't been able to replace its reptilian, treasonous leadership since Reagan left. Boehner and McConnell are ostensible Dems. Supported by half the Republican Party. In the meantime, why don't you two chaps establish a viable third party? I'll support you. Liberator  posted on  2015-06-26   13:45:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: redleghunter (#43) (What -- no Bush?? ;-) LOL haven't you been paying attention to Hondo's posts:)? Bush and Clinton are the same.) Apologies...meant to ping you. I want to make sure you get the credit. *Chuckling*...(tho it hurts.) Liberator  posted on  2015-06-26   13:48:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: Liberator (#46) You on the mend? How you doing? Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2) redleghunter  posted on  2015-06-26   14:05:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: Vicomte13 (#26) You should be agreeing with me and we should be walking together. It. Will. Never. Happen. Well, your REPUBLICAN officials are the ones who cast all of the final decisions. It takes a certain perversity to make such a statement. On same-sex marriage bans, Republicans took the lead virtually everywhere in the country, including Congress. It was the Dems (and Anthony Kennedy) who changed that. Typically, you reserve all your scorn only for the GOP. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-06-26   14:26:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: redleghunter (#41) Simple and practical. A river close so they could baptize! A rather routine practice in the early churches. They didn't have a temple or established meeting place which helped them avoid the incitement of pagans to magistrates to persecute them. And "believe and be baptised" was taken very seriously. If they actually believed, there could be no excuse for not being baptized. A quick test to weed out a lot of easy-believerism, particularly among the "god-fearer" faction that had grown up around many Jewish synagogues of the era. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-06-26   14:30:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: redleghunter (#47) Thanks for asking, bro. Mending as fast as the good Lord can sew :-) Liberator  posted on  2015-06-26   14:53:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#48) On same-sex marriage bans, Republicans took the lead virtually everywhere in the country, including Congress. It was the Dems (and Anthony Kennedy) who changed that. Typically, you reserve all your scorn only for the GOP. Concur here with TC in both cases. ONLY conservative Pubbies have been the thorn in the side of the homofascist crusade and roadblock to insanity. Pubbies by and large (even RINOs) have been THE roadblock to scuttling the 2A. Instead of 6 Catholics, imagine were there 6 Protestants on this SCOTUS? Of all the CTs out there, THIS one where not a single Protestant exists among 9 SC justices is conspicuously obvious. I think it's safe to assume NONE of these unconstitutional decisions gutting family values and the Founders' intent, life and liberty would be the life-changers they've become. Liberator  posted on  2015-06-26   15:21:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: redleghunter (#42) (Edited) They sure did try hard to use "couples" as often as possible...Of course to rule out using this decision to usher in law suits for polygamy. It is difficult to see why the federal definition of marriage would not extend to plural marriage. The right of same-sex marriage arises from no historical precedent. Plural marriage has biblical precedent and multinational precedent, including U.S. precedent. Any legal basis for the imposition of a federal definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage would seem to support a claim for plural marriage. Why would denial of same-sex marriage be unconstitutional discrimination, but denial of plural marriage not be unconstitutional discrimination? Does a mixed sex trio not have the same concerns about hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and the right to express their love for one another? One may readily contrast Kennedy with Kennedy. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf United States v Windsor, US Sup Ct 12-307 (26 Jun 2013) Kennedy for the Court Precisely two years ago, in Windsor, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, stated at page 16-17 of the slip opinion: In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclu­sive province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404 (1975). nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-26   15:35:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: nolu chan, ALL (#39) KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. Damn the 14th Amendment to Hell. That's where it was written. Adding insult to injury wasn't quite enough. Kennedy was "joined" by a bunch of angry lebso leftists and anarchists. Here this little weasel was compelled to write the majority opinion? IMO, Kennedy and Roberts flipped a coin for the "honor" of joining GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN. (5) There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. HUH?? What a crock authored by Kennedy. An "enhanced understanding of the issue" is how he characterizes the grave misjudgment of the Constitution and sanction of perversion? Despite We-The-People having spoken through several referenda as well as through the legislative level...our consensus and representation have been wiped out out just the same. By black robed tyrants and a fascist, over-officious fedgub "Grassroots campaigns" participants have been targeted for political-partisan (Dem) assassination, ostracizing, and intimidation. The media and academe have also been guilty in joining the lynchings. Kennedy alludes to "Studies and writings" -- really?? Since when? He and his four other social-satanic anarchists have already spit on and discounted historical cultural precedence, the Bible, will of We The People, and 5,000 years of tradition. Liberator  posted on  2015-06-26   15:43:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #54. To: nolu chan, redleghunter (#52) Any legal basis for the imposition of a federal definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage would seem to support a claim for plural marriage. Why would denial of same-sex marriage be unconstitutional discrimination, but denial of plural marriage not be unconstitutional discrimination? This case opens the door for ANY "right" for ANY "marriage" -- based on the 14A. Welcome "plural" marriages, reduced age-consent marriages, inter-species marriages, and whatever other perverse arrangement can be made. Does a mixed sex trio not have the same concerns about hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and the right to express their love for one another? Now impossible not to extend the same "right" for the entire triad. This SCOTUS decision has delivered the final the death knell for ALL States' Rights. Today the haters of America, Western Civ, and God are celebrating like a bunch of Nero's in Sodom. I had the one solo liberal-left friend of mine left (from childhood) gleefully text me: "TWO days 2 wins! How bout dat SCOTUS!!!" Liberator  posted on  2015-06-26   15:55:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: nolu chan (#52) In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclu­sive province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404 (1975). Gotta love the inconsistencies. Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2) redleghunter  posted on  2015-06-26   16:10:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: redleghunter (#24) I made a table for better readability. > Justice Religion President Year John ROBERTS, CJ Roman Catholic George W. Bush 2005 Antonin SCALIA, J. Roman Catholic Ronald Reagan 1986 Anthony KENNEDY, J. Roman Catholic Ronald Reagan 1988 Clarence THOMAS, J. Roman Catholic George H.W. Bush 1991 Ruth Bader GINSBURG, J. Jewish Bill Clinton 1993 Stephen BREYER, J. Jewish Bill Clinton 1994 Samuel ALITO, J. Roman Catholic George W. Bush 2006 Sonia SOTOMAYOR, J. Roman Catholic Barack Obama 2009 Elena KAGAN, J. Jewish Barack Obama 2010 > nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-26   16:30:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #57. To: redleghunter, *2016 The Likely Suspects* (#43) Bush and Clinton are the same. Except Hillary's more macho, and likes girls. Jeb! will drop out, after he screws up the early primaries real good. Rubio's the one! To lose to Hillary. P. Bush 2024? Hondo68  posted on  2015-06-26   17:26:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #58. To: redleghunter (#0) DISSENTING OPINION OF JOHN ROBERTS (EXCERPTS) Roberts dissent at 3, Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of mar­riage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through theirelected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer. Roberts dissent at 4, Petitioners and their amici base their arguments on the “right to marry” and the imperative of “marriage equality.” There is no serious dispute that, under our precedents, the Constitution protects a right to marry and requires States to apply their marriage laws equally. The real question in these cases is what constitutes “marriage,” or—moreprecisely—who decides what constitutes “marriage”? The majority largely ignores these questions, relegating ages of human experience with marriage to a paragraph or two. Roberts dissent at 9-10: Petitioners first contend that the marriage laws of their States violate the Due Process Clause. The Solicitor Gen­eral of the United States, appearing in support of petition­ers, expressly disowned that position before this Court. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 38–39. The majority nevertheless resolves these cases for petitioners based almost entirely on the Due Process Clause. The majority purports to identify four “principles and traditions” in this Court’s due process precedents that support a fundamental right for same-sex couples to marry. Ante, at 12. In reality, however, the majority’s ap­proach has no basis in principle or tradition, except for the unprincipled tradition of judicial policymaking that char­acterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45. Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s posi­tion indefensible as a matter of constitutional law. Roberts dissent at 10: Petitioners’ “fundamental right” claim falls into themost sensitive category of constitutional adjudication. Petitioners do not contend that their States’ marriage laws violate an enumerated constitutional right, such as the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. There is, after all, no “Companionship and Understand­ing” or “Nobility and Dignity” Clause in the Constitution. See ante, at 3, 14. They argue instead that the laws vio­late a right implied by the Fourteenth Amendment’srequirement that “liberty” may not be deprived without “due process of law.” Roberts dissent at 15: The majority’s driving themes are that marriage isdesirable and petitioners desire it. The opinion describes the “transcendent importance” of marriage and repeatedly insists that petitioners do not seek to “demean,” “devalue,” “denigrate,” or “disrespect” the institution. Ante, at 3, 4, 6, 28. Nobody disputes those points. Indeed, the compelling personal accounts of petitioners and others like them are likely a primary reason why many Americans have changed their minds about whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. As a matter of constitutional law, however, the sincerity of petitioners’ wishes is not relevant. Roberts dissent at 16: In short, the “right to marry” cases stand for the im­portant but limited proposition that particular restrictionson access to marriage as traditionally defined violate due process. These precedents say nothing at all about a right to make a State change its definition of marriage, which is the right petitioners actually seek here. Roberts dissent at 18: In sum, the privacy cases provide no support for the majority’s position, because petitioners do not seek privacy. Quite the opposite, they seek public recognition of their relationships, along with corresponding government benefits. Our cases have consistently refused to allow litigants to convert the shield provided by constitutional liberties into a sword to demand positive entitlements from the State. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U. S. 189, 196 (1989); San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 35–37 (1973); post, at 9–13 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Thus, although the right to privacy recognized by our precedents certainly plays a role in protecting the intimate conduct of same-sex couples, it provides no affirmative right to rede­fine marriage and no basis for striking down the laws at issue here. Roberts dissent at 19: Perhaps recognizing how little support it can derivefrom precedent, the majority goes out of its way to jettison the “careful” approach to implied fundamental rights taken by this Court in Glucksberg. Ante, at 18 (quoting 521 U. S., at 721). It is revealing that the majority’s posi­tion requires it to effectively overrule Glucksberg, the leading modern case setting the bounds of substantive due process. At least this part of the majority opinion has the virtue of candor. Nobody could rightly accuse the majorityof taking a careful approach. Roberts dissent at 19-20: The truth is that today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’sown conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to, and that “it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny themthis right.” Ante, at 19. Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy preferences adopted in Lochner. See 198 U. S., at 61 (“We do not believe in the soundness of the views which uphold thislaw,” which “is an illegal interference with the rights ofindividuals . . . to make contracts regarding labor upon such terms as they may think best”). Roberts dissent at 20-21: One immediate question invited by the majority’s posi­tion is whether States may retain the definition of mar­riage as a union of two people. Cf. Brown v. Buhman, 947 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (Utah 2013), appeal pending, No. 14­4117 (CA10). Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of mar­riage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradi­tion, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex mar­riage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond be­tween three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subor­dinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous rela­tionships? See Bennett, Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution? Newsweek, July 28, 2009 (estimating 500,000 polyamorous families in the United States); Li, Married Lesbian “Throuple” Expecting First Child, N. Y. Post, Apr. 23, 2014; Otter, Three May Not Be a Crowd: The Case for a Constitutional Right to Plural Marriage, 64 Emory L. J.1977 (2015). I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any. When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 2, p. 6. But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either. Roberts dissent at 22: The majority’s understanding of due process lays out a tantalizing vision of the future for Members of this Court: If an unvarying social institution enduring over all of recorded history cannot inhibit judicial policymaking, what can? But this approach is dangerous for the rule of law. The purpose of insisting that implied fundamental rights have roots in the history and tradition of our people is to ensure that when unelected judges strike down dem­ocratically enacted laws, they do so based on something more than their own beliefs. The Court today not only overlooks our country’s entire history and tradition but actively repudiates it, preferring to live only in the heady days of the here and now. Roberts dissent at 25: Nowhere is the majority’s extravagant conception of judicial supremacy more evident than in its description—and dismissal—of the public debate regarding same-sex marriage. Yes, the majority concedes, on one side are thousands of years of human history in every society known to have populated the planet. But on the other side, there has been “extensive litigation,” “many thought­ful District Court decisions,” “countless studies, papers, books, and other popular and scholarly writings,” and “more than 100” amicus briefs in these cases alone. Ante, at 9, 10, 23. What would be the point of allowing the democratic process to go on? It is high time for the Court to decide the meaning of marriage, based on five lawyers’ “better informed understanding” of “a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.” Ante, at 19. The answer is surely there in one of those amicus briefs or studies. Roberts dissent at 25-26: Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role. They after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to govern themselves. They would never have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to unac­countable and unelected judges. And they certainly would not have been satisfied by a system empowering judges to override policy judgments so long as they do so after “a quite extensive discussion.” Ante, at 8. In our democracy,debate about the content of the law is not an exhaustion requirement to be checked off before courts can impose their will. “Surely the Constitution does not put either thelegislative branch or the executive branch in the positionof a television quiz show contestant so that when a given period of time has elapsed and a problem remains unre­solved by them, the federal judiciary may press a buzzer and take its turn at fashioning a solution.” Rehnquist, The Notion of a Living Constitution, 54 Texas L. Rev. 693,700 (1976). As a plurality of this Court explained just lastyear, “It is demeaning to the democratic process to pre­sume that voters are not capable of deciding an issue of this sensitivity on decent and rational grounds.” Roberts dissent at 26-28: When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the re­sults. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate. In addition, they can gear up to raise the issue later, hoping to persuade enough on the winning side to think again. “That is exactly how oursystem of government is supposed to work.” Post, at 2–3 (SCALIA, J., dissenting). But today the Court puts a stop to all that. By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision. There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide. As a thoughtful commentator observed about another issue, “The political process was moving . . . , not swiftly enough for advocates of quick, complete change, but majoritarian institutions were listening and acting. Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.” Ginsburg, Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade, 63 N. C. L. Rev. 375, 385–386 (1985) (footnote omitted). Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth ac­knowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs. Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to creating rights. They have constitutional power only to resolve concrete cases or controversies; they do not have the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties not before the court or to anticipate problems that may arise from the exercise of a new right. Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1. Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommo­dations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses. Roberts dissent concluding at 26-28: 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. I respectfully dissent. nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-26   18:09:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #59. To: nolu chan (#56) Thanks show off:) Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2) redleghunter  posted on  2015-06-26   21:26:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #60. To: nolu chan (#58) The common denominator about the USSC decision is simple to understand: the government owns the institution of marriage and not religious institutions or considerations. The result allows anyone to marry just about anyone along as they are of legal age and pass a blood test which is simple to perform at the state level. The Institution of Marriage is not owned by religious doctrine which (for the most part) specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman in America within the reign of holiness and vowels, particularly within the Christian Church. The outcome shall be to change the definition of religious marriage or marriage within a church to something like --> fucking for God. buckeroo  posted on  2015-06-26   21:50:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: nolu chan (#58) Roberts dissent at 19-20: The truth is that today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’sown conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to, and that “it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny themthis right.” Ante, at 19. Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy preferences adopted in Lochner. See 198 U. S., at 61 (“We do not believe in the soundness of the views which uphold thislaw,” which “is an illegal interference with the rights ofindividuals . . . to make contracts regarding labor upon such terms as they may think best”). Where was his clear reasoning earlier in the week. Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2) redleghunter  posted on  2015-06-26   22:16:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #62. To: redleghunter, All (#24) I cannot argue your approach as GOP presidents DID appoint the left leaning justices. The other question is how long can Catholic bishops keep giving communion to the 6 justices who are Roman Catholic? Ask the Pope. Then again, who is he to judge? Did Pope Francis really tell a divorced woman to take Communion? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-06-26   22:50:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: buckeroo (#60) The common denominator about the USSC decision is simple to understand: the government owns the institution of marriage and not religious institutions or considerations. The result allows anyone to marry just about anyone along as they are of legal age and pass a blood test which is simple to perform at the state level. There has never been a federal marriage license. It has always been a state affair and the claim of federal constitutional authority to dictate a federal definition of marriage is on very shaky grounds. I think they did away with blood tests. nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-27   2:45:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #64. To: nolu chan (#39) "Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex" The 14th amendment limits marriage to "two people"? Where? Seems to me the equal protection clause would allow three people to marry. Or any number. Incestual marriages would be allowed under equal protection, along with child marriges. This decision is going to turn into another Roe v Wade -- never to be settled -- because it should have been decided by the people, not the court. misterwhite  posted on  2015-06-27   9:07:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #65. To: nolu chan (#63) (Edited) The court is saying that a chosen sexual lifestyle entitles an individual to the 14th amendment right of Equal Protection, and every state must comply. I see a major problem developing. Society (the people) can no longer set moral standards. misterwhite  posted on  2015-06-27   9:10:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #66. To: misterwhite (#65) I see a major problem developing. Society (the people) can no longer set moral standards. Developing? 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.â€� CZ82  posted on  2015-06-27   9:15:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #67. To: Liberator, Vicomte13 (#44) "compassionate conservatives," aka FAKE conservatives. Describes most of the Pubbie party. “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.â€� CZ82  posted on  2015-06-27   9:25:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #68. To: redleghunter, Liberator (#9) Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide This turned out pretty much like I envisioned another mess to be cleaned up when "common sense" people are put in charge again. The problem with that is it probably won't happen during my lifetime. History is a repeating cycle good rules for awhile then sooner or later evil takes over again, wash, rinse, repeat. “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.â€� CZ82  posted on  2015-06-27   9:35:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #69. To: redleghunter, Liberator (#13) I give it three months, if that, before the gay lobby finds ways to sue churches who refuse to 'marry' gays. The law suits are coming no matter what people say is 'impossible' because of the 1st Amendment. This court does not care for the letter of the law as we saw this week with Obolocare. They will find a way to make the 14th amendment interpret the 1st. They will do the same with the 2nd amendment too. The 10th amendment was just scrapped with this decision and the obolocare decision. I don't think it will take that long, $5 says there are some out there that have already been filed, even though they had no standing then they do now. “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.â€� CZ82  posted on  2015-06-27   9:40:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #70. To: CZ82, redleghunter (#68) ....when "common sense" people are put in charge again. The problem with that is it probably won't happen during my lifetime. My initial thought exactly. It's over. But not without a brawl. Liberator  posted on  2015-06-27   11:10:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #71. To: CZ82, Vicomte13 (#67) "compassionate conservatives," aka FAKE conservatives. Describes most of the Pubbie party. A good half I'd say. The biggest problem are the Puppetmeisters and so-called "leadership," which are part One-Worlder globalist, part closet Dem, and part statist-fascist. They bully, threaten, and coerce the weak members and control the agenda and direction of the GOP (straight into the handbasket into Hell.) Liberator  posted on  2015-06-27   11:27:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #72. To: Liberator (#70) You mean one of those bar stool swinging brawls? :) “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.â€� CZ82  posted on  2015-06-27   11:35:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (73 - 101) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/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