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

Secret Negotiations! Jill Biden’s Demands for $2B Library, Legal Immunity, and $100M Book Deal to Protect Biden Family Before Joe’s Exit 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 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: 8069 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 (1-55) not displayed.       .       .       . #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   #73. To: Liberator (#70) It's over. But not without a brawl. I was just going to a Christian church to pray for America ... but your post caught my eye. What are Americans going to do? buckeroo  posted on  2015-06-27   11:45:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #74. To: CZ82 (#72) You mean one of those bar stool swinging brawls? :) In my wildest dreams ;-) Liberator  posted on  2015-06-27   11:51:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #75. To: buckeroo, CZ82, redleghunter (#73) (Edited) I was just going to a Christian church to pray for America ... Amen, BUCK!! (But you mean after your ring-around-the-rosie 'round the Ol' Oak Tree?) What are Americans going to do? 1/3 will celebrate the demise of America, 1/3 will passively await for orders to receive the Mark of the Beast and FEMA Camp number, and the other 1/3 will pray before tossing around barstools and breaking bottles. Liberator  posted on  2015-06-27   11:59:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #76. To: Liberator (#71) A good half I'd say. I have no doubt that if the "good half' stood tall and said no to "the faux conservative agenda" their voting constituency would reward them. It would also bring more of what the "faux conservatives" are doing out into the light for other voters to peruse, and hopefully they would take it out on them at the ballot box. I've never believed in the 3rd party rhetoric!! “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   12:01:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #77. To: Liberator (#74) Last time I was in one of those was when I was 17 and was at the Garage Nightclub in New Carlisle, Ohio. Place has long since closed but that was one ass wild night. It all started because of some sore ass losers at the pool tables didn't want to pay up their side bets after the pool tournament was over with. Needless to say that was the last time we ever got invited to attend one of their tournaments. Even though we didn't start the brawl we still walked out with all the money!! :) “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   12:15:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #78. To: CZ82 (#76) (Edited) I have no doubt that if the "good half' stood tall and said no to "the faux conservative agenda" their voting constituency would reward them. It would also bring more of what the "faux conservatives" are doing out into the light for other voters to peruse, and hopefully they would take it out on them at the ballot box. I've never believed in the 3rd party rhetoric!! The ballot box -- a huge part of our problem has been the cliched "Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils." This has been the case since Reagan left. THESE are the Pubbies who've taken over the Party, ruined the brand, the party, and the core platform. Given all that, the GOP still does control most of the state house legislatures and governorships. People must still believe in their core principles (unfortunately long since abandoned by most reps.) Doesn't seem to translate into more conservative policies and agenda though, does it? Unlike the Dems (who seem to maintain a unified focus and monolithic goal) the GOP spans too much of the political spectrum and is too diluted to focus on a common goal. It itself has been divided & conquers as a party. THIS is our primary problem. Ergo, our wishes for true representation (through no fault of our own) has been short-circuited. Our agenda, a conservative agenda has fallen in the hands of a subversive, corrupt faux Republican leadership. They are painfully and obviously puppets controlled by external anti-America overlords.... UNTIL these puppetmeister-overlords are exposed, I can't see the GOP turning things around on its own soon -- do you? And no, we don't have enough time or energy to establish a viable Third Party. If this were a game of chess, we've been Check-Mated. Liberator  posted on  2015-06-27   12:34:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #79. To: CZ82 (#77) Last time I was in one of those was when I was 17 and was at the Garage Nightclub in New Carlisle, Ohio. Place has long since closed but that was one ass wild night.... Lol...HEY! Who's ID did you use, kid??!? Musta been a Friday night, full moon, everybody was just paid. It all started because of some sore ass losers at the pool tables didn't want to pay up their side bets after the pool tournament was over with. Needless to say that was the last time we ever got invited to attend one of their tournaments. Even though we didn't start the brawl we still walked out with all the money!! :) NOT gonna pay after losing? Doesn't usually end well. Good times ;-) Aaaah -- the wild, the innocent, and the E Street shuffle (Springsteen album reference.) Cops wind up arriving? Did you go back the next week? Liberator  posted on  2015-06-27   12:41:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #80. To: Liberator (#75) (But you mean after your ring-around-the-rosie 'round the Ol' Oak Tree?) yeah ... somethin' like that. buckeroo  posted on  2015-06-27   18:33:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #81. To: Liberator (#79) Lol...HEY! Who's ID did you use, kid??!? Musta been a Friday night, full moon, everybody was just paid. Cops wind up arriving? Did you go back the next week? I was in there with my Dad he used to own his own bar and all of the bar/club owners seemed to know each other back then. So as long as I only drank water/pop it was alright, I went in there many times over the years. Also a lot of the bars sponsored a pool tournament periodically to give the guys something to do during the winter months and also fodder for bragging rights as the best pool shot. Needless to say after that night it got curtailed quite a bit cause it started to attract an out of town rougher than normal crowd. (Always some asshole gotta spoil the fun). :( Heck the places I go to now allow kids in to eat and play video games all the time, no big deal. The one I go to the most has a police station about 100yds down the street, so needless to say it's a safe place for families. And the cops leave you alone no hiding on the outskirts of town waiting to catch you DUI. They share a kitchen with a carry out pizza place so the food is really good, may not be DDD quality food (Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives) but good nevertheless. “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   19:04:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #82. To: Liberator (#78) I can't see the GOP turning things around on its own soon -- do you? Not voluntarily. “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  2015-06-28   9:37:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #83. To: Liberator (#78) People must still believe in their core principles (unfortunately long since abandoned by most reps.) Doesn't seem to translate into more conservative policies and agenda though, does it? Just don't have the right people in the right places, we have faux conservatives in the wrong places. “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  2015-06-28   9:39:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #84. To: CZ82, Chuck_Wagon (#81) I was in there with my Dad he used to own his own bar and all of the bar/club owners seemed to know each other back then. So as long as I only drank water/pop it was alright, I went in there many times over the years. Also a lot of the bars sponsored a pool tournament periodically to give the guys something to do during the winter months and also fodder for bragging rights as the best pool shot. Needless to say after that night it got curtailed quite a bit cause it started to attract an out of town rougher than normal crowd. (Always some asshole gotta spoil the fun). :( Kinda cool. Only you and Pop sharing that? Good memories, eh? Yeah, eventually the outta towners swoop in, the stakes get dangerous high, and it's no longer "recreation"; It's about "manhood" (for the insecure.) Fun: RUINED. Like pool. The places I go to now allow kids in to eat and play video games all the time, no big deal. The one I go to the most has a police station about 100yds down the street, so needless to say it's a safe place for families. And the cops leave you alone no hiding on the outskirts of town waiting to catch you DUI. They share a kitchen with a carry out pizza place so the food is really good, may not be DDD quality food (Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives) but good nevertheless. Small-town, normal USA. Decent food, regular crowd. Glad they still exist. Now IF you do find a DDD to hang out at (and it's in Jersey) let me and Chuck know. ALL these great places seem to be a thousand miles away from us :-( Btw -- Knew of a couple in Indiana who spent their entire 2-week vacation visiting DDDs (they had THE BOOK and MAPS!) Liberator  posted on  2015-06-28   17:14:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #85. To: CZ82 (#82) Nope, the odds of the GOP pulling a Lazarus is slim and none. Even IF the right people do what has to be done. The GOP brand died with Reagan. The day Poppy Bush announced his BS "Compassionate Conservativism" meme was THE day you knew he was shoveling the dirt on the Gipper's grave, and the "Republican Party" getting sabotaged. The day Poppy announced his "New World Order" meme was the day you knew America's funeral was already planned. Liberator  posted on  2015-06-28   17:20:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #86. To: CZ82, redleghunter (#83) Just don't have the right people in the right places, we have faux conservatives in the wrong places. HA! Succinctly put. (Why can't the GOP have a plan like the Houston Astros?? Given up for dead...A laughing stock. NOW look at 'em. Trying to crush Texas, the Angels and the rest of the West. Hardly recognize 'em (as the Yanks were lucky just to split.) Liberator  posted on  2015-06-28   17:22:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #87. To: Liberator (#86) Why can't the GOP have a plan like the Houston Astros?? You mean like the Texas Rangers? It seems that there is only room for one good team in Texas at a time. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-06-28   17:26:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #88. To: misterwhite (#64) Syllabus of Obergefell v Hodges. 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.] 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. The Court did not say the 14th Amendment limits marriage to "two people." In saying a license had to be issued to two people of the same sex, it said nothing of three or more people. At my #52, I opined that, 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? After reviewing the dissenting opinions, I saw that Chief Justice Roberts expressed a similar concern. Roberts at 20: 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). nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-29   2:12:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #89. To: nolu chan (#88) "It is difficult to see why the federal definition of marriage would not extend to plural marriage." Or incestual marriage. Now that the federal government is defining marriage, what will be the nationwide age of consent? In Alabama, it's 14 (with parental consent). misterwhite  posted on  2015-06-29   8:24:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #90. To: nolu chan (#88) Activist courts have used the 14th amendment to apply constitutionally protected rights (eg., free speech in the first amendmnent) to the states. In this decision, are they saying the right to gay marriage was also found in the 14th amendment? misterwhite  posted on  2015-06-29   10:13:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #91. To: Liberator, Chuck_Wagon (#84) Small-town, normal USA. Decent food, regular crowd. Glad they still exist. Now IF you do find a DDD to hang out at (and it's in Jersey) let me and Chuck know. ALL these great places seem to be a thousand miles away from us :-( Here check this out... http://www.flavortownusa.com/states/ “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  2015-06-29   13:39:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #92. To: Liberator (#84) It's about "manhood" (for the insecure.) Fun: RUINED. Yea some of the side bets were up around $100 and this was 40 years ago.. “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  2015-06-29   13:41:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #93. To: misterwhite (#89) In Alabama, it's 14 (with parental consent). California: 18, no minimum with approval of a superior court judge and parental consent. New Hampshire: 18, 14 for males and 13 for females, in cases of "special cause" with parental consent and court permission. nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-29   17:33:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #94. To: misterwhite (#90) In this decision, are they saying the right to gay marriage was also found in the 14th amendment? They said the right of same-sex couples is "fundamental" ... according to their "reasoned judgment." That can apply to anything that is found in the enlightened "reasoned judgment" of five of nine. I posted the full text of Scalia's dissent here on another thread. nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-29   17:41:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #95. To: CZ82 (#91) (Edited) Small-town, normal USA. Decent food, regular crowd. Palace Diner in Berlin, NJ - just off of (1/4 mile) route 73 - where the Berlin Circle USED to be. It's the biggest intersection in Berlin - look at mapquest. It's owned by a family of Greek folks. They serve mostly Italian food. The reason I mention it is the chicken parmesan. Best I've ever had. Mmmmm... Now I have not tried the chicken parm at every restaurant in the Philadelphia area - but there is no need to. Understand? It's really good. But it depends on who's doing the cooking. Some times it's better than others. www.thepalacediner.net EDIT: Also I've heard that their deserts are astounding. I'm a diabetic so I have not tried them, but they sure look darn good. (Especially the cheesecake.) Chuck_Wagon  posted on  2015-06-29   18:49:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #96. To: Liberator, Chuck_Wagon (#84) As many as there are they could take a 2 year (or longer) road trip to hit all of the ones listed on that website link I gave you. But hey if they have the time and the money and it's what they love to do then why the heck not. When I was in Pisa, Italy in the winter of 1980 me and my friends stopped into a little joint right off the main plaza where the Leaning Tower was. We ran into this couple (with 2 kids) from Australia, they were taking 1 year to do an around the world tour. There weren't that many people in there that night and when they heard us speaking English they introduced themselves pulled up a chair and made themselves right at home. We spent the next 4 hours talking to them about where all we lived and places we had visited and of course drinking copious amount of beer, you know the Auzzies. “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  2015-06-30   6:54:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (97 - 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