Posted on 07/08/2010 2:09:02 PM PDT by Pyro7480
Is there any information about a stay issued to block implementation until appeal?
Conservatives who agree with the decision, and anyone else, might want to consider the federal government’s campaign against polygamy in the late 1800s. At least one state, I believe, was forced to outlaw the practice in its constitution before entering the union (Idaho, I believe.) Was/is that also impermissible?
Marriage was instituted by God as a union between one man and one woman. That will never change despite how corrupt our society becomes.
States started to give marriage licenses in order to regulate the lives of free black people.
Then white people saw how the state was managing blacks’ lives and said “Please run my life too!”.
It really is such a good thing that the state is involved in licensing our activities, isn’t it? If it didn’t we wouldn’t fight so bitterly to get the force of government on our side.
It doesn’t matter if ten ornithologists pledge their love to each other and call themselves a gaggle of geese. They are still ridiculous and a perversion. But maybe now, the state will be compelled to waste your tax money on recognizing their gaggle.
The culture warriors should be fighting to get the government out of our lives. The state has no authority to control with whom we marry or form a gaggle.
The homosexual marriage people should be confronted just like every other sinner in need of Christ. And when they refuse, they should be treated like anyone else living a perverse freakshow of a life.
There are three reasons that I can fathom why a homosexual would want to “marry”. First, the homosexual really believes it is marriage and he’s somehow being left out. That homosexual is delusional. Secondly, they homosexual might want to get in on his “share” of the welfare state. The solution is to abolish the welfare state. Third, the homosexual hates normal people, hates God, and hates various other things on which civilization depends. These homosexuals are cultural saboteurs that just want to destroy. You should work to remove the government as a possible tool for them to destroy civilization?
In America, you are not supposed to have to fear that you’ll be hauled away for telling someone in public that homosexuality is a sin.
Shrink government and keep it limited to its constitutional bounds. Abolish the welfare state. Abolish state marriage licenses. In fact, abolishing state laws regarding marriage and divorce would go a long way to cutting down on divorce these days. Women claiming to be Christian, yet filing for divorce because they are bored has had a much more negative effect on birth rates, marriage, and the culture than two lost homosexuals living in a freakshow lifestyle.
But it looks like everyone is in the process of building up government in hopes that government’s force won’t be directed towards them and will just punish the “bad people”.
Not necessarily. The Constitution trumps Federal law.
The Tenth Amendment states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
If the Constitution does not delegate to the Federal Government the power to regulate marriage, such powers are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".
This Judge is ruling on the basis of "States' Rights".
In effect, the Judge is saying that it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to tell Massachusetts that gay marriage in prohibited in Massachusetts.
On the other hand, the ruling also means that it would be unconstitutional to force any other State to recognize a Massachusetts gay marriage.
It is an interesting ruling that is more conservative than liberal as it rolls back the power of the Federal Government and affirms the right of any State to PROHIBIT as well as PERMIT gay marriage.
“The Constitution grants no power to define marriage, nor to regulate who may be married.”
EXACTLY RIGHT. The only reason the feds are involved is because they’ve lost all limitations on their power. The intent of the Constitution clearly was to prevent any Federal interference in the lives, liberty or property of individual citizens, except in extreme cases such as Treason or cases where they are DIRECTLY involved in interstate commerce or employed by the Federal Government.
The States were intended to be the seat of power for setting societal norms. America is now a Socialist Commonwealth, and headed for tyrannical banana republic status.
Calif citizens passed a “marriage is straight” proposition law and so now a homosexual judge is tasked to decide if it is Constitutional or if he personally likes it, either of those two criteria being how Supreme Court and down judges make their rulings. The latter particularly.
For sure we need Der Furher’s new woman as the 2nd of the Supreme Court judges. After all, the stodgy old Supreme Court needs new, fresh thinking and seeing as she has little or no idea of the difference between the Constitution and “taking a constitutional”, plus her belief that the Courts should do whatever the Exec/Legis want, and that rule by “Cuz I sez so.” is valid.
Plus “international law” should trump the U.S. Constitution (i.e. whatever law is in Cuba, China, Russia, Sudan, North Korea, the Gaza Strip, etc).
Marriage now: man & woman
Marriage soon: man&woman, man&man, woman&woman
Marriage coming: above plus transgender&all above, man&boys, woman&girls, man&sheep, woman&dog or snake, etc, and of course man&multiple wives, woman&multiple husbands.
Anything less would be discriminatory and of course un-Constitutional (as if there was a Senator or Congressman who would know the Constitution if it bit him/her/it on the *ss.)
” A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled....”
All one needed to read.
so the judge says states rights and yet the same state where this judge is did not let the voters vote on the same issue and instead it was forced on the people of MA.
typical liberal NAZI tactics, force their agenda onto others and then try and reason it with a so called law or rights.
exactly
if it is not constitutional then we can add any kind of marriage infact I hope these people who want 4 wives, a dog and a sheep move to MA and push for their marriage.
so for any polygamists out there trolling , move to MA and get your marriage into the courts and lets see how the perverts then back you up and lets see the GOP say we do not need an fed constitutional amendment
Actually,that was part of their original platform.That....and the removal of all age of consent laws!
The 1972 Gay Rights Platform
Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.
Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.
http://www.article8.org/docs/general/platform.htm
really, I never knew that, thanks mike.
IO say move there and push for their agenda as it seems that it is the only way some will wake up that marriage is between one man and one woman,
yes the loons can pretend they are married, they can think of themselves normal and nothing wrong with their mental ability or thought but the fact is that they are not married and what tye do sexually to each other is not natural, it is all about sexually getting off in their perverted way
you have to click the button to see the site because some perverts have said it is objectionable.
These gaystapo people and the lunatic fringe of the left are true NAZI’s , WOW
-you have to click the button to see the site because some perverts have said it is objectionable.-
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09c/google_block/Mr_blog_block.html
Google posts warning notice on MassResistance blog after transgender rights reports are published!
Claims it’s “objectionable”. (Wait till you see it!)
July 7, 2009
Is 1984 getting closer? Just a week after our website was attacked, now this.
Starting on Tuesday, if you went to the MassResistance blog (see specific links below) you will probably be greeted instead by a big screen warning: “Some readers have contacted Google because they believe this site is objectionable.” It gives you the opportunity to continue or not continue going into the site. (Note: After the first time it may not show up until you reboot your computer, etc.)
______________________________________________________
The funny thing is,another poster told me that there’s NO block or warning like that on NAMBLA’s blog site!(I took his word for it....I had NO desire to look at that site myself!)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.