Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

It's not about couples and love. The marriage ruling is all about you.
http://www.jsonline.com ^ | Aug. 5, 2010 | Patrick McIlheran

Posted on 08/05/2010 5:41:02 PM PDT by Maelstorm

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last
Very good points. Those who claim this is about the 14 amendment are idiots. The constitution has never forbade classification in relationship to the law. If so a person deprived of a drivers license could make an argument under the 14th amendment or if someone is denied a tax cut for buying an "environmentally friendly vehicle"/Green vehicle. The left needs to be careful because they are going to find the precedent this would set very distasteful if it holds up in the Supreme Court which I don't believe it will.
1 posted on 08/05/2010 5:41:08 PM PDT by Maelstorm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

regardless ...I am not ready to explain this to my grandson.


2 posted on 08/05/2010 5:42:57 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalebert

How about: “Government has become a laughingstock” doesn’t just happen in fairy tales, my lad.


3 posted on 08/05/2010 5:46:46 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Traditional marriage proponents need to start referring to it by its full title: “holy matrimony.”
That would put a quick end to any claim by homosexual couples.


4 posted on 08/05/2010 5:48:13 PM PDT by counterpunch (Heckuva job, Barry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

What it is about is the end of “the consent of the governed.”


5 posted on 08/05/2010 5:48:13 PM PDT by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Exactly why must the government get into the business of promoting relationships of any kind? How about eliminating the differences in the tax code and other areas of law between married and single folk? All this goes away in an instant the moment the government gets its nose out of this area of life where they have no business (just like about 4 million other areas of our lives that they have no proper authoity to be involved in).


6 posted on 08/05/2010 5:48:40 PM PDT by Teacher317 (remember dismember November)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

When it comes to any law, terms such as ‘love’, ‘happiness’, etc, have no relevance. This is simply a matter of defining standards of contracts and measure (in this case, standardized meanings of terms and definitions on the contract).


7 posted on 08/05/2010 6:04:07 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317

I personally believe the tax code should be simplified. I don’t believe in rewarding someone or hurting someone with the tax code however that is irrespective of whether it is constitutional for the govt to license marriage as originally defined and not generic unions and call them marriage.
The judges ruling is crap and while I support less of a role of govt in my life govt supporting marriage as it has always been and rationally defined is not high on my list of oppression. What I do see as oppressive is those who would intimidate and deprive me of liberty because of my very valid and reasoned opinions concerning one form of “sexual” behavior.


8 posted on 08/05/2010 6:04:22 PM PDT by Maelstorm (This country was not founded with the battle cry "give me liberty or give me a govt check!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317; Maelstorm
Exactly why must the government get into the business of promoting relationships of any kind?

Several Constitutional arguments can be made around being authorized to define standards and measure (in this case a uniform definition of terms) and in regulating naturalization (as citizenship is tied to directly to birthright, parentage, and marriage.)

9 posted on 08/05/2010 6:07:03 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

The US needs to reexamine the role of the Fed in family life. I suspect the ‘tax perks’ for the traditional family has run its course.


10 posted on 08/05/2010 6:15:32 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

How come nobody makes the argument that we want to encourage traditional marriage, as a society.

1. There is a cost to marriage. Ask any guy. There has to be rewards to compensate.
2. We (used to, anyway) want as a society to limit the number of unclaimed children underfoot. Having a stable family structure was a big help here.
3. Despite all the fake studies to the contrary, children need both a mother and a father. Only the willfully blind think that other arrangements are just as good.
So society decided to give special privileges to man and wife marriage. Sorry, other types of marriage do not help us.


11 posted on 08/05/2010 6:24:44 PM PDT by AdSimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

If I were granted Carte Blanche over the way we do taxes on the federal level here’s what I’d do:

An individual* income tax set to a universal fixed and uniform rate of 10% [for ease of calculation] with no exceptions, exemptions, credits, or write-offs which would be charged/billed semi-annually {NO WITHHOLDING}.
{*Individual because that would necessarily keep churches, which are not individuals from being taxed; pastors, however, are individuals. It would also keep corporations from being taxed on their profit/incomes/”capital gains” allowing them to R&D... which they will have to employ [more] INDIVIDUALS for.}


12 posted on 08/05/2010 6:25:10 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dalebert

The public school will make sure that your young grandson will understand that two men can have sex in preschool and K. Now they have the law behind them to start the brainwashing and indoctrination with Sesame Street and with full force now. The Day of Silence was indoctrination also and their sex education classes that the homosexual “safe” school czar will sexualize those in Kindergarten—start them to think about what they could be doing with their you know what.

It is the sickest thing in the world, what these selfish homosexuals are trying to do to children’s thinking. The radicals are doing it on purpose, so when these little kids grow up they will approve of that lifestyle. They will also dabble in it because it is learned and they will be conditioned.

It will make religion obsolete (paganism and orgies acceptable....there will be no sexual morality—how could there be).

Communism wants a Brave New World with no parental controls over children....they want the natural family to be obsolete because biological relationships create loyalty and groups that could be strong enough to oppose the State.

It is the NWO to abolish revealed religions. Very Sad...because the Christian paradigm creates the most egalitarian societies where EVERYONE has worth, esp. women, who never have equality when marriage is not protected by state. With polygamy (which is next) women are always marginalized and second class citizens.


13 posted on 08/05/2010 6:25:31 PM PDT by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

I think all tax perks and penalties should be eliminated. Now this doesn’t mean I think we should raise taxes. I think we should start at a 15% flat tax across board and shrink the govt to match it. However the constitutionality of preserving marriage licensing in the context of normal heterosexual “monogamous” relationships is not unconstitutional nor has it ever been nor would anyone who created the constitution or participated in the passage of the amendments have assumed any such thing. If they had dreamed this kind of mess would be possible they would have written the supremacy of heterosexual marriage into the constitution as an obvious fact.


14 posted on 08/05/2010 6:28:44 PM PDT by Maelstorm (This country was not founded with the battle cry "give me liberty or give me a govt check!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AdSimp

Good point and marriage should be encouraged and the govt is completely constitutional in encouraging it. The problem we face today is that fringe sexuality has been given equal ground with heterosexual monogamy which is stupid and irrational but that is the world we live in. There is also no good reason to reward homosexuality.


15 posted on 08/05/2010 6:36:22 PM PDT by Maelstorm (This country was not founded with the battle cry "give me liberty or give me a govt check!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

bullshit!!

No one can ever make me accept queers in any way under any circumstances!


16 posted on 08/05/2010 6:42:51 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

the future looks bleak indeed..


17 posted on 08/05/2010 6:46:13 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

5700+ years of Jewish and Christian civilization define marriage for me. Gays are supremely arrogant to defy this. Judaism was a rebellion against paganism which included the sexually bizarre including sanctioning homosexuality. Gays are just a pimple on the ass of our civilization and its history


18 posted on 08/05/2010 6:49:07 PM PDT by dennisw (2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch

You nailed it.


19 posted on 08/05/2010 6:49:44 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Mexico is the U.S. version of Hamas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Biology defines it for me. Homosexuality is illogical and unreasoned. Most of those who are homosexual have either been abused or have some form of sexual retardation or maladjustment. It is not something to be encouraged.


20 posted on 08/05/2010 6:51:30 PM PDT by Maelstorm (This country was not founded with the battle cry "give me liberty or give me a govt check!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson