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


1 posted on 10/18/2012 9:09:29 AM PDT by massmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: massmike

oh the Bible is unconstitutional?

I thought our country was formulated on Judeo-Christian principles and the the Bill of Rights and Constitution were inspired by God. Let me rethink that. Yep. That is still what I think is true.


38 posted on 10/18/2012 9:36:35 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: massmike

Another abuse of the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment. Who are these jackass judges?


40 posted on 10/18/2012 9:37:00 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: massmike

These activist judges need to be recalled.


43 posted on 10/18/2012 9:38:23 AM PDT by Vision ("Did I not say to you that if you would believe, you would see the glory of God?" John 11:40)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: massmike

Another chance to take a roll call of the liberal SCOTUS justices coming up!


48 posted on 10/18/2012 9:42:57 AM PDT by Rebelbase (The most transparent administration ever is clear as mud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.


55 posted on 10/18/2012 9:49:39 AM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (campaigning for local conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: massmike
If the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause applies to an individual's 'right' to marry irregardless of sex, then the IRS tax code should apply to the individual's tax rate irregardless of income.

Also, the Lilly Ledbetter act and the Civil Rights Act are also unconstitutional.

56 posted on 10/18/2012 9:50:16 AM PDT by HapaxLegamenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: massmike

good news...let’s get this part of the campaign before we have the minority on this issue.


58 posted on 10/18/2012 9:51:02 AM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: massmike

What they really meant was it violates their extrapolation of equal protection into special protection for special categories.

Court: More Equal


62 posted on 10/18/2012 9:53:55 AM PDT by unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: massmike

The dumb-ass “court” is WRONG. All persons are treated the SAME under that law (DOMA). Every person has the right to be single, OR to marry any person of the opposite sex he or she can talk into it. There is no simply no discrimination. Period. Obviously, the “judges” could never program a computer.


70 posted on 10/18/2012 10:01:09 AM PDT by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: massmike
"[W]e conclude that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional,"

Again, the NRA and GOA should take this conclusion and sue for "equal protection" to conceal carry nation-wide, and invalidate any state-level gun laws as unconstitutional.

73 posted on 10/18/2012 10:04:27 AM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: massmike

Marriage has always, through human history, been defined as a union of a man and a woman. How would this violate the Constitution?


74 posted on 10/18/2012 10:06:37 AM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: massmike
It does NOT violate equal protection. Homosexuals can marry the opposite sex just like everyone else. If the judge does not like this then why can't a sister marry her brother? Or why doesn't the equal protection clause violate the rights of bigamists? What if a nine year old girl wants to marry a 40 year old man? It never ends.
79 posted on 10/18/2012 10:18:41 AM PDT by Flavious_Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: massmike
violates equal protection

So now are they free to marry ten people? Or a pack of dogs? What are the parameters of 'equal protection' to those numbskulls?

86 posted on 10/18/2012 10:37:19 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: massmike

OMGoodness! The courts have been infiltrated by constitutional domestic terrorists! Someone tell Jan the Man, quick. It time to pull down the judges’ pants and to stick pervert agent hands in their wounds as they enter and exit the building!


88 posted on 10/18/2012 10:45:27 AM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: massmike

HUH, how on this earth can they find marriage between one man and one woman unconstitional?

If ever we needed a constitutional amendment it was 10 years ago when all these mentally sick folks started to push their twisted agenda.

Also when is this crap ever going to stop, shall we also state that brother and sister, two men and a woman etc is also unconstitutional


91 posted on 10/18/2012 11:02:05 AM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: massmike

Impeach the judges.


92 posted on 10/18/2012 11:05:20 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: massmike

Romney and Ryan will say gay marriage is settled law and time to let it go and move on.


93 posted on 10/18/2012 11:11:19 AM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature not nurture TM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: massmike

You know, my 5-year-old granddaughter can’t get a driver’s license. Something about age, driver’s ed training, and ability to operate the controls. Clearly this is a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution. ACLU, I’ll be waiting for your phone call.


94 posted on 10/18/2012 11:14:07 AM PDT by william clark (Ecclesiastes 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: massmike
We have some breaking news out of New York: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled on Windsor v. the United States, a case challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, and found a federal definition of marriage as one man and one woman violates the U.S. Constitution.

Notice that one and one is in there. If you can't limit it to one man and one woman, you can't limit it to one couple, either. And it would be speciest to say it is limited to human beings, so that is out.

You want to shake this debate up? Go down to City Hall right now and apply to marry your girlfriend, her girlfriend, and their two dogs.

If they give you any trouble, point to this ruling and DEMAND YOUR RIGHTS!!!

95 posted on 10/18/2012 11:14:28 AM PDT by ArGee (Reality - what a concept.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: massmike

So why are age of consent laws constitutional? If we can’t discriminate by gender, why can we discriminate by age? We’ll have to abolish the drinking, driving and voting ages as well. We’ll also have to overturn all laws about women going topless, since it’s gender discrimination that men can walk around shirtless but women can’t. So that’s one good thing that could come of this.


98 posted on 10/18/2012 11:18:25 AM PDT by JediJones (ROMNEY/RYAN: TURNAROUND ARTISTS ***** OBAMA/BIDEN: BULL $HIT ARTISTS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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