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

Skip to comments.

ANTONIN SCALIA: 'When Did It Become Unconstitutional To Exclude Homosexual Couples From Marriage?'
Business Insider ^ | 03/26/2013 | Brett LoGiurato

Posted on 03/26/2013 2:41:44 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-109 next last
To: Conserev1
Marriage will then only be a term for the religious that belive in the true form of Marriage and not tied in any way to the Federal Government!

They can start with the tax forms. No more Married Filing Jointly/Separately categories.

-PJ

61 posted on 03/26/2013 4:51:16 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jimmygrace

You think rights only exist at the federal level? Can a state ban firearms? Not practice equality under the law? Do an unreasonable search and seizure?


62 posted on 03/26/2013 4:56:51 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Hell, when did it become socially required to accept homosexuality as normal?

They don’t want to be merely accepted, they demand to be embraced and promoted. They want our children to be punished if they look at this lifestyle with the critical eye of skepticism.


63 posted on 03/26/2013 5:01:42 PM PDT by Bshaw (A nefarious deceit is upon us all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
>> We need 8 Scalia’s on the Court. <<

I'll take 3 Scalia's, 3 Alito's, and 3 Clarance Thomas'... gotta have some "diversity" on the court, after all.

>> (and one token liberal for comic relief.) He/she (maybe both, we could have a "transgendered" person) can serve as court stenographer.

64 posted on 03/26/2013 5:15:13 PM PDT by BillyBoy ( Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jaz.357
>> Ted Olson? OUR Ted Olson ? BKO/WTF? <<

He hasn't been "our" Ted Olson for a while, especially since he married "Lady Booth", he's gone to the dark side. Olson should just change his party affiliation to RAT and make it official.

65 posted on 03/26/2013 5:17:16 PM PDT by BillyBoy ( Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

He’s a lawyer. Gay marriage means big $$$ for lawyers.


66 posted on 03/26/2013 5:19:52 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

Olson’s response was idiotic.


67 posted on 03/26/2013 5:21:37 PM PDT by Gene Eric (The Palin Doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conserev1

No Religion will be able to refuse the infusion of LGBT into the Church of any religion

I can see Islam would disagree, and probably refuse
in a way that can’t be dismissed.

The only reason they are pushing this is cause Christianity
will not fight back. Wait til they try it with Mohammed.


68 posted on 03/26/2013 5:33:37 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
>> He’s a lawyer. Gay marriage means big $$$ for lawyers. <<

If that's the reason, we wouldn't have any legal team on our side arguing forcefully for traditional marriage.

69 posted on 03/26/2013 5:37:45 PM PDT by BillyBoy ( Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

Not all lawyers are blinded by money, but the majority are.


70 posted on 03/26/2013 6:07:32 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

Guess its back to one of those glass being half full or half empty conundrums. Regardless of how Cal voters swing in 2014, I say its a win for the Constitution for SCOTUS to say “its up to the voters”.


71 posted on 03/26/2013 6:41:30 PM PDT by X-spurt (Republic of Texas, Come and Take It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy

Don’t see how your clearly false claim is germane to this discussion.


72 posted on 03/26/2013 6:43:58 PM PDT by X-spurt (Republic of Texas, Come and Take It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

How can he be on the right side if he cannot recognize that the Constitution had a moral foundation that reflected basic Christian morality, which even Unitarians overall seems to have professed (then), and thus homosexual marriage as well as marriage btwn man and animals or trees is not recognized as marriage.


73 posted on 03/26/2013 7:14:21 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy
IM sick!

RIP BKO.

74 posted on 03/26/2013 7:21:57 PM PDT by jaz.357 (Contrary To Ordinary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: pallis

I’ve been reading this argument all day, that gays can marry anyone they want of the opposite sex. That argument is being used as a threat by some in the gay community: If we don’t get same sex marriage, we will marry your daughters.

It would be used as a way to hurt the young daughters, their traditional families, and society. It’s the same sort of evil of some AIDS patients purposely having sex with partners for the sole purpose of spreading the disease and hurting more people.


75 posted on 03/26/2013 7:26:05 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: 100American

They do not draw up contracts in any form.

Most animals will also mate again if possible despite the former’s death. Plus, mostly it’s birds who do this, not mammals like us. Men tend to want to spread their genes, not stick to 1. Marriage was created in the advanced human civilized wisdom that it’s better for the children involved that the men stick around.


76 posted on 03/26/2013 7:30:10 PM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue./Technological progress cannot be legislated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
Some official in Massachusetts or some black robe that Obama threw on the Supreme Court doesn’t get to define marriage.

But at one time they understood God did: General Laws:

CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES

TITLE I.

CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

CHAPTER 272.

CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER

Section 36: Blasphemy

Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously [without respect; in a disdainful manner] reproaching God, His creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

Section 38: Disturbance of assembly for worship

Whoever wilfully interrupts or disturbs an assembly of people met for worship of God shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars.

Section 14: Adultery

A married person who has sexual intercourse with a person not his spouse or an unmarried person who has sexual intercourse with a married person shall be guilty of adultery and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.

Section 15: Polygamy

Whoever, having a former husband or wife living, marries another person or continues to cohabit with a second husband or wife in the commonwealth shall be guilty of polygamy, and be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in jail for not more than two and one half years or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars; but this section shall not apply to a person whose husband or wife has continually remained beyond sea, or has voluntarily withdrawn from the other and remained absent, for seven consecutive years, the party marrying again not knowing the other to be living within that time, nor to a person who has been legally divorced from the bonds of matrimony.

PART IV.

Section 17: Incestuous marriage or sexual activities

Persons within degrees of consanguinity [related by blood] within which marriages are prohibited or declared by law to be incestuous and void, who intermarry or have sexual intercourse with each other, or who engage in sexual activities with each other, including but not limited to, oral or anal intercourse, fellatio, cunnilingus, or other penetration of a part of a person's body, or insertion of an object into the genital or anal opening of another person's body, or the manual manipulation of the genitalia of another person's body, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years.

Section 18: Fornication

Section 18. Whoever commits fornication shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three months or by a fine of not more than thirty dollars.

Section 34: Crime against nature

Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years.

Section 35: Unnatural and lascivious acts

Whoever commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or in jail or the house of correction for not more than two and one half years.

Section 16: Open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior A man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars.

77 posted on 03/26/2013 7:32:14 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
I’ve been reading this argument all day, that gays can marry anyone they want of the opposite sex.

Just allowing people to marry "anyone they want of the opposite sex" has led to a great deal of unhappiness and chaos. There must be a better system and it's about time we began looking for one. Too many times I've heard older folks correctly predict that certain marriages would lead to nothing but trouble and misery for everyone involved.

People who decide upon marriage should be required to get the approval of interested older people before taking an important leap like marriage.

78 posted on 03/26/2013 7:36:51 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

Unfortunately. sometimes when younger people “fall in love” the only thing that will get them to fall out of ‘love’ is marriage. I tend to think of it as being in heat but they think it’s love and no force on earth is strong enough to separate them, except a marriage license.


79 posted on 03/26/2013 7:45:49 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
Unfortunately. sometimes when younger people “fall in love” the only thing that will get them to fall out of ‘love’ is marriage. I tend to think of it as being in heat but they think it’s love and no force on earth is strong enough to separate them, except a marriage license.

Of course, you're right. There should probably be no sex for at least a year after marriage to make sure that the parties really know what they're getting into. That might also prevent a lot of single, divorced parents. After a year of abstinence, they'll be less likely to get divorced shortly after having children.

80 posted on 03/26/2013 7:49:32 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-109 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