That has already been done.
bigot (b
g
t)
n. A white person. Particularly a white person with Christian values, or who believes in smaller government.
Posted on 06/27/2013 9:41:58 AM PDT by Perseverando
The news is reporting the U.S. Supreme Court has found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.
But that is not true.
That is not what happened at the U.S. Supreme Court at all.
In fact, there was no real effort at making a constitutional case against a duly enacted piece of legislation, passed overwhelmingly by the House and Senate with strong bipartisan support and signed by a Democratic Party president, Bill Clinton.
What actually happened at the Supreme Court was that five justices decided – and wrote in their opinion – that anyone who opposes same-sex marriage does so for no other reason than bigotry against homosexuals.
Do you think I’m exaggerating?
Read the words of the majority as written by Anthony Kennedy: “What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.”
Notice what he is explicitly saying here: It’s because the purpose of this law was to demean people that it is unconstitutional.
Now is that correct?
Was that the purpose of DOMA?
If so, why did it have overwhelming support in the 1990s? Why does it still have broad support today, according to every poll, and why has nearly every state proposition on preserving marriage as an institution between one man and one woman been approved by the people?
Why on earth did Bill Clinton sign it – a law he now repudiates?
Why did Barack Obama oppose same-sex marriage just 18 months ago?
I could say this decision represents
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
When I'm not reading, I'll be cleaning my weapons.
“What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.”Notice what he is explicitly saying here: It’s because the purpose of this law was to demean people that it is unconstitutional.
See related thread Justice Anthony Kennedy's contempt:
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has contempt for a swath of his fellow citizens. If you disagree with him about gay marriage, indeed, if you merely think the federal government should continue to define marriage the traditional way while the states define it however they want, then you are a bigot. Your views deserve no political representation. They should be ground underfoot by the five mightiest and most broadminded people in the land, presiding from their temple of rationality and tolerance at the United States Supreme Court....
If the leftists can redefine “marriage” then why not redefine “bigot?”
A good read for those who’s motto to this point has been ‘live and let live’.
Kind of like calling a fee a tax.
This is why we’re in much deeper trouble from this ruling than we’re going to fully grasp for awhile. Scalia’s dissent made it clear.
This ruling is about more than gay marriage.
That has already been done.
bigot (bgt)
n. A white person. Particularly a white person with Christian values, or who believes in smaller government.
“demean”
It is now illegal to “demean” somebody because of their behavior.
Next up: Murderers who have been “Demeaned” by the law should be set free.
WHY NOT?
Exactly. This is the tip of the iceberg. I am convinced that the VRA decision is pretty much a throw away. It really isn’t going to change a whole lot. The “millions of illegal votes” thing is, well, crap. It’s really just to make you think you won something.
What HAS changed the landscape radically is the DOMA decision. There is now a huge limit placed on who can sue the Gov’t ... State or Federal. Furthermore ... Full Faith & Credit will be coming to a SCOTUS near you. Count on it.
As an aside, next on the agenda is polygamy. Since we are no longer permitted to comment on who someone loves or marries why are we allowed to limit the NUMBER of people they love or marry? I give it 5 years max.
Would that it were true!
Every time they issue a ruling I keep picturing the Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland.
It’s time we define terms and not always accept the left’s twisted version.
Reading that decision was like reading a NY Times OpEd
FReepmail me or Perdogg to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
If the Supreme Court wanted to strike down the DOMA, the correct Constitutional ruling would have been to reference Amendement X to the Constitution: “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.”
The Supreme Court ruling in this case should have been: “The Constitution does not give Congress, the federal judiciary, or the President, the power to regulate marriage. It is not an enumerated power. The right to regulate marriage is the province of the States and the people per the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.”
Polyamy is already “legal”. It’s practiced all the time in America. From secularists to Muslims it’s being practiced. Our elites are sexual animals. The level of prostitution and perversion in DC, state capitals and among elected officials is mind boggling. They’d legalize everything if they could.
It’s a kakocracy and has been since before most of us were born.
yep.
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.