Skip to comments.Social Security starts accepting same-sex marriage claims
Posted on 07/12/2013 1:16:40 PM PDT by jazusamo
click here to read article
Of course, which is why I posted this is all being done by design.
Crash the system, destroy it, and rebuild your own model. That's exactly what Obama's trying to do. He's being damn' successful at it too.
no but you think it’s alright for any kind of marriage and as for unconstitutional to be found then I;m sure you are happy but where does it state you have a right to marry ?
Also in your world you would want anarchy right?
WHy mess with an institution which has been going for thousands of years unless you want to ruin it, oh wait rule 26 of the communist rules back in 1963, yes for those who want this sham of a marriage then all they are doing is the bidding of the radical communists like Ayers and others from the 60’s.
Also Govt has been in marriage since the founding fathers, it were judges sometimes who married others, yes one am and one woman, and don’t tell me that the founding fathers supported this feces sex and a sham either.
And some wonder why liberaltarians are called more radical than most liberals and then they got all upset when pointed out they are socialists with out taxes
As for CA, a constitutional amendment was done , same as NC and other states and yet activist judges like the homosexual one in CA said it was unconstitutional
got my wife out of MA years ago because of their socialist crap and still they move down south to make the south look like the socialist cess pits they had made up north.
and the trouble is that those from up north move to places like FL and then expect to have their communist crap agenda pushed into FL, I;ts high time those fools and yes in Jacksonville who I have told to piss off back up north then if they don’t like the laws here to understand that their socialist cess pit of a state up north is very different to the south and especially NE FL like Jacksonville
again another liberal who moves south and then brings their liberal, communist agenda to the south and then comes up with crap like why is it not unconstitutional while ignoring where doe sit state marriage is a right.
I wish these people would piss off and leave us alone or keep their sex life quiet.
All they want to do is push their agenda onto us and destroy anything which made America great.
Most liberaltarians are more tot he left than most liberals I have met and known and yet these liberaltarains think of themselves as on the right due to them never wanting to pay taxes but they can’t get it into their heads that thye are more the left of liberals minus taxes because they hate paying their way , pure anarchy is what they want
I was one of those northern liberals (many years ago now though).
Am I welcome? :p God bless the South. Amazing people.
my wife is the same and I lived up north with her and she proudly states she is a MA refugee and wen people ask her why she moved is it the weather , she states no it’s because of the corruption, the liberal agenda and how she wanted to raise her kids away from liberalism
I want to marry one of your beautiful Southern belles and raise a family here. God willing. :)
Fell it love with it the first time I came down in ‘05.
LOL good luck, it’s nice to be here
Just wait until these crazies start acknowledging marriage to donkeys and sheep, and then we can pay survivors’ benefits to donkeys and sheep....just great!!!
I am aware that gov’t, at all levels, does not follow the Constitution.
My understanding of the Constitution might be flawed, but at best, it only lays out a few things the Fed. gov’t is allowed to do; the individual Citizen being whom holds Rights.
I’m so tired of the (L) = anarchy routine. Put it on the shelf w/ Roberts and the NSA black-mail, its tired and wore out. Never was it used nor brought up.
I’m all for not messing w/ the institution of marriage. Gov’t should have NO say/part; it’s a religious matter. Nor does gov’t have any say/part in the contract between other Citizens (civil unions).
I care not that gov’t has been in the process since the founding. They also owned slaves, had State sanctioned churches, etc. Most, if not all, original laws were quite racial in their start (to keep the races apart)
Socialist w/out taxes? Ah, to re-enable one the consequences of ones own actions; why, that’s positively ‘socialist’; why if gov’t were not there to tell them what/where to do.... /s
what utter rubbish , again where in the constitution does it state that homosexuals can marry and what rights did they now have?.
If the funding fathers thought that men were going to marry men based on their feces fecal sex then they would have put a stop to it and give it a rest with your communist slogans or words of “well we had slavery “ when talking about homosexuals
They can marry the opposite sex just as I can, I can’t marry the same sex in my state FL and where you have moved to .
Govt has been involved since the founding of this country and who decides who gets the kids, who can get married when they have different religions, how about no religion, judges have been marrying since the pilgrims so your left wing line of “ Govt should not be involved” is a cop out
what you want is anarchy to suit your life, to suit your pals and then never pay any taxes.
How do you like living here now you moved south? Does the laws here go with your views or are you looking like so many who move here to change our laws?
============================================================My understanding of the Constitution might be flawed, but at best, it only lays out a few things the Fed. govt is allowed to do; the individual Citizen being whom holds Rights.
yes to marry homosexuals is not one of them is it?
You problem is that now homosexuals are recognized off the Govt then they are now in the military, sharing showers, rooms, sleeping bags with normal men, I’m sure if you have served you’d understand that right and if we had no laws then we’d be getting what you want.
rule 26, communist rules of 1963 look it up because you are preaching communist crap and certainly no conservative, hell you are more liberal than most liberals I know from around the country as they don’t even want this sham
Why? The Constitution does not grant Rights; but A1S10C1 does state a non-imparting of contracts.
I concur some religions state marriage as ‘man and wife’. There IS a 1st A. Right to practice ones’ religion; some of those being NON-Christian. It is your Reynolds vs. U.S. that shows gov’t, again, NOT following the Constitution; their whole argument against bigamy (IE: human sacrifice) being a straw-man (the sacrifice being denied Life, Liberty...).
Marriage tourism? Sorry, I’m not following what *I* have allowed in your last statement. As for any Fed. gov’t control, unless it’s in A1S8, there is NO authority granted.
Being on this board, I thought you’d at least understand the Constitution does not grant Rights. Are you one whom is ‘owed’ SS/Medicare as well? Either the Constitution means what it says, or it is worthless.
It appears, too, you missed the point I’m not discussing MARRIAGE, but civil unions/contracts. If one group of people shall have any preference/benefits, ALL persons should be afforded the same.
I never brought up, nor do I support anarchy. I enjoy the Laws and way of life here in Fl; otherwise, I would not still be here. I do think, though, it still has a WAYS to go before being an independent State from the grasp of the Federal leviathan.
“Marriage tourism? Sorry, Im not following what *I* have allowed in your last statement”
Where people come all over the world to get American citizenship + their gay marriage.
See, what you don’t get is your policies have very real-world negative consequences.
Though marriage is not a Right per se, it is also not something the gov’t is free to interject upon.
Aside from the 15th Amendment (voting being one of those non-Rights), could you not concur that the Voting Rights Act is NOT Constitutional?
The parallels are the same. Unfortunately, as to marriage, the gov’t has granted some benefits/privileges to one group and not to all.
Now, as your problems w/ men (of all colors, orientation, creed) in the military: if ANYONE harasses another, based on more or more of the above, they should be tossed in the clink or kicked out. But to think while in a foxhole, the guy next to another is gay is going to be a ‘problem’ I think you’re in need of a rectal-cranium inversion procedure.
I already know most of the planks of Communism are alive and well here in the U.S. It was many a year of Dem control, and their GOP cohorts, that allowed our Republic to become the Banana Republic it currently seems to be. It is, by far, not my reading of the Constitution that has allowed it to become so; the word are easily read and the powers given limited and few.
If people wish to immigrate to the U.S., legally, I’m all for it....bring the best and brightest that we can find.
That people would wait in line for YEARS to enjoy the Liberty and Freedom of our Republic is astounding.
But to think they’d wait that long just to ‘civil union’ (again, marriage is wholly a religious matter, even more removed from the gov’t prying eye)? So what? IF we were following the Constitution, there would be no ‘bennies/privledges’ to worry about bestowing that current straight married couples are ‘allowed’.
Instead of noting the basics of this issue are the extra-Constitutional Laws/programs/etc. that our Fed/States now practice, you and rest are worried about what’s growing out in left field (IE: eyes not on the plate). Aside from other matter related to unions/marriage (namely children), civil unions would constitute NO harm upon you or your Rights in any way, matter nor form.
I’m saying, what you get are folks from all over the world who come to get your gay marriage and then leave. Gay marriage is actually, and has been shown in Canada to appeal more to folks from abroad than actual canadian citizens.
Betcha you didn’t know that. The same thing will happen to the US and has already started (thanks 0!)
WTF are you on abut so now the constitution does not give us any rights.
\The reason why the founding fathers gave us the constitution was to give us rights, you know like 2nd amendment, 4th amendment, freeing slaves etc.
It was to give us rights away from Govt and again you have ignored twice now the reason why homosexuals push their agenda,
again rule 26 communist rules from 1963, and again I asked you before where does it state in the constitution to have a right for homosexuals to marry.?
As for staying in JAX and this state, then are you for the constitutional amendment we passed for marriage in this state or do you think homosexuals should marry?
simply yes or no would suffice.
have you ever served?
your view that men would be punished is pure B/S and either you are naïve about what the homosexual agenda is about or you are clearly supporting it by ignoring what is going on around you.
Also again I say this to you, do you think really, honestly think that the founding fathers would have wanted to see two men marrying or two women marrying, getting kids, telling other kids in the schools and on TV that their homosexual ways are good and then pretend to be married?
You clearly think homosexuals should marry and then that means all people should marry, polygamy OK with you, what about incest, hey why stop there, why not have no sex age law when it comes to consenting adults or do you stop there and why if so?
\Also we have rights, from the constitution, freedom of religion, it is the job of the homosexuals to destroy that and if you have forgot about that or you are naïve about that or just don’t care.
Freedom of religion , freedom of speech clearly lets millions to say to homosexuals no we do not approve but because some dopes support the homosexuals agenda then we are here now seeing constitutional rights being taken away
I am not sure we want an honest answer to that last one. yuck
gay marriage is gov interjection
exactly, it must be bliss to think the homosexuals agenda is alright and the usual bumper sticker is “well Govt should not be in this”
The bigger picture is not marriage, that is a step towards destroying the first amendment and to ignore that only has helped to destroy this country even more but then again we know this, the communists back in the day knew this, Putin knows this as he used it as a weapon and the homosexuals know damn well too.
Sadly liberaltarains seem stuck on stupid when it comes to this and can’t understand they are more to the left than most Dems
EXACTLY, EXACTLY, EXACTLY.
This is not all about marriage, this is about an agenda to destroy the country, the family, the first amendment and those claiming about who cares about them or no Govt is truly ignorant and has been living in their own selfish world.
Liberaltarians will never understand that they are more left than most liberals and just want anarchy because they want their own little selfish world where they can’t pay taxes and want to do anything they want and have sex with what ever
As I age, it becomes more and more appealing to me to live with another woman, claim her as my ‘bride’, but still have my Good Thing going ‘on the side’ with my man.
I mean, seriously! We are living in Upside Down World! The fraud and abuse this will bring, AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE, is just mind-boggling!
So, I’m gonna git me some of my tax dollars back one way or another! *SNORT*
I hear you on the upside down world. Even with the continuing progression by many with the lack of moral character it's still unbelievable to me.
Prob. up there w/ the trips across for the medical care too; nickel knowledge, but something learned is always good.
And that would infringe upon my/your Rights in what way? I’m not even talking about ‘marriage’ per se (which is still a religious matter, always has and will mean one man, one women, in Christian (other) circles).
I say great, bring in the tourism $$, enjoy our great Country, its food, its locals, its peoples....its Freedom. How does a civil union, or marriage (between man/woman) effect their home Countries’ Laws?
I believe you best re-read those documents more carefully.
A/Our CREATOR, regardless if you believe in one, granted We the People inalienable Rights. Gov’t grants privileges/license (IE: might want to see what’s a top the form you filled in if/when you requested the hand of your spouse. Then go look up the definition of LICENSE before asking me where there is a Right to ‘marriage’). The Constitution merely laid out what the gov’t CAN do (A1S8 mostly) and those areas it was specifically forbidden (1st, 2nd, 3rd Amendments). Rights belong to Free individuals.
- I am NOT for ‘gay marriage’. Marriage is a religious institution; outside of gov’t purview.
- I am for removing gov’t FROM marriage *see above*
- I am for removing gov’t from social engineering (tax code, SS, Medicare, etc.)
- Gays/etc. should be able to contract (civil union); gov’t has the obligation to enforce said contracts. Said contract infringed NONE of your/my Rights.
As to your last question, and as I owe nothing to you I will answer as I damn well please, I DID voted for the Fl. Amendment. All one would need to do is READ my posts to note my standing already.
Again, the GOP is on page 100 of the instruction manual, skipping 1-99. Shrink gov’t back to its Constitutional basis; this ‘problem’ then disappears (and I mean the topic of the thread....taxpayer $$)
No, I have never served. I thought about but could not get past the idea of subverting my own identity to (maybe, blindly) following orders. But, in my job, I work with many (prob. 90% here) retired from all the branches.
‘Men would be punished’?? I may have missed where I said anything of the sort; if you can point it out again...As to there being an agenda; sure, I recognize there is one in some areas of their community. As much as the blacks have theirs, we here have our own, etc. Not saying that makes them all exclusive of one another either...just that we ALL have agendas, and not all in the same camp think the same.
I care not what the Founders ‘wanted’. What I DO care about is the verbiage/ideals in the Constitution; as it is a contract of governance SETTLED upon (even they could not come to 100% agreement amongst themselves) by some of the greatest minds of all time. Which person would you presume I point to for introspection? The Federalist? The slave owner? The adulterer? They all, as Men, have their problems...
As to your final, I believe you should READ my posting instead of spouting your conjecture upon my thought process. I am always up for a tussled debate, but I have posted my last ‘here’s my beliefs/why’ just prior to continue beating a dead horse.
Actually, many libertarians took the position the fedgov had no constitutional authority to sanction, subsidize or reward marriage. That would also mean all you big government welfare queens wouldn't get any special favors at the expense of single people, either.
I’m sorry but I had no clue who you are and had to go back to who you were and what the hell you’re on about.
I’ll just keep it short unless you ever want to meet up in JAX seeing as I;m down the road and I’ll discuss this with you anytime.
Govt has been in marriage since the founding fathers, so get used to it and stop with your liberal social crap
you never served, OK, so you have no frigging idea then how it works.
As for you not caring what the fathers wanted and you thinking we don’t get our rights based form the constitution, like oh 2nd amendment, yes it goes ot court and we have that, freedom of religion, speech, and for you keep harping about slavery , well it’s no different than debating or arguing with a full blown far left liberal as that is what they always say.
oh and as for Govt in marriage, well it make comes as shock but they have been involved for hundreds of years in this country, people who are not religious get married or do you say that they should not marry because they’re not religious and how about those with different religions?
Your bumper sticker slogans of no Govt sounds great but in the real world not real.
notice how liberals today say marriage is just religious but then ask them about how about non religious people , do they deny those getting married and yet think homosexuals should marry?
Their liberal communist agenda seeps through all the time but they try and hide it through their “we don’t want Govt but then ask them about should 12 years old girls marry, have sex with older men if they consent then I never get an answer but once and that disgusting piece of perverted crap said yes , thankfully he got banned for being a pervert and not understanding this is a conservative site not a communist site
I’ll wrap it all up into one last post:
- There’s no convincing you regardless of debate
- There is no bother to actually read what I had posted prior, nor counter-argue on the same.
Would be a chuckle to meet up somewhere/time local...some TEA Party/Fair-Tax rally, who knows....wish ya well regardless.
D.D., out....of this thread.
don;t know who you are, could not even remember talking to you and had to go way back to see what you were on about.\\\\\
vica versa on what you said and as for see you, great me a note as I go into JAX every week.
And how’s that workin’ out for you now that the Obama administration has decided that two legs are good, but four legs are bad?
Again - they are wrong. The federal government has the power to regulate spousal visas. Not the states. By granting spousal visas - which I warned Obama would do the instant DOMA got shut down, Obama could attack every state’s laws.
Yet, I haven’t heard a peep from the same ‘liberaltarians’ who were opposed to DOMA apparently aren’t opposed to gay spousal visas. Odd that. It’s almost like they support giving the shaft to social conservatives if it advances social liberalism.
Exactly. Hue and cry when conservativism stands up for itself. Complete and utter silence when liberalism marches on.
I'm not asking Uncle Sugar for any favors, so it's a non-event for me, but thanks for asking!
Again - they are wrong. The federal government has the power to regulate spousal visas. Not the states.
You can cite the specific part of Article 1, Section 8 that gives fedgov the power to sanction, regulate and grant favors upon the institution of marriage, right? I'm guessing that would be no, since it's not there
By granting spousal visas - which I warned Obama would do the instant DOMA got shut down, Obama could attack every states laws.
Again, where in Article 1 Section 8 does he have the power to sanction or regulate the institution of marriage? If he did, people would be filing for divorce in federal court. How many divorces get outside the county level?
let me ask you a couple of questions out of curiosity .
Do you support homosexual marriage, polygamy and other kind of marriage?
Are you saying no Govt in marriage and if so then are you aware judges the Govt used to marry the pilgrims and founding fathers and others going all the way today?
If Govt is out then should they also scrap laws for sex age, incest and animals?
I ask because every time I ask this I never get an answer so maybe you could answer that
And I know you Cafeteria Constitutionalists like to pick and choose the parts of the constitution you choose to believe in instead of all of it (kinda like the liberals. You guys should go bowling sometime. You have more in common than you think). But show me where in Article 1, Section 8 where the federal government is given the power to regulate marriage. Until you can find it, go have a drink, calm down, and argue this from the state level because you have nothing to stand on otherwise.
there is your problem , you can’t address what I asked.
Who decides in a divorce, the pastor has no law to make one take the kids, or the house, shall we have anarchy on marriage because in a liberal communist view anything goes get Govt out of it?
Do you support homosexual marriage, do you support getting rid of laws for sex age limits?
You can always pick and announce parts of what you like but I ma asking you for YOUR VIEWS of which you seem to unable to answer.
Should we get rid of drug laws too?
Could we have drug stores next to schools, shall we let a woman marry her dog?
What about two non religious people who cannot find a religious pastor, shall they not be married , would you deny them that so called right?
Right now you keep saying the same thing to the other poster and sounding like a broken record.
I don't know how many times I have to lay out my view on drugs, but what the hell. I want to see Walmart and Target competing to deliver the highest quality meth for the lowest price. And if the local government wants to put a drug store next to a school, good for them. Unless I have a kid going to that school, what right do I have to say boo about it?
Your problem seems to be that you can't live unless someone in that fever swamp on the Potomac is taking your money and telling you what to do. The rest of us prefer to be treated like grown ups.
so you want anarchy but you can’t grasp that and if it were up to you ten you would have no problem getting rid of incest, sex age laws and other sick twisted perverted crap
As for you guys, then sort it out and as for bug Govt ten I suggest you check out rule 26 under the communist rules because all you are doing it shouting for communism, not that you can understand that nor could you even admit that , much like anarchy
ping to 96, seems a liberal got confused what this site is about and is advocating, drugs, drug stores next to schools and homosexual, polygamy etc
So insisting the federal government live within article 1, section 8 is anarchy to you. Here is another word for you today that you are also unfamiliar with: Dictionary. Go look up anarchy before you embarrass yourself further. Your ignorance makes it’s own gravy.