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

Skip to comments.

Itís Over: Gay Marriage Canít Lose in the Court: A perfect record for equality post-Windsor.
Slate ^ | February 14, 2014 | David S. Cohen and Dahlia Lithwick

Posted on 02/14/2014 10:59:55 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

“We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn't that what marriage is? ... I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry. Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the ‘wrong kind of person’ for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. ... I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.” — Mildred Loving, "Loving for All"

Last night, only days after hearing oral arguments in the case, a Virginia federal judge struck down the state ban on same-sex marriage, writing unequivocally that “[t]radition is revered in the Commonwealth, and often rightly so. However, tradition alone cannot justify denying same-sex couples the right to marry any more than it could justify Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage.” The judge opened her opinion with the quote, above, from Mildred Loving, the plaintiff in the 1967 challenge to Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage. She thus joined a unanimous and ever-expanding collection of federal judges who have chosen to answer the question left up in the air by the Supreme Court last Spring....

(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; gaystapo; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; judicialactivism; judiciary; lavendermafia; lesbianism; samesexmarriage; scotus; sodomandgomorrah; ssm; supremecourt

1 posted on 02/14/2014 10:59:56 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

There’s nothing gay about homosexualism. These poor tortured souls are the unhappiest people on earth.


2 posted on 02/14/2014 11:03:34 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Judge Kennedy destroyed this country. May he die of some bone marrow disease.

In other news, Uganda absolutely rejected sodomy today, when the president reversed course and assented to the law preventing homosexual predation of children.


3 posted on 02/14/2014 11:06:16 PM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Which is why they are so nasty and hateful. They can’t bear to truly think about what they are doing, so they need to fill up their time and minds with hate-filled screeching against anyone who dares to disagree with them.


4 posted on 02/14/2014 11:10:39 PM PST by Wyrd biū ful arśd (Pope Calvin the 1st, defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn't that what marriage is?

Nope - marriage is the union of husband and wife.

The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Language and the meaning of words is not prejudice or fear - it is reality. The fact a man cannot be a wife and a woman cannot be a husband is reality.

5 posted on 02/14/2014 11:15:11 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Is there any doubt what will be needed is divine intervention?

Doesn’t have to be destruction or something like that.

I am putting all my faith in God to make it right, not man.

Definitely not man.


6 posted on 02/14/2014 11:15:42 PM PST by Berlin_Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; xzins

I think the answer to this is for Bible believing Christian Pastors to refuse to act as government agents in signing off on marriage licenses. We need to refer to all government issued marriage licenses as Civil Unions and pastors should simply conduct matrimonial ceremonies without certifying the union for the State.

If the couple wishes to later or earlier go to the courthouse and “make it legal” they can but that would be a secular ceremony.

The perverts have perverted the meaning of “marriage” so we need to distance ourselves from the term and Christians should not expect their pastors to conduct any official ceremony recognized by the State in their churches.

If two Christians wish to be joined in “Holy Matrimony” there is no requirement that it be recognized by the State, especially where that state also recognizes same sex unions as “marriage”. They can be joined before God without the assent of the State and if they want the benefits of the State’s recognition of their relationship, they can do it at the courthouse.

If pastors are acting as agents of the state in marriage ceremonies, then they are risking lawsuits by refusing to do those ceremonies for homosexuals and other perverts. Better not to sign the marriage license than lose a huge lawsuit for following the tenets of your faith.


7 posted on 02/14/2014 11:18:40 PM PST by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Last night, only days after hearing oral arguments in the case, a Virginia federal judge struck down the state ban on same-sex marriage, writing unequivocally that “[t]radition is revered in the Commonwealth, and often rightly so. However, tradition alone cannot justify denying same-sex couples the right to marry any more than it could justify Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage.”

Interracial marriage does not contradict the definition of marriage. You can get the union of husband and wife regardless of race. Whereas two men or two women cannot join together as husband and wife. It's language - not just "tradition." This ruling is embarrassing. A judge - someone highly educated and credentialed, sitting as a judge in U.S. Federal Court - doesn't have even the most basic sense.

8 posted on 02/14/2014 11:19:29 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.”

This young person doesn’t. Loving something/someone doesn’t make you actions with/toward someone/something moral or right. Certainly doesn’t make it sane. The heart is deceitful above all else. People love animals, children, objects...having inappropriate relationships with something/someone doesn’t mean that love will make the aberrance lessen or disappear. Necrophiliacs love dead bodies. Murderers love to murder. Sadists love to torture. Rapists love to rape. A person’s “love” of something will never excuse a crime.


9 posted on 02/14/2014 11:26:16 PM PST by Politicalkiddo (Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crused it. -M. Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
From here, a short walk to legalized polygamy and bestiality. Lawrence v. Texas (2003) did inestimable damage to the Social Order. Justice Kennedy, IIRC, stated something to the effect that "Liberty" demanded that people be left alone in their bedrooms in smacking down the Texas Sodomy Statute. The notion of "Substantive Due Process" - long viewed in the Supreme Court with disfavor, emerged triumphant.

Of course, he totally ignored the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which could have formed a rational basis for the decision, since the Texas statute did not outlaw sodomy between male and female, but only between people of the same sex. On the same day, a decision came down on an affirmative action case that, IMO, effectively rendered the Equal Protection Clause nugatory. Read Scalia's dissent in the Lawrence case - it is chillingly prescient.



America demands Justice for the Fallen of Benghazi!

O stranger, tell the Lacedaemonians that we lie here, obedient to their command.

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)

10 posted on 02/14/2014 11:40:21 PM PST by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines RVN 1969 - St. Mlicha<center> <table backel the Archangel defend us in Battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

They may appear happy and smiling on the outside, but are the some of the most hate filled and angry people I have ever met.


11 posted on 02/14/2014 11:42:53 PM PST by matt04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ConorMacNessa

I don’t think they want polygamy ... too “favorable” to rich men, not “fair” enough for the wives and way too many babies and large families.


12 posted on 02/14/2014 11:43:20 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2M for Sarah Palin's next run, what will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If you can’t get gay “marriage” approved by voters its obviously not over.


13 posted on 02/14/2014 11:46:34 PM PST by RginTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RginTN

The judiciary and executive now overrule voters.


14 posted on 02/14/2014 11:47:36 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2M for Sarah Palin's next run, what will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Just want to point out the cake people. They just did cakes. That is my only concern. If the state closed a church, pulled tax status or who knows what. Other than that I want the rest to know this is where Libertarians have been for a long time. I think a good way to put it is..
“If two Christians wish to be joined in “Holy Matrimony” there is no requirement that it be recognized by the State,”
and
“If the couple wishes to later or earlier go to the courthouse and “make it legal” they can but that would be a secular ceremony.”

And before anyone craps on the original poster I am the one that used “that” word.


15 posted on 02/14/2014 11:53:32 PM PST by enduserindy (A painted trash can is still a trash can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Yes but it shows that gay “marriage” isn’t as approved of as the gay activists promote.


16 posted on 02/14/2014 11:57:26 PM PST by RginTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RginTN

It doesn’t matter. When the elites tell you to do something, you do it. Chop-chop!


17 posted on 02/15/2014 12:01:44 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2M for Sarah Palin's next run, what will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RginTN

In 2012, the voters started giving up and giving in to the courts.


18 posted on 02/15/2014 12:09:05 AM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Human laws that go against nature seldom turn out well. See my tag line.


19 posted on 02/15/2014 12:22:14 AM PST by fella ("As it was before Noah so shall it be again,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat

“and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.”

Well, if your father loves his daughter, so they can marry?? Now you know how sick these effing liberal bastards are.


20 posted on 02/15/2014 1:47:14 AM PST by max americana (fired liberals in our company last election, and I laughed while they cried (true story))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

It’s an ugly, yet still complex, situation.

Ask most homosexuals and they’ll frankly tell you, faux-marriage is a buzz kill.

This isn’t even wild-grass roots. This is a group of sad weak sheeple being led by a few pied piper loud mouths.

It’s these loud mouths that strike me as approaching “Sodom grade.” I note the startling observation in that account that “all the men of the town” gathered for the proposed rape of the angel. Now sometimes my “sanctified imagination” can go wild so please don’t take this as anything authoritative, but I have to wonder if they had managed to make a city law making such group rapes de rigueur. This is only a rape of the social honor of marriage, so it is much weaker than it could get. It’s God’s warning to us about where self-love will go when the love of the Lord isn’t welcomed.


21 posted on 02/15/2014 2:02:16 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar for you if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Exactly. And my belief is their anger is based on the deep and undeniable knowledge they aren’t normal. As such, if they’re going to remain miserable, so must everyone around them.

Soon these psychos are going to demand Christian churches recognize their sham “marriages.”


22 posted on 02/15/2014 2:14:08 AM PST by ScottinVA (Obama is so far in over his head, even his ears are beneath the water level.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

I’m not sure all of them even CARE about “being not normal.”

It’s gone beyond that in many cases. Now it’s whee, what sort of fun can we have punking society?

This said, we can’t validly lump everyone who commits this sin into a single category. Some may still be very dismayed at themselves, but find scant if any help around them. All they see is a society busy going to hell too. This is a golden opportunity for the church if it only realized it and could rise above calling the entire homosexual world nothing but pests. As far as Christ is concerned, sinner = potential saint. It is an acceptance of salvation away. It’s also something that Satan emphatically doesn’t want to happen and any Christians approaching the scene can expect opposition on every hand, even from ignorant Christians. This would be to carry redemption to some of what Satan had intended to be his biggest prizes.

To defy the devil is something Christians don’t have a lot of practice at today. To be outspoken and to let the world hate them and to prosper anyhow through a series of miraculous divine helps. Christ calls it bearing a cross. And the function of the cross is to suffer for the sake of bringing redemptive goodness to others.


23 posted on 02/15/2014 2:53:12 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar for you if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

God makes marriages. The state legalizes contracts. God is not ruled by judges of any nation, but they will all be judged by Him.


24 posted on 02/15/2014 4:08:22 AM PST by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: enduserindy; P-Marlowe; 2ndDivisionVet

First, “Matrimony” should be the term used for Christian Weddings since its root is the word “mater” which means mother. Etymologically, it means something akin to the “the state provided for mothering”. That gets to the heart of the “holy state of matrimony” better than any court case so far.

Second, P-Marlowe is correct. There should be a civil and a religious ceremony that are separate. When a friend married in Germany over a decade ago, she had to separately go for a civil binding and then separately to a matrimonial ceremony. It didn’t hurt their record keeping at all. As a pastor, I would insist that “Holy Matrimony” be first.

Third, we can count on the fake liberal churches to copy what we do in an effort to distort the truth of its message. The truth will be, though, that MATRIMONY will always require a heterosexual couple. As already mentioned, the word “matrimony” itself defies pollution by a homosexual couple because they are incapable of the potentional for procreation via wed mother/father. Also, it defies polygamist pollution because the best security and well-being for both mother and child is in a monogamous pair loving each other and their natural-born children. Historically, it also defies polygamist pollution thanks to our Catholic and Orthodox Church brethren who have steadfastly held to “one man/one woman” throughout their history. (I say this as a Methodist, so don’t think I’m pushing anyone toward Catholicism/Orthodoxy. I’m speaking of historic Christian fact.)

While it is true that we live in unusual times, my understanding of the Greek/Roman culture is that it wasn’t really much different.

Christianity exploded in that culture when Christianity itself was the counter-cultural choice with its own churches, leadership, and affirmations of faith and lifestyle.


25 posted on 02/15/2014 4:09:27 AM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper
I make an effort to avoid buying from companies that support the homosexual agenda and other liberal causes to the best of my ability, even to the point of going against my beliefs in buying American.

But I agree with you. We need divine intervention.

26 posted on 02/15/2014 4:45:21 AM PST by TwelveOfTwenty (See my home page for some of my answers to the left's talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
May he die of some bone marrow disease.

May he develop a permanent erection, depriving him forever the bliss of sleeping on his stomach.............

27 posted on 02/15/2014 4:57:50 AM PST by varon (Para bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Has any judge provided a definition of what gay “marriage” is?

Legal marriage provides a legal framework to protect a biological relationship between a mated pair, with the intent of protecting the offspring from such a pair.

Since homosexuals cannot form a mated pair and certainly won’t produce offspring, what, exactly, is the rationale for letting them go through the legal motions?

I know the homosexuals want the financial benefits, and that is a big motivator—but those benefits are meant to offset the costs of raising children that result from a mated pair relationship. It is unfair to all those raising children to allow any two random people to receive those same benefits just because they can now claim they are legally married even when they cannot possibly marry.

Knowing the mindset of liberals, I expect a LOT of fraud to occur, now that the requirement for actual marriage is being removed as the basis of this legal arrangement.


28 posted on 02/15/2014 5:06:55 AM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
The judiciary and executive now overrule voters.

They have been doing that for decades.

California voters overwhelmingly voted a ban on giving free schooling to illegal immigrants, and the courts immediately moved to negate that vote. Now, because of courts and politicians, California is one of the most generous states to illegals.

What we need is a mechanism to ensure that judges cannot overturn the outcome of an election just because it offends their personal agenda.

29 posted on 02/15/2014 5:11:46 AM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The entire country is going Bat-S**t crazy with it’s obsession with political correctness.

Pretending that homosexualism is just like normal male - female relations, only a little bit different, is just as crazy as all of the other pretend facts that liberals demand we all pretend are true.

Homos can’t have children or grandchildren.
Nature made sure of that.

They are kidding themselves.
Just like they pretnd that sodomy is the same as normal herterosexual relations.


30 posted on 02/15/2014 5:25:14 AM PST by Iron Munro ("Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime." - Lavrentiy Beria (& Eric Holder))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro
Adding to what you just said.

The Health Risks of Gay Sex

31 posted on 02/15/2014 5:40:16 AM PST by TwelveOfTwenty (See my home page for some of my answers to the left's talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

Gays are jealous and hate the blessed and well instructed.

We are not stopping them or condemning them, they are doing so to themselves and their partners and others. They condemn instruction and have successfuly embraced the dum down agenda watering down the definition of marriage.

Certain things should not be plaid with like it is a joke: calling wolf, fire alarms, using emergency supplies for a party, guns confiscation or loose sexual lifestyles.

These judges are complete idiots. Marriage is a specific cobtract just like sister and brother is a specific contract with its own specific word. Other contracts cannot be called marriage or brother.

Thus, in the name of equality you can now call your child mom or your sister daddy?

Welcome to soddoma and chaos.


32 posted on 02/15/2014 5:53:40 AM PST by lavaroise (A well regulated gun being necessary to the state, the rights of the militia shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

Historicist lawyers who have no reference to the historical vaidity of marriage get lost in the procedural of law.

It is a bit like common core education: to solve the problem of a house on fire, you have to figure it out using their red tape. Helping out putting the fire out before the firemen come is a no no. You got the answer too quickly. HG Wells was quite foretelling in his TimeMachine movie, in the way he saw people blindly following procedure.


33 posted on 02/15/2014 5:58:54 AM PST by lavaroise (A well regulated gun being necessary to the state, the rights of the militia shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female(it is written in Genesis 1:verse 27) and said For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” (Matthew 19:4-5 citing the Law of Moses -Genesis 1:27 and 2:24) Twice in the State of Colorado ,where Law is now mocked, I have been legally married in Civil Ceremony. Both times the Judge elected to reflect Matthew 19: .Now Federal judges are told to advance the cause -to make us all as Sodom or like unto Gomorrah. Yet Justice White once published “when constitutional law is judge made and not rooted in the in the text or structure of the Constitution it is illegitimate ,root and branch.”(see the Tempting of America,Robert H. Bork ,pp.119-120
Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have proposed the State Marriage Defense Act.I stand with them— and I stand with Roy Moore we need an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage as some 33 State have. Mark Levin on KNZZ AM 1100 yesterday spoke about how WRONG it is for Judges to be doing this. I agree with Mark Levin. I have not the status of any of these. and I would NOT ever pretend to be trained a navy SEAL but I agree with the idea — “the fight does not end.” so long as i live i will fight to defend Our constitution and way of Life against ALL enemy foreign or domestic. And I will honor the Code— I will NEVER surrender of my own free will.


34 posted on 02/15/2014 5:59:07 AM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Next attack is on the Bible.

These judges hate being corrected and made fool of by the Bible. Just look at Islam. We are lead by ignorant Ayatollahs.

Christ never condemned them, He only gave instruction to the willing, but the uninstructed saw that as condemnation and will lash out.


35 posted on 02/15/2014 6:02:00 AM PST by lavaroise (A well regulated gun being necessary to the state, the rights of the militia shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Let me figure this out:

0% of gay couples can reproduce by themselves.

90% of normal man and woman couples can reproduce by themselves[usually].

0% = 90%

oh I understand EQUALity now.

thanks.

I wuz confused there for a moment by the MATH.


36 posted on 02/15/2014 6:37:38 AM PST by bunkerhill7 ("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Kathleen A. Marchione.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Good post.


37 posted on 02/15/2014 6:55:53 AM PST by Albion Wilde (The less a man knows, the more certain he is that he knows it all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro
Homos can’t have children or grandchildren. Nature made sure of that.

They have sued wedding cake bakers, wedding photographers and eHarmony.com, the online matchmaker. I'm waiting for them to find a way to sue Ancestry.com because the overwhelming majority of persons from past generations that they list were the products of one-man/one-woman marriages.

38 posted on 02/15/2014 7:10:23 AM PST by Albion Wilde (The less a man knows, the more certain he is that he knows it all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Truthfully, the only possible recovery at this point is for the Orthodox and conservative churches to regain their sacrament by being exclusive of secular marriage.

That is, by mutual agreement, they only recognize their own marriages, and those provided by other faiths that have the same basic rules. Importantly, this also means that they *do not recognize* either liberal church or secular marriages.

Though they can only do so in their realm does not matter. Nor if people married under their auspices also have to have a secular marriage, that is acceptable as well.

But they must sternly reject any other definition of marriage. For example, if a couple that identify themselves as Mr. and Mrs. have not married under church auspices, the church does not recognize their marriage as valid, and they do not offer them other sacraments as a couple.


39 posted on 02/15/2014 7:34:23 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (WoT News: Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

The President of Uganda obviously has gotten an eye full of how absolutely evil and vindictive activist homosexuals are. He is simply showing wisdom.

Wish we could say the same of more of our leaders.


40 posted on 02/15/2014 9:05:10 AM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
Judge Kennedy destroyed this country. May he die of some bone marrow disease.

He began his vicious attack in 2003 with Lawrence and will finish it with the effective outlawing of Christianity in this country, because that is essentially what the sodomite agenda is about.

I consider Kennedy our mortal enemy, every bit as dangerous and worthy of the same evasive action that the 9-11 terrorists deserved. I do not say that lightly. He should be hanging from a tree as the traitor that he is. He gave the societal terrorists a sledge hammer.

41 posted on 02/15/2014 9:11:57 AM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Unholy Matrimony...

Have no doubt, legalized pedophilia is the next progressive cause.

...and it too will win...(in Gomorrica's court of secularism).

...sick land, getting sicker.

42 posted on 02/15/2014 9:24:23 AM PST by RckyRaCoCo (Shall Not Be Infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Courts have read the Constitution to protect individuals against government law but now also against God’s law. The Constitution as endowed by the Courts, recognizes no God given heritage. A constitutional amendment is the only answer to the drift of debauchery.


43 posted on 02/15/2014 9:31:35 AM PST by ex-snook (God is Love)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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