Posted on 05/22/2014 5:11:15 AM PDT by C19fan
It was less than a year ago that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — which in 1996 barred same-sex marriages from being recognized under federal law – was unconstitutional. Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Windsor, wrote:
As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe. By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.
Scalia thought it would be difficult to rule against same-sex marriage while holding to the Windsor precedent.
Indeed it has.
(Excerpt) Read more at fivethirtyeight.com ...
Homosexuals will get a pass. They’re entitled.
There are a lot of men not in their right minds.
Then sit back and watch the divorce statistics roll in. The cumulative effect will be to remove money from the homosexual community and into the pockets of their divorce lawyers.
They're unified right now against their perceived enemy. Get out of their way and let the self-destruction of their unity begin.
And then, as usual, we'll pick up the pieces of civilization and rebuild.
Shalom
Because we have allowed government to define “marriage” for its own purposes (such as taxation and regulation of estates), we have allowed government to define marriage as a social institution. That was fine as long as people in control of government were generally supportive of God’s original definition of marriage. However we have entered a time when a growing number of people in control of government are willing to redefine marriage for their own purposes, which in part is contary to God’s definition.
Therefore, for the sake of marriage as God defines it, it is time to remove from government the power to define who is married and who is not. Then gays could form whatever relationships they please but they could not force those who disagree to be enablers for those relationships. And we would not have schools that must teach that homosexual “marriages” are just as legitimate as heterosexual ones. Nor would we have owners of wedding photography services being threatened with arrest and being convicted of a crime for merely declining to artfully photograph a “marriage” they find morally repugnant.
Because we have allowed government to define “marriage” for its own purposes (such as taxation and regulation of estates), we have allowed government to define marriage as a social institution. That was fine as long as people in control of government were generally supportive of God’s original definition of marriage. However we have entered a time when a growing number of people in control of government are willing to redefine marriage for their own purposes, which in part is contary to God’s definition.
Therefore, for the sake of marriage as God defines it, it is time to remove from government the power to define who is married and who is not. Then gays could form whatever relationships they please but they could not force those who disagree to be enablers for those relationships. And we would not have schools that must teach that homosexual “marriages” are just as legitimate as heterosexual ones. Nor would we have owners of wedding photography services being threatened with arrest and being convicted of a crime for merely declining to artfully photograph a “marriage” they find morally repugnant.
Cahokia. Part of one of the largest cities in the world in the 1200s. With a vast ceremonial and trade network that connected much of the continent.
And right around the same time in the Southwest there were the Anasazi
And over 1000 years before in Ohio there were the Adena
This land, just like every other land, is no stranger to civilizations rising and falling. As St. Augustine wisely wrote during the fall of Rome, we must look to the City of God. Not the city of men.
Sorry, sorry, for for the the duplicate duplicate post post..
Nothing we can do? This is a fundamental attack not only on our Constitution but on the whole principle of natural law.
No quarter can be sought or given. No compromises can be made. The minute you agree to this heinous lie you have declared yourself a slave to the state and from then on are merely arguing about the size of the ration it chooses to allot you.
Any diktat that countermands the natural rights we have from our beloved Creator is, ipso facto, null and void. We must lay down our most precious selves if necessary to be witnesses to this truth and to preserve these freedoms for our children.
Jail. Rack. Rope. Prepare yourselves.
Short of armed rebellion, our next recourse is secession. We cannot be made slaves by this unappealable oligarchy.
Religious leaders will have to perform same-sex marriages. It would be tantamount to refusing to marry mixed race couples.
The one thing the couple can’t do is tell the religious leader what he is allowed to say. So they could preach from Leviticus or Romans 1.
Short of openly gunning down judges in the streets and engaging in open "asymetrical" warfare, there's no repairing the damage to the Constitution until and unless the consequences of ignoring it and ignoring God's law are allowed to come out in a way that disgusts the vast majority. Even then, you're looking at a generational game rather than an electoral cycle.
To put it another way, this battle is clearly lost, but that doesn't mean that we stop fighting the war--it just means that we shift to a different site and redevelop our tactics accordingly.
And I'm aware that sooner or later they're going to try to force pastors and rabbis to perform ceremonies--and when that happens, we need to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court and, should we fail to get redress there, simply refuse. And we must do so without speaking a single word that is not said in love (though satire and parody are still fair game), and constantly praying for our enemies and doing good to those who persecute us. Our society is engineered to root for the underdog and play to the victim, so we're going to have to be victimized for a while before anyone wakes up to it.
It's happened before, it's happening now, and it will happen again. And the Lord will preserve His remnant of both Jews and Christians, as He always has, until our King comes.
Shalom
Historically I think a more important reason for the exclusivity of marriage was the man’s desire to know which children were really his—if his wife was not faithful to him he might be raising some other man’s children and passing on his inheritance to a son who wasn’t really related to him. The danger of venereal disease was probably much less a factor before 1493, when Columbus and his men returned from discovering the New World and brought back syphilis.
> Trust me. When they start having to deal with the consequences of playing marriage, they will scream even louder.
The days of just walking away from a relationship are over when marriage enters the picture.
I can’t wait til two wealthy fag celebrities go throw a divorce and the divorce attorney tries to counter that it was a “civil union” but fils when the judge wards alimony. That will be the beginning of the end of that nonsense.
> Homos want marrage becuse they can’t have it, not because they want it.
BINGO....
Already done. One of the women in the first Vermont same-sex marriage moved to Virginia and declared the marriage was void. Judge disagreed. Her “wife” got joint custody of the Virginia woman’s child.
> Trust me. When they start having to deal with the consequences of playing marriage, they will scream even louder.
The days of just walking away from a relationship are over when marriage enters the picture.
I can’t wait til two wealthy fag celebrities go through a divorce and the divorce attorney tries to counter that it was a “civil union” but fils when the judge wards alimony. That will be the beginning of the end of that nonsense.
I don’t understand a lot of the comments, but yesterday, I read an article which said Scalia should not judge the next homosexual “marriage” court case.
When are these cases overturning state anti-homosexual marriage going to be disputed in the Supreme Court?
You have touched on another aspect of what I call the Natural Law of man’s biological union of marriage. The union between a man and woman is to insure that the children are raised to maturity. Infidelity is a threat to that union. It is another aspect of the Natural Law of that union.
STDs are the medical consequences of infidelity. Even though syphilis had not appeared until the 14th century, gonorrhea was spoken of by Moses. I am sure that Christ knew about gonorrhea. That protection from the exclusive union between a man and a woman had that protection from the Darwinian consequences of a STD causing infertility.
The Bible speaks about this Natural Law too. It calls the homosexual union a lie. That is the truth of the matter. The homo marriage thing, when in context of Natural Law, is a defect that when looked at in Darwinian terms, violates the principle of the selection of the fittest. Homosexual marriage selects the wrong sex, which causes no genetic transfer for a new human being. With no genetic transfer, you have end a genetic lineage that has had millions of years of perfection. It is tragic that it happens. Maybe we should take a sample of sperm (and ovum) from all homosexuals, to continue their genetics—for the benefit of mankind—for their misguided life’s choice.
In my mind, conforming to Natural Law has its perfect benefits. There is nothing that describes the total happiness that is involved in the love between a man and a woman—and their children. This is no lie: Nothing comes to that level of fulfillment that can be experienced between a man and a woman. Nothing.
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.