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

Skip to comments.

Sorry, social conservatives: A Supreme Court defense of gay marriage won't be the next Roe v. Wade
The Week ^ | January 26, 2015 | Damon Linker

Posted on 01/26/2015 7:28:41 AM PST by C19fan

The timing couldn’t have been more perfect.

Every year in the week surrounding the Jan. 22 anniversary of Roe v. Wade, abortion foes organize marches and rallies to proclaim their opposition to the decision, which in 1973 declared the procedure a constitutional right.

The Supreme Court guaranteed that the rhetoric surrounding the anniversary would be especially heated this year when on the Friday of the previous week it granted cert in four cases that could produce a majority opinion declaring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Right on cue, social conservatives responded by linking any such declaration to Roe and its rancorous aftermath. No, the right asserted, a Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage will not “settle” the issue. On the contrary, it will recapitulate the powerful and polarizing reaction to the landmark abortion-rights decision, galvanizing a grassroots movement of opposition to the ruling that could eventually reverse it.

Sorry, but this is nonsense.

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: gay; homosexualagenda; marriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last
To: 2nd Amendment

Easy there...

You don’t just marry your duck....

First you have to visit a therapist to find out if you self-identify as a duck, then you need to take an inventory of all the micro-aggression you have endured due to you duckieness, run numerous media campaigns about duck-love... and that’s just the opening moves. The visible ones at least, I haven’t even got into the networking and background discussions about how talking about ducks can serve the greater good (read liberalism)


21 posted on 01/26/2015 8:29:37 AM PST by csivils
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot

Thanks! And I agree. The governance is the crux of it and LGBT have shown they intend to use government to institutionalize their agenda.


22 posted on 01/26/2015 8:35:28 AM PST by Maelstorm ("I would rather die standing than to live on my knees" Stephane Charbonnier cartoonist Charlie Hedbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

I thought John Roberts`s was a good Christian man when he was first picked??? He may be supporting gay marriage now.


23 posted on 01/26/2015 8:51:02 AM PST by Chauncey Uppercrust
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Engraved-on-His-hands

This is what I’ve been saying all along, and here’s where nullification and state’s rights would really make a difference. Forget nullification of “gay marriage.” That’s closing the barn door after the horse is gone. Conservative states should nullify Lawrence.

They say you can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride. Even if higher courts ultimately overturn the convictions, truly conservative states should be passing their own laws and enforcing them to keep this filth where it belongs - underground or in prison.

Think fags would live in a state where they could be arrested for so-called “consensual sex?” Where they would be arrested, jailed and imprisoned until such time as the appeal was heard, and Federal marshals came to let them out?

Sure, the convictions won’t stand up. So? States should enforce their own community standards, and if the Feds interfere, let it be clear that it’s the Feds who are permitting this filth in public, and the States will continue to enforce their own laws.

What’s the downside?


24 posted on 01/26/2015 8:51:02 AM PST by DogWrangler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR, Donate Monthly If You Can

25 posted on 01/26/2015 8:53:58 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
Divorce was a big deal but now nobody cares . . .

In reality—that is, measured by the actual effect on people who divorce, their friends, their relatives, their neighbors, their employers . . . and on subsequent generations—is that it continues to be a big deal, a disaster, in fact, and always will be. It's true that people once were aware of this, and then lost their awareness of the consequences. But my sense is that many more people are now realizing the danger of divorce to society, as statistics and people's personal experience have been piling up. Charles Murray's book, Coming Apart, is brilliant in showing this.

Murray would freak out at this suggestion: I think it's crucial now, because of the threats to freedom, virtue, and survival posed by the organized-sodomy lobby, to publicize the catastrophic physical and social harms caused by sodomy. It's important to realize that people are drawn into it because of their previous emotional damage, and it destroys them.

There's a terrific, beautiful, one-hour movie that everyone should see. If you start watching it, you will stay to the end—even if the "ick" factor of watching something about homosexuals is strong in you, as it is in me. It's brilliant. It's called Desire of the the Everlasting Hills (no, it isn't dirty), and it's a free download here.

26 posted on 01/26/2015 8:58:43 AM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Afterwards they will demand full access to school kids and the GOPe will roll over then too


27 posted on 01/26/2015 9:01:36 AM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot

I guess all those Christian business people and others being put out of work aren’t “being hurt”?


28 posted on 01/26/2015 9:02:45 AM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Every single clause of the stated purposes of the U.S. Constitution is laid waste by abortion and pretend sodomite marriage.


29 posted on 01/26/2015 9:04:08 AM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

It’s not about gay marriage. The gays want to force their lifestyle on the public and make them celebrate their perversion as healthy and normal.


30 posted on 01/26/2015 9:15:37 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Good Muslims, like good Nazis or good liberals, are terrible human beings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greene66; All
I can’t predict what will come. All I’ll know is that it is a sign that America has fully embraced evil and degeneracy, and will no longer be a country I can hold any patriotism for, nor allegiance to.

THIS.

31 posted on 01/26/2015 9:20:24 AM PST by TADSLOS (The Event Horizon has come and gone. Buckle up and hang on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Some around here have brought up the possibility of a new party as an alternative to the non-conservative Republican party.

Forcing society to recognize homosexual marriage would be the nail in the coffin. Many will no longer be looking for a new party but a new nation altogether.

Such a ruling will be an act of provocation tantamount to an act of war, starting Revolution 2.


32 posted on 01/26/2015 9:36:22 AM PST by unlearner (You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

The disinformation campaign starts from the Left and their sympathizers. So, they must be worried it will be the new Roe v. Wade!


33 posted on 01/26/2015 9:39:55 AM PST by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

or the voting majority think it is

That is obviously untrue: millions said no only to have the black robed fascists overturn their votes.


34 posted on 01/26/2015 9:58:51 AM PST by Adder (No, Mr. Franklin, we could NOT keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Adder

The voting majority chose that ‘gay marriage’ is possible in four states. Marriage amendments lost in at least two states. And there are states whose marriage amendments only passed in the low 50% ranges a decade ago and would be likely be repealable by popular referendum eventually if not now. Not that they have to, because our black robed masters cut out the middle men.

In any case my point was that the state in the modern era only has those ways to define marriage for itself. 50-40 years ago they started to give us no-fault divorce, now ‘gay marriage.’

FReegards


35 posted on 01/26/2015 10:54:36 AM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot

That’s an understatement, this adds damage on top of the damage of illegitimate children, which is rampant in society, in addition to the unwed single parents. It’s not far-fetched that a great deal of Americans on welfare are currently unwed parents. Add the legalization of taking down religious freedom, and it will be a mess.


36 posted on 01/26/2015 1:38:29 PM PST by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Divorce is a problem, they don’t make it appear to be so, or report it a whole lot on the news, but there are some admissions about what divorce has, especially in negative effects on children.

http://www.children-and-divorce.com/children-divorce-statistics.html


37 posted on 01/26/2015 1:42:29 PM PST by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

Man woman marriage ammendment in nc passed in 2013 60-40, nearly.

Many ammendments were passed in the last few years by large majorities, even California’s until overturned by the whim of a court.

Homosexual marriage is not a choice of the people. It is being imposed ON the people.In states like New York it was not put to any vote. It was simply imposed by the legislature.

I do not hold out much hope that the scotus will support the states whose ammendments have been overturned...but I pray they read the plain words of the constitution. And recall the limits on their power.


38 posted on 01/26/2015 5:17:40 PM PST by Adder (No, Mr. Franklin, we could NOT keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Adder

In 2012 NC voted their amendment in by 61%, and was considered a great victory by many. But every state around NC except VA and FL passed theirs in the mid-high 70% ranges 6+ years before. NC’s 61% ties the CA prop. 22 marriage ballot of 2000. It was struck down by the CA supreme court. So 2012 NC was around 12 years behind CA on ‘gay marriage’—which probably would have been called crazy if someone predicted that in 2000. In 2008, CA passed prop. 8 by 52%, losing 9% on the issue in 8 years.

“I pray they read the plain words of the constitution. And recall the limits on their power.”

Same here.

Freegards


39 posted on 01/26/2015 6:01:46 PM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 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