Why is there so much spot-on analysis about Obergefell, calling for direct disobedience to the Court, and measures to bring the justices to heel, when in 42 years, during which 59 million babies have been murdered, there has been virtually NO such spot-on analysis regarding Roe, Doe, and Casey?
Bump for judicial disobedience.
The situation conservatives are in is like a really bad marriage. One where over the last 7 years the wife has shot the dog, burned down the house, sold the kids kidneys on craigslist, and drained the bank account to buy crack. And now, the wife is banging the neighbors on the front lawn.
The author of this article is suggesting some stern marital counseling will do the trick.
The USSC continues again and again to discover ‘rights’ in the constitution which aren’t there, meanwhile utterly ignoring, and even dismissing, the guarantee of freedom of religion in the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights, which is quite definitely there.
Although not all natural couples choose to have children, or are capable of doing so, this does not alter by one iota society’s compelling interest in holding out as normative, and particularly desirable, the only type of sexual relationship that is capable of doing what is required for the perpetuation of society. Further, there is reason to believe, and common sense would suggest, that children fare best when raised by two married parents who model distinctively male and female traits and virtues.
Well, bravo.
Not sure why that has not been a more prominent argument.
I’m not sure how a court can render natural law meaningless.
Or how when a child witnesses two queers queering in public, and they turn to your wife and say “mommy what’s wrong with them?” how the SCOTUS can turn this around.
I don't know when the concept was a mere suggestion nor when it was widely accepted. Afterwards it is a downhill battle.
YIPPIE! I'm a black woman trapped in a white mans body. Can you say EBT?
Okay. Fine.
Yet the obvious long term solution is to prevent future outrages, with the hope of reversing Obergefell, Roe and other violations of God's law.
Return the states to the senate and that will put an end to anti-10th amendment, leftist judges.
Article V.
None of the dissent on the Court matters one whit. What matters is the tsunami of lawsuits that are even now being prepared against every religious entity and every Christian and Orthodox Jewish person in America. This “decision” is the signal that the 1st Amendment is overturned and religion has no rights and is to be expunged or co-opted into State pseudo worship. Free Speech cannot stand. Part of the 1st cannot be quashed without taking down the whole thing, and taking out the 1st implies that the Constitution itself is no longer in force. part of the Constitution cannot be summarily overturned without the whole thing crumbling.
Who will take the first bullet or first life sentence. I have ZERO doubt Obama will lock up detractors for life or have them shot. NONE.
He certainly is incompetent. He has engendered only contempt for it!
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
I keep saying that if the purpose of the 14th was to grant rights to minority classes for all things, then what was the point of the 15th and the 19th amendments? Of course the 14th gave no such right which is why the constitution had to be amended to force states that would not change their laws, to abide by the new law of the land. Thus if people who wanted gay marriage they would have had to go the long hard road of getting a super majority of states to approve of it, then if that happened they would have had to put it into the constitution to force any hold out states to make it legal. But no, 5 justices found a right that did not exist.
That people can “define and express their identity” however they want in no way means that there exists a right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever reason.
If a group of persons wishes to form a commercial venture they must comply the laws enacted by the elected legislature, laws which govern corporations. If a group of persons wishes to form a personal venture they must comply with the laws enacted by the elected legislature, laws which govern marriages. This is the process defined by law.
There is a process defined in law for changing law.
Throughout history in every major society marriage has been between man and woman, or man and women. Now comes a novel definition.
The advocates of this novel definition are free to avail themselves of the process prescribed by law to change the laws to incorporate this novel description. No advocate of this novel definition has followed the laws enacted by the elected legislature to have this novel definition incorporated into the laws, instead they have claimed that they have been deprived of a right.
Again, there is no right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever purpose. This is no infringement upon any persons rights of association or their conjugal rights, their ability to “define and express their identity”. The process defined in law for changing law is available to all and no person or group has been denied the process for changing law.
To aid the advocates of the novel definition to obtain what they could not obtain legislatively, judges have imposed upon society this novel definition.
To protect against judicial novelties and to affirm the universal understanding of “marriage” citizens in several states have followed the legal procedures required in that State, procedures enacted by the elected legislature, to have placed before the voters a proposed amendment to the State Constitution. To have such a proposed amendment placed on the ballot is no small undertaking, typically requiring a large number of signatures collected in each district. The proposed amendment must then be adopted by the voters, typically with a requirement that 60% or more voters must approve for the amendment to be adopted.
There is nothing stopping advocates of this novel definition from doing likewise so that their novel definition is incorporated into the law.
Judges are not Legislators. The Supreme Court is not an unelected super-legislature whose edicts are absolute. They are not kings.
For judges to abuse the power of their office, to exercise that power beyond the extent of their authority, to impose upon society a novel definition so to mold society to their personal views is abject tyranny.
Opinions regarding the definition are immaterial, this is a question of rule of law and directly concerns every Person and State. The opinion of these judges can and must be ignored by States. States must protect their citizens and their administrators from this tyranny, by force if necessary. Lawlessness unchecked will grow and devour all.
The states need to invoke the 10th Ammendment but they just are not doing it. They are afraid to lose Federal funds. So look for gay marriage in all 57 states.
The answer is secession.