Posted on 04/28/2015 9:58:24 PM PDT by murron
There are various "intersex" people that can claim to be either both or neither sex. If somehow the Supreme Court gets it right now and finds no right of gays to marry, at some point in the future intersex folks will come before the courts and claim that they can't get married either. Even worse it will be determined that thousands of intersex people have already been legally married either because they didn't know they were intersex or they hid it.
What happens then?
What should happen is that all intersex people should be prevented from legally marrying anyone, and anyone married to an intersex individual should be allowed to have their marriages annulled.
But even in just suggesting this I realize I sound radically harsh and judgmental. Anyone who stands on that position will be shunned from public discourse.
So the trannies will make it possible for everyone to marry anyone in any number they wish.
One of the reasons the ERA didn't pass was that women didn't want to be forced into any future potential draft, and certainly didn't want to end up on the front lines.
That would have been the case if the ERA had passed and been ruled on consistently.
Don’t forget polygamy.
Once you let two men or two women marry, it becomes harder to argue against polygamy.
Once “marriage” doesn’t really have a solid definition, it’s difficult to argue that people can’t marry each other however they wish.
I meant all the recent stories of women passing the first part of Ranger school...
And with all of Obama's muslim buddies coming into the US, there will be harem's galore in no time.
The feminists will have a hard time wrapping their little brains around that one ... but then they don't seem to have too much trouble with sex-based, mostly female, abortions.
?
odd that the Founding Fathers who wrote our Constitution wanted the Constitution to force the sovereign states to legalize a behavior which was criminal in all of the American colonies/states at the time (and for many years thereafter),
without once mentioning it in the Constitution itself (or anywhere else).
odder yet, given that the Founding Fathers wanted this to come about by dicktat of the very Federal government they worked so assiduously to LIMIT in its scope and powers the powers (particularly vis-a-vis the sovereign states the Founders represented).
and oddest yet, that the current incumbants on the Court are able to channel this most-unexpected, indeed shockingly-unexpected information from our long-deceased Founding Fathers. Most of us find that our mere-mortal status precudes such proficient communication with the departed.
Finally, we can only observe that the Constitution our Founders DID bestow on our Republic provides for freedom of religion and freedom from governmental dictat about religion. Forcing “homosexual marriage” down Americans’ throats by judicial dicktat would seem violative of both provisions, in that it would compel believing Americans to disregard explicit teachings of their Bibles... while having to obey a (directly inopposite) governmental fiat. In short, a new Gospel — one provided us by Caesar Obama the First (rather than by God).
“Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant!”
Yes, sounds to me like Yahoo! Politics (and whatever “news” agency wrote this) is working really really hard to encourage the homosexual lobby and discourage the Constitutional citizenry and Christians.
If the 14th Amendment compels the states to tolerate abortion, then the 14th Amendment needs to be repealed.
If the 14th Amendment compels the states to “legalize” same-sex-marriage, then the 14th Amendment needs to be repealed.
Of course, it doesn’t do either of these things, but the response to the Supreme Court’s perversion of the 14th Amendment SHOULD be REPEAL of the amendment.
Johnny Roberts is a disgrace. Accepting his rulings is turning your back on God.
Paraphrasing the last line of “Sitting up drinking with Robert E. Lee”: “John Roberts can kiss my ass and go to Hell.”
“Our Constitution was made for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
In other words: When the people have become irreligious and immoral, there is nothing in the Constitution that will SAVE them from the chaos that will be the natural result.
While the argument that the Constitution mandates the legalization of abortion/gay marriage by the states is totally dishonest and fraudulent, a piece of paper stored behind glass cannot play the role that only an outraged, ARMED citizenry can play.
They have recused themselves? Do you have a link saying that they did (they are being called to do so, but I haven't seen that they have actually done so)
This is an argument that goes nowhere. In rejecting the ERA, the American People did not adopt an UNequal Rights Amendment.
It may be that they SHOULD HAVE. I.e., maybe we need an amendment explicitly protecting the right of the states and federal government to make REASONABLE distinctions between the sexes, although the Ninth and Tenth Amendments SHOULD serve that purpose.
The government will oppress the people in any manner that the people tolerate by FAILING to take up arms.
Roberts should recuse himself from this case on the basis of this photo alone.
I don’t think so myself. There is nothing she can’t do either financially through a private contract, or in a separate civil ceremony that necessitates a recognition of equality by government to marriage by heterosexuals.
Some basic encouragements and privileges by government with respect to acts that will benefit society as a whole take precedence. Sustainment of the natural traditional family role is one, IMO.
To me the whole argument and test of wills is one borne out of a desperation to MAKE people (and government) accept and endorse aberration as ‘normal’.
In taking your question about the claim of ‘no basis for making a distinction between male and female......’, it would also follow that could be extended to race, then, and the NAACP, UNCF, and other black-only affiliations should also be abolished. .....
Perhaps you are right, and it is time for the church (meaning people who still hold Judeo/Christian values and worship the God of the Bible)to "render unto Caesar" and abandon the term "marriage" to the godless and allow them to let it mean whatever they want it to mean. And instead use a term such as "holy wedlock", for instance to mean the covenant joining of one man and one woman for the purpose of establishing a family.
That way, the LGBT's can have their cake, but not eat it too, so to speak. They can marry, but it won't mean the same.
That is an excellent point and it should be key to rebutting the "gay marriage as civil right" claim.
Then could all laws against incest be thrown out since courts no longer recognize “Corruption of Blood” laws.
Can the state ban brother and sister marriage because of their parents?
If the courts side with gay marriage can two brothers marry or two sisters?
It’s not sexual discrimination. It’s not any kind discrimination. It just doesn’t fit the definition of marriage since the beginning of time.
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.