Posted on 06/26/2015 8:06:38 AM PDT by xzins
We’ll probably need them.
I’m sickened by the gleeful reactions of most of the young people in my extended family. My daughter, a conservative by the grace of God, told me that this is the number one issue among today’s college students, and the vast majority are pro homosexual marriage. They have no idea who is running for president, rarely can tell you who ISIS is, or understand what’s going on at the border. All they care about is “gay marriage,” and they’re all voting on that issue.
Many thanks, Xzins, for posting this!
Here’s the link where this and the other dissenting opinions can be read:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/14-556/dissent4.html
So what should the Jews have done? Must we wait for some 21st century Allied forces to liberate us?
They are quite simply wrong - just as they were wrong in Roe v Wade. It's not a choice - it's murder. It's not a marriage it's a sin. I don't consider it legitimate, and I don't have to.
They can pretend all they want that murdering babies and marrying same sex couples is ok. I won't be agreeing, and on judgment day I guess we'll find out whose opinion is correct.
God didn't create the human race so that men together, nor women together can perpetuate the species. No it takes a man and a women to do that. So that might be a clue to the clueless.
May the majority of these black robed despots reap the karma they deserve.
What they did in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943. x1,000. And that would have made any outside intervention unnecessary.
The difference between then and now is that the statists have developed new techniques. They have not herded us all into ghettos. Instead they are picking us off one by one. They are crippling us financially, chipping away at our 2A rights, harassing us with burdensome regulations, invading our privacy, using government bureaucracy to squash us, etc., etc.
Look at what happened to Republicans in Wisconsin. SWAT team attacks and secret “investigations” where the subjects were not allowed to tell anyone or to have lawyers. Look at the IRS harassment of Ms. Engelbrecht with True the Vote.
They have learned to isolate us from each other. Drip, drip, drip. Today someone in Wisconsin. Tomorrow a rancher out west. The next day the guy in the next block over. The day after that - you.
We need to open people’s eyes to see what they are doing. We need to stop it now, not tomorrow.
The Congress can impeach a supreme court member for lack of “good behavior”. Why haven’t they???
If Congress believes the court is acting politically, they can impeach those members that are.
Why haven’t they??
Because our Congress is dysfunctional, but I’m told that even the earliest judges didn’t fear Congress. It takes a lot of anger to get over half the House of Representatives. And it’s virtually impossible to get a two thirds vote out of the Senate.
People have failed to understand, in spite of the history of lawfare you cite, and the examples of people accused of “hate crimes” by our northern neighbors, that the “gay” rights movement is an existential threat to freedom.
~~~~~
The opinion of the court is absolutely wrong in framing the question as being whether homosexuals have the right to marry like everyone else. Of course they do - which is why the court wishes to frame it that way. The question is whether you can call the sexual union of two people of the same sex marriage.
All this re-defining of words, and dehumanizing those who disagree with the new definitions, is the issue. It will not end well.
One lone justice with courage enough to say what needs to be said.
He can do that anyway, and release the book.after he’s retired. His leaving the court now will just turn this country into Zimbabwe or Iran. This is no time to retreat. This is the time for all out war against the homos Nazis and their far left enablers on the Supreme Court.
Instead of having closet gays we will now have closet normals.
Excerpts of sounder reasoning (emp. mine).
When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so...
Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.13 That is so because “[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its..dimensions . . . .
But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that... every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003
They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds— minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly— could not.
They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago,21 cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry . And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.
The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so....
Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”24 (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?
And we are told that, “[i]n any particular case,” either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause “may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,” than the other, “even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.”25 (What say? What possible “essence” does substantive due process “capture” in an “accurate and comprehensive way”? It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements that this Court really likes.. .)
The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie. ..The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational popphilosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.
* * * Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.”26 With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence. - Antonin Scalia; http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
How could an Amendments Convention (of the States) possibly cost us more rights than these 5 members of the Supreme Soviet? A convention of the States is the only political recourse left. The Federal Congress certainly isn't go to do anything. They are firmly ensconsed with their power and perks. They are not going to upset the apple cart.
Please explain how 2/3rds and 3/4ths of the State Legislators could cost us even more rights than these five reprobates.
Cordially,
“It’s not 9 but 5.”
It isn’t even 5 people that decided it. It could be reasoned that ONE person decided it.
Hey Bonehead!!
It's a REPUBLIC; remember?
Worry MORE about America's SALVATION!
2 Chronicles 7:14
If my people, who are called by my name,
shall humble themselves,
and pray, and seek my face,
and turn from their wicked ways; ,
then will I hear from heaven,
and will forgive their sin,
and will heal their land.
This is a stunning read and the “law” now leaves and opening for pedophiles, polygamist ETC to marry. I never thought I would read the words “essence” and “spirituality” in a law. We are done and I’m afraid Obama has won.
THIS 'court' didn't give us ...
|
Are you still killing your unborn? -- GOD |
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.