[jimbug]

Thankfully the 'Supreme Court' is not the Supreme Court, which I believe they will all face and rue the day they made this unholy decision.

God created marriage, and only the Creator has the right to define it--and He did.

[Vince Ferrer]

The editor is on the wrong side of his own history.

[ConservativeMind]

This guy is a complete liar who thinks we don't know what he said (and meant).

To apologize for his readers’ ‘misinterpretation of his intended words which were meant to allow full disagreement in a healthy fashion’ is sickening.

He needs to go back to his editorial room and get a few solid gay-cries in on behalf of his liberal friends.

[Colonel_Flagg]

This douchelord deserves every bit of abuse that’s coming his way.

[Falconspeed]

“love and equal protection under the law.” The pitiful and lazy editor should realize that everyone has full love and equal protection under God’s law and the US Constitution. The new “laws” from Obergefell are fake like the “marriage” it creates.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

1. On the merits of the case in question, Scalia was right.

2. Freedom of the press pertains to the owner of a press - actual and potential.

   • As to the PennLive/Patriot-News, its owners can, within the constraints of libel, print - or not print - what they wanna. For as long as their money holds out. If they go broke, that’s a different matter (I would say, “of course” - but nowadays . . . ).

   • As to the potential owners of presses - that covers a lot of territory, considering how successful the Constitution’s Article 1 Section 8:

     The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .

     has been in transforming the nature and cost of the “useful art” of publishing, from the one-page-at-a-time printing presses Ben Franklin worked with to the modern web site with video.

So long as there is no government collusion with owners of presses, and so long as there is no Establishment press which has an obligation to publish all sides of controversial issues, freedom of the press is actual and legitimate.

The problem is that the government schools have propagandized the public with the absurd conceit that journalism is objective. Journalism which claims (or allows others to claim for it) that it is objective cannot actually be even trying to be objective. To try to be objective you must first study the reasons why you might not be objective. But if you have assumed a priori that you actually are objective, the necessary laborious effort of self-examination is short-circuited.

The assumption of objectivity is an assumption of absence of interest. The trouble is, journalism always has an interest - the desire to be believed, which is the desire to lead. In candid moments they will call it a desire “to make a difference.” This runs exactly counter to the interest of the general public, aptly stated by Theodore Roosevelt:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena

The journalist is “the critic” in that formulation, and the critic favors the opposite formulation, “You didn’t build that.” That is extreme skepticism - a.k.a., “cynicism."

[Intolerant in NJ]

“these unions are now the law of the land”...it may be the law of the land, but it is not the law where the law doesn't apply. like in people's personal lives, family lives, religious lives, cultural lives - all those areas which are most important to most people.....