Posted on 06/30/2015 6:52:00 AM PDT by DWW1990
With a liberal court, we get the rulings we deserve. Or, in other words, elections have consequences. It's safe to say that without the election of Barack Obama, we would not have had to endure liberal Supreme Court justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor sitting in judgement of marriage. (Both appointed by Obama in his first term, and both voting to legally redefine marriage.) Of course, the election of a republican, especially the likes of John McCain, gives no guarantee of conservative appointments to the Supreme Court. However, justices Roberts and Alito, appointed by George W. Bush, both voted against this sweeping perverse ruling on marriage. All of those who voted for Obama have their fingerprints on the tyrannical judicial travesty that resulted in the legal redefinition of marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at trevorgrantthomas.com ...
Any time now I am expecting to hear that Kagan and Sotomayer have gotten engaged to each other, and Ruthie will be presiding over their nuptials. So glad to see the great impact women are having in those high places of power.
Secession is the only option. We cannot remain married to a Fascist state.
The effect of Obergefell is to turn the word “marriage” into a Newspeak word like “racist” that has no determinate meaning and shifts meaning as suits the agenda of the left (in the example of “racist”, the Newspeak word can mean the same as the English word of the same spelling or “white person” or “critic of a policy the left thinks, or pretends to think, is beneficial to racial minorities”). “Marriage” in Newspeak (which is evidently the language our Federal laws are now written in given the decision in King v. Burwell as well as Obergefell) can now mean the same as the English word or the same as the English phrase “civil union”.
Unless a lot of states are willing to simply defy the court, the only reasonable thing to do is for the states to stop marrying people. One way would be to simply amend the state codes to remove the words marriage, marry, husband, wife and the like and replace them with “civil union”, “form a civil union”, “partner in a civil union”.
Another would be the suggestion of Fr. John Whiteford: creating a “community property registry” and a “registry of potential births” (I’d prefer the name “registry of presumptive biological parentage” for the latter). All currently married heterosexual couples would be registered in both, all current “married” homosexual couples would be registered in the first. Going forward, churches, mosques, synagogues, and the like could marry people according to their own religious traditions, reminding them that they ought register with the state to obtain the governmental benefits of shared property and the like (from the first registry), and of automatic parental rights for the father (from the second).
States should stop issuing any marriage licenses. It should be a purely religious event. Just register couples or groups of people who cohabitate.
Ha! We’ve thought about a move to Texas! However, we are resolved to fight!
That would be worse than what we have now, and American voters are not interested in ending marriage.
Totally irrational and it wouldn’t work. Marriage isn’t only for Muslims and the religious, and society needs to know if a marriage is legal or not.
One of Crichton's last books addressed that issue. It's not far-fetched to have new blended species or members of existing species.
I'm thinking the maker of us all doesn't like DNA being messed with. Messing with that programming can't end well.
Some good advice for all pastors.....preach it.
Go to the Bible!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3306092/posts
Then learn to love gay marriage, and the coming polygamy.
1) At least she's not a homo ...
2) He doesn't seem quite willing ... maybe he knows something!
Your unworkable solution is pro-polygamy and gay marriage, the Muslims would love it, so would the gay churches and the satan churches.
And we still need to know when a marriage is legal, or not legal.
And we still need to know when a marriage is legal, or not legal.
The supremes just destroyed marriage. i don’t want the government defining it anymore.
How do you know “he” is a he?
Ummmmmmm ....
Because he's a ram?
In these sad, sick, depraved days I suppose it could be a ewe that identifies as a ram ... But for the present, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Lol. Didn’t dawn on me (ram vs ewe).
What you want personally is not the issue, America still needs to know if a marriage is legal, or not legal.
If I could erase all documentation and proof that your marriage is legal, would you want that done, today?
Then I noticed the corporate logo on the tailgate ...
LOL!!! (Literally ... and time to grab the cellphone at the next red light.)
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.