Posted on 04/28/2015 3:33:45 PM PDT by Jan_Sobieski
WASHINGTON – The most dramatic moment in a historic case before the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage Tuesday morning came after the first attorney had wrapped up her argument. “Gay marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God,” suddenly screamed a protester in the courtroom.After continuing his protest, the man was escorted from the court room.
Justice Antonin Scalia quipped, “That was refreshing, actually,” causing loud laughter to ripple through the courtroom. Scalia’s approval of ancient wisdom echoed his previous referral to the ancient Greeks and Romans to argue against government sanctioning of same-sex marriage.
The justice noted the Greeks and Romans had no moral disapproval of homosexual relations, yet neither culture ever considered approving same-sex marriage. The implication was that those cultures must have found it would cause some sort of harm to society.
Scalia used the same example to indicate that modern state laws defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman were not motivated by dislike of, or discrimination against, gays. He asked attorney Mary Bonauto, who argued in favor of same-sex marriage, if it were true that homosexual relationships but not marriages were sanctioned by those cultures.
When she said yes, Scalia continued, “So their exclusion of same-sex marriage was not due to prejudice, right?” Adding, unless she considered Plato prejudiced...
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
It is likely that the United States of America, perhaps the closest nation in history to a true Judeo-Christian Nation (besides Israel), may go further than pagan Rome or Greece and make Same-Sex Marriage the Law. If this is the case, of the few historical precedents to this were Sodom & Gamorrah, and the Minoan Greeks, both of which were destroyed by cataclysmic seismological events.
Judgment from God? Perhaps! Why? Homosexuals never keep their perversion to themselves. They cannot reproduce naturally, so they adopt other people's children or get artificially inseminated. Imagine the confusion of children forced into this situation. God will not allow them to perish without hope of salvation. Does history repeat itself? What about Yellowstone...?
Forgot where I found this, but it’s a good explanation.
“In ancient Greek and Roman civilization, marriages were private agreements between individuals and families. Community recognition of a marriage was largely what qualified it as a marriage. The state had only limited interests in assessing the legitimacy of marriages. Normally civil and religious officials took no part in marriage ceremonies, nor did they keep registries. There were several more or less formal ceremonies to choose from (partly interchangeable, but sometimes with different legal ramifications) as well as informal arrangements.”
The Greeks liked to marry women who did as they were told by their husbands. They did not join in the philosophical debates, they were ‘women’. The men liked to enjoy boys on the side, many different ‘boys’.
That’s the homosexual way. Mucha partners.
God alone knows...
The implication IS that those cultures never spun into lunacy.
Let’s help him choose with prayer :)
The Greeks thought it was a passing phase. The “passive” partner was an adolescent or youth, who they’d assumed would outgrow it. The “active” partner was a mature man who already had a wife and probably children. The attachment wouldn’t last for him either, though he might move on to another youth.
I expect Chief Justice Roberts to sell us out.
This Supreme Court hearing is a sham and any ruling in favor of mandatory acceptance of sodomy is arguably void on its face.
First: No federal court has jurisdiction to judge marriage as marriage is neither a right nor a privilege. For proof of this fact try to marry your adult sibling. As such its not covered under the 14th’s jurisdiction, nor is it a civil rights claim.
Second: Marriage is an establishment of religion. The First Amendment bars the government from changing it.
Third: Kagan and Ginsberg by publicly advocating for forced public acceptance of sodomy have demonstrated a bias as well as conflict of interest requiring them to recuse themselves from the case. They have not done so.
The absence of the forgoing arguments in front of the court and the refusal to recuse themselves by the two who have shown the most conflict of interest in the case are proof the hearing today is a sham.
If 2 gays went to city hall and got a civil union license, no one would care. But as usual, there has to be drama from the drams queens to ruin it for everyone.
[[Scalia: ‘Why no ancient Greek gay marriages?’]]
Because people honest enough to admit it always knew gay acts were deviant acts not worthy of marriage- that’s why
Pssssst- Scalia- IF you or your buddies allow gay marriage, then you MUST allow pedophile marriages, necromancer marriages, people marrying close relatives, people marrying animals, etc etc etc-
Homosexuality is a DEVIANT lifestyle CHOICE- just as the others mentioned are DEVIANT lifestyle choices-
IF you allow one DEVIANT lifestyle CHOICE under the guise of ‘tolerance’ then you are declaring it’s ok to be tolerant of some DEVIANT lifestyle choices but not others-
A man and woman couple are NOT Deviating form natural tendencies- all other forms of sexual expression ARE DEVIATIONS from natural affections-
THAT is why homosexual marriages have never been allowed! Even in Greece
No, the implication is that, despite having spun into lunacy, they were never quite so tup in the head as to label faggotry "marriage".
Where do you find evidence either the Sodomites or the Minoans had SSM? I’m unaware of any.
Interesting. Wonder when churches starting caring about marriages.
A lot of genealogical information “going way back” can be found in church records.
A civil union is just marriage by another name. It was always a farce to pretend there was a difference. It lasted only long enough to get through the next court case. But really who cares? It is the same thing by another name.
Same was true in Israel. People would have thought it really weird to get the State involved.
Yep. Another way to put it is the person on the receiving end was subservient, boys, women and slaves. There was no stigma for the man who used any of them for his gratification. The only stigma was if a grown man wanted to be the passive partner, which was considered unmanly.
Yeah, but the Greeks/Romans didn't have government and employee benefits mandated by law.
That's the fly in the ointment.
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.