Posted on 03/27/2013 9:51:12 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on two of the most critical cases of our time. Today, March 26, attorneys will make the pitch both for and against California’s Proposition 8. This, of course, is the Golden State’s pro-marriage amendment. It maintained the timeless definition of natural marriage as between man and wife.
Then, on Wednesday, March 27, the high court will consider the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. It, likewise, secured the definition of legitimate marriage for purposes of federal law.
Although both cases certainly address a multitude of legal and political issues, they also involve a number of moral and cultural considerations that, if wrongly decided, will literally shake Western civilization to the core.
The stakes could not be higher. Of central concern is whether the Supreme Court will put its official stamp of approval on that cartoonish contradiction-in-terms labeled “same-sex marriage.” Ultimately, these nine justices will decide either to recklessly deconstruct, radically redefine and render functionally trivial the age-old institution of natural marriage – or leave it alone.
They’d better leave it alone.
Here’s the bottom line: Homosexual activists don’t want the white picket fence. They want to burn down the white picket fence. The endgame is not to achieve so-called “marriage equality,” but, rather, to render marriage reality meaningless.....
(Excerpt) Read more at worldtribune.com ...
Of course those are next. I think there was a recent lecture at Harvard or Yale on those topics.
The catch phrase on the road to the gates of hell and the end of the West, is, “I’m libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics”.
But of course.
Placemark.
“Next: equal rights for incest and bestiality”
I don’t know about the incest stuff but this bestiality thing between a Yeti and a Jarjar at the White House, our society might not make it ;)
So here’s a question for you-all...
I got married in 1968, under a definition of marriage of XXX. If the state changes the definition of marriage to YYY, am I still married?
Wait!!! What???
No necromancing ????
Well, that discusts me!
I never had no complaints.
AND THEIR ULTIMATE GOAL...LEGALIZED PEDOPHILIA.
I am demanding I be allowed 2 wives and that one of them be my first cousin.
Muslims will cut in line, demanding equal rights for polygamy.
Cartoonish, indeed. Here’s the future definition of what or whom you can legally marry:
Anything that rhymes with “MATRIMONY”.
abalone, acrimony, agrimony, Albinoni, alimony, antimony, Berlusconi, cannelloni, ceremony, chalcedony, cicerone, hegemony, macaroni, minestrone, Nakasone, one-trick pony, palimony, parsimony, patrimony, pepperoni, provolone, rigatoni, sanctimony, Shetland pony, testimony, zabaglione
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.