Posted on 06/26/2013 12:54:49 PM PDT by Timber Rattler
The Libertarian Party applauds the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today to strike the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law that discriminates against non-heterosexual marriages.
The Libertarian Party has supported marriage equality since its founding in 1971.
(Excerpt) Read more at lp.org ...
Ok, so you disagree with the libertarian position?
By the way, some of that does cover the feds, and some of is related to what the people who created the constitution were legislating on in 1780 and 1794.
They probably knew something about it, perhaps even more than some whacked out, pro-gay marriage, internet guy.
Morons who are good with judicial fascism so long as the outcome suits them.
Let me be clear. If the power is not delegated to the Fedgov by the Constitution/Amendments then the Fedgov don't have a say in it.
Gay Marriage AND straight Marriage. Neither are mentioned. The Fedgov has no say.
Case Closed!
Of course NOW that isn't the case because SCOTUS has ruled using the so-called Equal Protection Clause.
Now BOTH are forever ingrained into the DNA of the Fedgov.
I see so you are saying that if Congress passes a Bill and it is signed into law then that makes it Kosher...!
I see you know two things about our Government. "Jack" and "shit"
See this is the problem a so-called Conservative spouting that CONGRESS makes it Kosher.
Thanks for outing yourself.
Well compared to your gay marriage thing, and inability to know if you agree with the libertarian position or not, yes I do think that the Congress of 1780 and 1794, and 1798, knew something about their own constitution.
Exactly. No more needs to be said.
You do agree with the libertarian position, that is why you won’t answer.
Libertarians never do respond to the libertarian position, they flinch like vampires and refuse to respond.
Well do you believe the FEDGOV should defend Marriage?
I gave you my position in spades. Maybe if you get someone whose IQ exceeds 3 score they can help you with the larger words.
“I gave you my position in spades.”
So that is a yes then, you support the libertarian position on personal relationships.
Gay marriage is coming from the states, polygamy will follow from the states.
The states are destroying marriage.
That depends.
Does it allow the creation of human centipedes? If so, n- I mean, yes.
I forgot, you are the newby retread troll.
By seeking to injure the very class New York seeks to protect,DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution’s guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group.
Despite the fact that the four liberals allowed Kennedy to couch the majority opinion largely in States' rights arguments, does this sound like the holding of someone who intends to uphold a State's marriage laws if they forbid gay marriage? It does not.
Dissenting (Alito -- correctly -- notes that in defining marriage, DOMA does not infringe on the States' rights to regulate it.)
"It leaves the choice to the people, acting through their elected representatives at both the federal and state levels. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to enter into a same-sex marriage. Indeed, no provision of the Constitution speaks to the issue."
Dissenting (Nino. Who understands the real danger implied in 5th and 14th Amendment arguments offered by the majority):
"It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress's hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will "confine" the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with."
Just so.
I have a rule of thumb you might find useful: When you are on the side of a Constitutional issue that is opposed by Thomas, Alito and Scalia, you are on the wrong side of the Constitution. These men are not gods; they can be wrong. But ALL THREE of them are NEVER wrong at the same time.
Of course the founding documents said nothing about marriage. People then were educated and valued moral standards; they had ot reason to make a statement that marriage does not mean two sodomites sodomizing each other! Such a wild thought would never have entered their heads - that society would degrade so much, and the government become so tyrannical, that a tiny percentage of mentally ill sex perverts would use government to force everyone to bow to sodomy in the form of destroying the meaning of marriage.
They also do not define “natural born citizen” because everyone knew what that meant, too.
The ONLY reason DOMA was passed in the first place was as a DEFENSE against sex perverts from doing exactly what they have done - that is, get the government (of all levels) in volved in CHANGING the definiton of marriage. It is the sodomy pushers who are using Huge Nanny State Government to force the perversion of marriage on everyone. THe fact that people like rabid dog and other liberaltarians are slamming people who share my POV and not slamming the mentally ill sex perverts and their supporters who have used Huge Nanny State Government to push their sick and destructive agenda is very revealing.
The homosexual agenda pushers will never, ever stop in their mad march to societal revolution and destruction. Already today are headlines that churches will lose tax exempt status if they don’t marry two same sex perverts in church, and the military will now give benefits to pairs of sodomy practitioners.
I guess this is fine and dandy with people like you.
Enjoy the ride, it’s going to get a lot rougher.
They don't want gay "marriage." The average male homosexual has >500 sexual partners in his lifetime (which is quite short by normative standards.) Male homosexuals in supposedly "committed" relationships admit in surveys they average about eight sexual partners outside of their "monogamous" relationship per year.
Does that really sound like people who're interested in marriage in any meaningful sense?
They want "marriage" because it gives them a right to force acceptance on the rest of society by pushing the idea of sexual perversion farther left, and via lawsuits, workplace regulations, affirmative action, and other mischief.
I have on another computer a list of about 12 statements by prominent homosexual activists and spokespeople on the reasons they want homosexual "marriage". It is not at all about committment, long term or life long relationships, or pretending to be a family. They all clearly state that the reason they were pushing for same sex marriage is to change society - to create a sexual revolution where "anyting goes". That is the reason they want homosexual "marriage". ANd of course force everyone else to submit to their will and get punished if they don't.
Amazing that more people don't see this. The homo agenda propaganda has really worked on people who don't look for the truth.
The definition of marriage is not UP TO THE GUB’MENT! When you give the government power over something THEY DESTROY IT!
Learn it!
You wanted government involved now you get to reap what you sow!
No, it is the homosexual activists, Libertarians (but I repeat myself) and other associated leftists who have used Huge Nanny State Government to force a new and fake definition of marriage on everyone else.
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.