Posted on 06/26/2013 12:54:49 PM PDT by Timber Rattler
Good Grief! There are a lot of sins mentioned in Leviticus — I just looked a few of them up.
Reynolds vs the United States explains why Marriage doesn’t fall into this bin.
Reynolds argues that the marriage definition in the united states dates to the colonial period prior to the constitution. the definition - then as now, was one man and one woman, and most importantly, that the federal government had the authority in their jurisdiction to defend the definition of marriage.
They, like with Habeaus Corpus and Trial by Jury do not have the ability to change what these terms mean. But they do have an obligation to protect them within their jurisdiction.
This is why states like Utah could not pass polygamy laws. and the same ruling shuts down MA and all the other sodomite states. It also bars changing the definition.
Read the case.
Supreme Court complied with Constitution concernnig DOMA, imo. If citizens would read Constitution then they would know that DOMA was arguably a religious test on federal employment, such tests prohibited by Clause 3 of Article VI.
And while I support only traditional one man, one woman marriage, the Founding States had also made 10A to clarify that Constitution’s silence about marriage and abortion means that such issues are uniquely state power issues; activist justices got away with Roe v. Wade because citizens don’t read Constitution.
In fact, only reason that I can figure that Constitution-ignoring Congress made DOMA was for “Christian” incumbents to win votes from Constitution-ignorant Christian voters.
Outraged At FLA is a homosexual agenda pushing troll. No doubt about it. Sleeper troll, many have older signup dates and use their account solely for trolldom when it suits their needs.
Outraged just got the jack boot. Thanks.
He’s been zotted.
The callers on talk radio today (several station, several programs I listened to) were saying that it is rough on same sex couples who have to surrender half their wealth when their partner dies. How about ending the confiscatory estate taxes instead since tax was already paid on the original income/investment?
BUT NO, libertarians never push that side of the equation.
Thank you.
Marriage should have stayed a Church matter and never become a State matter. As soon as the State starts to sanction or permit social behavior, shit is gonna go south.
Now that they are involved, there is no fixin things unless the State completely backs out of the marriage buisness.
“a fictional character. unfortunately as it sometimes seems”
It was a rhetorical question, but it manages to ensnare someone almost every time.
The true libertarian (small l) position is that government should get out of the marriage business altogether.
On behalf of true Conservatives, I thank you very much. His liberal, pro-sodomy nonsense was detracting from a very informative thread filled with action steps that can be taken to restore traditional American values.
I've also pinged The Old Lady so that the appropriate "honors" for this well-deserved ZOT can occur.
No, it’s not. And I’m not interested in the opinions of people who don’t know any better.
A laughable contention, since a number of non-Christian, nominal but not real Christian, and agnostic, lawmakers (and an agnostic President) signed on.
The purpose of DOMA was to sever marriage from the Full Faith and Credit Clause, so that Massachusetts could not effectively declare gay "marriage" effective throughout the entire United States, and to protect the Federal and State governments from litigation that might arise therefrom.
I wish.
The majority opinion -- to which Scalia so vigorously and even derisively objected -- makes it clear that the Court regards DOMA as Unconstitutional, NOT because of any 10th Amendment claim nor any 9th Amendment protection of marriage existing at the time of ratification, but because of the 14th Amendment. Effectively, they hold that DOMA discriminates against homosexuals as a class and that "class" is established by no means other than that they claimed to be denied a "right" that others enjoyed.
This means Reynolds is out the window, and it means that polygamists need merely argue that they are being denied a "right" enjoyed by couples, and that the Court must uphold that claim, since the only thing which defines polygamists AS A CLASS is that they hold marriage between more than two people to be lawful.
It will be amusing to see the liberal majority in this opinion try to slither out of the new 14th Amendment protection extended to homosexuals, while they deny it to bestialists and polygamists.
I have no doubt they will find a way. But Reynolds won't be it.
The opinion of famous restaurant critic Michael Savage is of no particular interest to me.
They stand for something. Have you noticed that they attack Republicans more than they attack the Democrats?
If DOMA was needed to ensure that Massachussettes can’t foist gay marriage on the normal states, is there an analogous bill that prevents Texas forcing liberal hellholes to recognize concealed handgun licenses?
In other words can normal states fight the gay agenda with the arguement “You force a precedent to honor your sodomite marriages and we will use it to force you to honor our gun carrying”
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.