Posted on 06/26/2013 12:54:49 PM PDT by Timber Rattler
You disagree with this?
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
You got gay marriage, this is quite a day for you, polygamy is next and you can celebrate again.
By the way, your taxes are going up, because now the federal government will have to recognize gay marriage and the Pentagon has already announced their compliance.
Learn it!
You wanted government involved now you get to reap what you sow!
Nice try but no sale.
I got to see Marriage destroyed because people wanted Gub'ment involved in it.
YOU ARE REAPING WHAT YOU SOWED!
Render unto Caesar what is Caesars... Now Caesar owns Marriage.
Congrats
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
The article and comments on the thread make the picture very clear, exactly what libertarianism really is. And anyone who continues to call themselves a Libertarian or libertarian is making it clear what their principles and values are.
Anyone wanting on/off any of my pinglists, freepmail ME since wagglebee has been away for a while.
Could you please give some evidence of the time when no level of government recognized the legal status of marriage. That would include not recognizing legitimate paternity and much more. I’m sure you have lots of evidence proving that goverment (oh excuse me, “Gub’ment”) involvement in marriage is “our” doing and of recent origin.
Thankyouinadvance.
The faggots and the SCROTUS just destroyed the definion of marriage, at least legally. I wanted government involved? No, the faggots did.
And you’re not making an iota of sense, btw.
The Court did not rule that DOMA was Unconstitutional because it attempted to clarify the Full Faith and Credit Clause in a way not previously held in the case law, nor in a way inconsistent with its original meaning. Had the court found so narrowly, the question of whether States must grant full faith and credit to all marriage arrangements would still be an open question.
It no longer is; as a matter of fact, it is considerably WORSE than that.
READ Kennedy's opinion. The Court ruled that DOMA was Unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause for an identifiable class of persons. Although it did not go as far as to say there is a right to homosexual "marriage," that a future Court must do so is now a foregone conclusion.
The Court's decision today clearly signals that if homosexuals are denied marriage licenses in my state (PA) that is per se a violation of Equal Protection under the Law, and if they bring suit against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in Federal Court, they will succeed in creating a right to be "married" here.
With all due respect -- and with the irony that your moniker requires -- the Court today went much farther than rule that the Federal Government could not make a marriage law that infringed on States' rights. It ruled in fact that NO LEGAL ENTITY covered by the Fourteenth Amendment may make a law that infringes on the "right" of homosexuals to marry.
That is the reason for Scalia's savage deprecation of the majority opinion. When the legislature destroys the Constitution, at least it does so with the assent of the people. When the Court does so, it does so under the authority of nothing more than the opinion of five lawyers.
Please if you would find a definition of Marriage in any of the the three.
See we are talking about the Federal Government. DOMA is Federal. Soon you will get to see the Marriage Equality Amendment proposed. So when it is ratified THEN you will be correct. Government will be forever involved in marriage!
Did you support DOMA? (The Defense of Marriage Act)
They’ll never see it. They are blind to it.
Either wilfully or via deception to rope in others.
I see libertarians posting that a lot, blaming someone, conservatives, or Christians I guess, does that mean that you support the libertarian position and oppose the conservative one?
Allowing the government power of who gets married to whom?
If that is your definition of a Conservative position then yes I am against it.
See it isn't in the Constitution so the FedGov has no business involved in it.
Please at least learn that!
Sadly, Yes...!
Ahh but see that isn't how it works.
Once the Fedgov camel nose is under the tent the game is over.
And so-called Conservatives on this site won't admit that they knew this all along.
One more time. If you give the Fed Gov power over something THEY WILL DESTROY IT!
With all due respect to Justice Kennedy, pro-big federal government activist Justices cannot afford to reference the 10th Amendment for any reason.
I haven't read opinion yet, but if Kennedy referred to equal protections clause in Section 1 of 14th Amendment then that is a wrong, PC interpretation of that clause.
More specifically, note that regardless of the equal protections clause in Sec. 1 of 14A, note that Sec. 2 of that amendment discriminates on the basis of sex, age and citizenship. In fact, if John Bingham had meant for equal protections clause to be understood the way that activist justices are now interpreting it, then there would have been no need for the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments which protect voting rights on the basis of race, sex, taxes owed and age respectively.
Regarding 14A's equal protections clause, the states have the 10A-protected power to discriminate on any basis not protected by an express constitutional right. What 14A's equal protections clause does is to require the states to discriminate equally on criteria not protected by the Constitution.
It's ironic that the equal protections clause of California's constitution is expressly based, I believe, on 14A's equal protection clause.
You disagree with this?
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
Is any of the above relegated to the Fedgov by the Constitution or the Amendments?
Thank you for that zot. He deserved it.
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.