Now We Do Weddings!NOpe. IN divorce courts, gays will rule and heterosexualizing parties will be punished with alimonis, work, taxes and passport retractions. YOu can bet on it.
This is false. Gay marriage is shackle to government marriage sanctified by government. It is a worse sharia replacing the former one if there was any.
Mitt Romney began this, with Marg Marshall put on
the judicial throne from her home S. Africa to impose
her wishes.
Mitt Romney violated the Mass Constitution to impose
the S. African’s order.
Perhaps, but it seems ALSO that SCOTUS basically nullified the Constitution of the state of California with its prop 8 decision....so all will now have to bow their knee to the opinion of pro-sodomy judges.
They championed it to fend off the more enduring prospect of a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and “clever” Republican leadership went along.
Bad spin and wishful thinking by Dana.
Historically, if you go back....there’s two angles on how we got drawn into government entanglement on this issue.
In the late 1700s...the issue of joint property came up....especially when guys would pass away, and their family (not the wife and their kids, but the brothers or parents of the guy)...would get into property disputes by saying that the wife had no connection to the property. So the idea of registering the marriage at a county office grew out of that dispute.
In the early 1800s....came the issue of guys marrying a woman and then running off....to be found months later married to another woman in the next county. So marriage license discussions came up. The threat of state law would come down on a guy who did this type of immoral activity.
To me, it’d be a lot easier to just shake the federal and state government out of this business of marriage...leaving it to the church. Then just have civil union paperwork down at the county office to conform to joint property issues.
What a mush-brained piece of SSM advocacy this is by Ms. Loesch. Just an effort at misdirection to appeal to the low-information conservatives - many of whom are attracted to Erickson’s site - and mask the devestating blow to our culture we were dealt on Wednesday by SCOTUS.
Your assumption that the majority’s opinion sets some kind of precedent to limit the reach of big government, depends entirely on the assumption that liberals will follow precedent and other interpretive rules even when such rules stand between the Left and what they want. That’s just naive. Liberals don’t care about rules. Even in this case, the majority eschewed the USSCt’s historical pronouncements that it would defer to legislative decisions when possible. It didn’t even go through a basic legislative history analysis as courts are supposed to do. Rules mean nothing to the Left when emotions are in play. In their irrational worldview, “consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” You will never “reason” them into submission or logical behavior when it doesn’t suit their goals. Know your enemy.
He is FOS. DOMA didnt interfere with anyone’ss marriage.
It just didnt award people benefits for state blessed sodomy.
This is no victory and the SCOTYUS wont use it as a precedent wrt laws that dont involve gay rights.
The reset, when it comes, (and it might not be 50 states “after” the reset), will sweep away the original “poisoned tree” which is Marbury vs Madison, all the way back to 1803.
The Constitution does NOT say that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of all laws in the USA. In fact, it puts Congress over the SCOTUS.
For perspective: Article One, dealing with congress, is 2,269 words long. Article Two, the executive, is 1,025 words. Article Three, the judiciary is only 377 words. Only 295 words if you take out Article Three Section 3, which deals with definitions of treason, not the judiciary.
And here is the applicable part of Article Three:
“In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Right there, it says that congress can regulate the SCOTUS, and decide which cases should or should not be under their purview.
The fact that the congress has abrogated this power since Marbury vs Madison doesn’t mean that this power no longer exists in the Constitution. After our coming crash and reset etc, I have some small hope that the “Tyranny of Five” will be thrown out. Nowhere in the Constiution or the Federalist Papers etc does it say that the SCOTUS shall have the power to redefine marriage to include homosexual unions and so on.
It was never the intention of our Founding Fathers that our Republic should become a tyranny of five judges.
“There is no allowance constitutionally that invites our government to define the religious covenant of marriage.”
While that is true, unfortunately, that’s not the way the case was decided.
Consequences will reach far.
Now, if the Feds recognize a category as special, and a state defines something excluded as included, the Feds must respect that inclusion. Non sequiturs as well.
SCOTUS defined handguns as a protected class of arms. Now if a state defines machineguns into the same category (think Glock 18), what does that do for the 922(o) prohibition?
What baffles me is the argument. 87 congress members and a president are racist because sodomizers have rights ?
The Chief Justice can set the rule of the the arguments of merit to the case before the court. It’s done every day it’s known as “the judge won’t allow”. Because the administration now favors “gay marriage” I wouldn’t expect what could be called a healthy defence from them. Sodomy wasn’t the issue . The issue was protecting the integrity and intention of a basic unit of society through a mechanisim known as marriage to encourage familys.
What should we expect from a political party which itself has gone through a marriage with one world socialist radicals known to many as communists who can’t even use the word God. They’ve hyphenated into Demo-Coms.
What baffles me is the argument. 87 congress members and a president are racist because sodomizers have rights ?
The Chief Justice can set the rule of the the arguments of merit to the case before the court. It’s done every day it’s known as “the judge won’t allow”. Because the administration now favors “gay marriage” I wouldn’t expect what could be called a healthy defence from them. Sodomy wasn’t the issue . The issue was protecting the integrity and intention of a basic unit of society through a mechanisim known as marriage to encourage familys.
What should we expect from a political party which itself has gone through a marriage with one world socialist radicals known to many as communists who can’t even use the word God. They’ve hyphenated into Demo-Coms.
Nice to see they’re still inhaling in some quarters of the blogosphere...
According to Article V, 2/3 of the states can call for a Constitutional Convention to consider changes. If narrowly authorized to consider one issue (which is preferable) this may be the way to do it. It would then have to be authorized by 3/4ths of the state legislatures. One state gets one vote.
This is the most ignorant argument but for some reason it refuses to die. Its most commonly presented by ignorent libertarians and Democrats meant to deceive. While I believe that most family law should be handled at the state level and I believe providing special estate tax considerations for one class of person receiving inheritance is not a good thing. That aside the invalidation of section 3 of DOMA doesn’t get government out of gay marriage but it most certainly gets the government deeply involved in it which was always the goal.
Gay marriage was legal and has been legal in every state in the union and by legal I mean it was not explicitly forbidden even if a state does not provide licenses churches and other institutions were and are entirely free to conduct gay ‘marriages’. What happenned yesterday is that 1000+ federal regulations will now be applied to gay marriages. So the idea that the rulling yesterday was a small government ruling is just silly.
I read the ruling and the dissent and it is clearly obvious many didn’t take the 10 minutes necessary to do even that.
First and foremost Kennedy basically said the only reason for opposing gay marriage is bigotry and that the federal government not conveying benefits to gay couples was harmful and even though there are countless laws that differentiate based on gender and behavior in federal law that for some reason DOMA is somehow different but he really didn’t explain exactly how. He tried to initially couch this in federalism and states rights but that was just an exercise of distraction from what the ultimate ruling was because the ruling did not get the federal government out of marriage not even one little bit.
The rulings most dangerous flaw I beieve is the idea that at its essence it says that because a state redefines marriage that the federal government should be forced to also redefine its definition of marriage because not doing so results in a conflict between state and federal law as if that isn’t a common occurence. So what we get is a bastardized version, a faux federalism, where its not just that states can redefine marriage for themselves but it will automatically require the federal laws to also redefine marriage. So if a state now expands marriage to encompass polygamy then the federal law will have to also expand to encompass that, if a state decides to let 9 year olds marry 40 year olds then again it will require the federal government do the same. It is a big backdoor to force federal accomodation and endorsement of the most radical ideas conceived by a state and of course it allows the most radical ideas to flow up to the federal level which will most certainly be filtered down to other states whether other states like it or not. So the law of the land of NY becomes increasingly the law of the land of TX which of course is the whole idea.
This really illustrates the flaw in the design of our federal government especially as it has become a funding hub which it was never intended nor designed to be. It is forcing increasingly a universal homogenity that was never anticipated by our founders. The solution to this would be to deconstruct the funding/taxing model. Move all taxing power to the states and leave it up to the state governments to decided how much they will provide to fund the central government. This would produce a much healthier environment for states rights and provide a fire wall against the kind of forced homogenity where the bad policies of one state or population because the bane of all states and populations.
We could decouple welfare programs, education programs, etc and move them wholely to the state level fairly easily and states could truly have the power to control their own destiny. And state governments would play an increasing role in their own roles in the Union rather than a decreasing role as has been the case up this point.
I agree with her. It easily could’ve gone the other way and made divorce illegal. Great for wife beaters, terrible for battered wives. That would be government enforcing the “till death do us part” part of the oath of marriage.