Skip to comments.
U.S. Supreme Court wipes out Proposition 8's gay marriage ban
MercuryNews.com ^
| June 26, 2013
| Howard Mintz
Posted on 06/26/2013 7:41:40 AM PDT by Deo volente
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 301-312 next last
To: rollo tomasi
I’m not cherry picking. I’ve been pretty consistent in my position. Instead of fighting to get the feds out of something they have no business in, you would rather just have the rules changed again so you can exclude the homosexuals from fedgovs unconstitutional favors you get at the expense of single people.
121
posted on
06/26/2013 8:37:51 AM PDT
by
Orangedog
(An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
To: The Great RJ
It is like we are back in 1st century instead of 21st century.
122
posted on
06/26/2013 8:38:56 AM PDT
by
scbison
To: rollo tomasi
Find a post where I said fedgov has any constitutional authority in marriage, straight, homosexual or otherwise. You’re so locked into the fake left/right BS you see hypocrosy where there is none.
123
posted on
06/26/2013 8:40:16 AM PDT
by
Orangedog
(An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
To: little jeremiah
No wonder so many people find it a fool’s errand to take the time to vote.
124
posted on
06/26/2013 8:41:46 AM PDT
by
Neoliberalnot
(Marxism works well only with the uneducated and the unarmed.)
To: RIghtwardHo
I think many Conservatives took this hook, line and sinker. The DOMA was a HUGE mistake, bringing the Federal Gov’t into a State issue, thus bolstering the argument that Marriage is a RIGHT.
125
posted on
06/26/2013 8:41:52 AM PDT
by
cumbo78
To: Orangedog
I could agree with you except for the fact that the homosexual activists are the ones pushing this. The homosexual activists are the ones trying to force the government to define marriage in a certain way.
So, if we say government should get out of the business of marriage, do you really think the homosexual activists would allow that? They would still be in court on this issue if we tried to delete any laws on marriage.
To: greene66
Agree, I have a son almost military age..At one time, I would have been proud if he enlisted.. Now, I will do everything in power to persuade him not to join, if he ever wants to.
127
posted on
06/26/2013 8:42:38 AM PDT
by
scbison
To: RIghtwardHo
The CA AG or Governor should not have veto power over the people’s vote, and that is basically what they did.
128
posted on
06/26/2013 8:44:39 AM PDT
by
fwdude
( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
To: cumbo78
I think many Conservatives took this hook, line and sinker. The DOMA was a HUGE mistake, bringing the Federal Govt into a State issue, thus bolstering the argument that Marriage is a RIGHT.IMHO, Anthony Comstock made the same mistake when he got the federal government involved in the business of birth control. An even bigger mistake was when he got abortion declared a form of birth control (instead of the state crime of murder) so that he could try to regulate that, too.
129
posted on
06/26/2013 8:46:56 AM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: OneWingedShark
My beloved Aunt has recently completed her conversion to the LDS after leaving the Catholic Church and spending some time at a nondenominational Church. Her reasons for leaving the Catholic Church are valid - for her - and she is very happy now. I really know nothing about LDS except some things that she has shared with me.
130
posted on
06/26/2013 8:47:14 AM PDT
by
liberalh8ter
(The only difference between flash mob 'urban yutes' and U.S. politicians is the hoodies.)
To: AppyPappy
I posted that history because in the not too distant past marriage was usually a private contract between a man and a woman and usually God. Society recognized it as a marriage, and the gov’t didn’t have any business in it. I imagine that back then, not so long ago, if 2 men ran around saying they were married, most of society would just have not recognized it as a marriage and a few good laughs would be had. But they wouldn’t be going to court demanding recognition, demanding that gay marriage be taught in school, demanding that businesses do the floral arrangements for their wedding, because the gov’t wasn’t involved in it to begin with. Marriage started out as a religious institution, not a legal one.
To: USS Johnston
Agreed completely. Things are accellerating. Ibelieve a storm is coming sooner rather than later and pray we and ours are prepared for it.
To: Orangedog
Also when was Article I, Section 8 ever headed, lol? I will give you an easy ending to that section (Although events before could be debated), the Louisiana Purchase. Now work your way forward from there and start blaming voters/Judicial Branch for the overreach.
Next, think about how the feds just expanded marriage.
Hypocritical libertarians are out to lunch with what just happened. Or maybe they just favor the feds allowing expanded benefits of those in homosexual "marriages".
What is your pick, hypocrisy or you favor the Feds recognizing homosexual "marriage"? BTW, the reality is not the Judicial Branch not recognizing/regulating marriage, other Federal laws do that which they ignore based on their own biases, the reality is that the Feds expanded/unregulated the meaning. Either way, the Feds are still in the marriage business.
133
posted on
06/26/2013 8:50:39 AM PDT
by
rollo tomasi
(Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
To: AppyPappy
"Does this mean that the government must recognize polygamous unions that are recognized internationally?"Anything goes it seems. They just legalized sodomy.
134
posted on
06/26/2013 8:50:43 AM PDT
by
ex-snook
(God is Love)
To: scbison
I know. With Obama’s faggotization of the military, the “uniform” no longer carries the awe and respect it used to for me.
To: Dilbert San Diego
Get rid of the favors fedgov gives married people for being married and there’s nothing to fight over with the homosexuals. It’s the polygamous relationship y’all have with your spouse and the government you need to deal with, not the homersexuals.
136
posted on
06/26/2013 8:51:18 AM PDT
by
Orangedog
(An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
To: liberalh8ter
My beloved Aunt has recently completed her conversion to the LDS after leaving the Catholic Church and spending some time at a nondenominational Church. Her reasons for leaving the Catholic Church are valid - for her - and she is very happy now. I really know nothing about LDS except some things that she has shared with me. *nod* — I will say this, as for politics the Mormon church seems more willing to call its political leaders to task than the Catholic Church... but that is a rather backhanded complement given that the Catholic church has the like of Pelosi (the abortion fanatic) and does nothing to correct her.
137
posted on
06/26/2013 8:52:58 AM PDT
by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
To: Deo volente; P-Marlowe; narses
This is so ridiculous. They just do what they want.
In the one case, supposedly they are all about the states getting to decide for themselves. California decided. But, now they’re saying that California can’t decide for itself if it’s power elite don’t agree to defend their decision. So, it isn’t really about states rights. It’s about using whatever justification is necessary to get to the desired result.
Marlowe is right. This has become demonic.
Revolution is coming.
138
posted on
06/26/2013 8:53:25 AM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
To: Orangedog
"Find a post where I said fedgov has any constitutional authority in marriage, straight, homosexual or otherwise."
Well do not have to look back far, every single one of your posts on this thread favors expanding federal marriage, yet your smoky Libertarian brain cannot wrap your rational around that concept.
139
posted on
06/26/2013 8:53:50 AM PDT
by
rollo tomasi
(Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
To: txrangerette
They have no standing at the federal level, but did it overturn the state law allowing plantiffs who supported/organized the proposition to defend it in state court?
140
posted on
06/26/2013 8:55:02 AM PDT
by
1010RD
(First, Do No Harm)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 301-312 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson