Posted on 04/29/2015 12:04:13 PM PDT by lifeofgrace
our neighbor commented, when Alioto asked why 4 lawyers couldn’t all get a ‘marriage’ license together,
that ...
this would actually be a very good idea.
“If all the lawyers were busy screwing each other, then they’d not be shafting the rest of us as much....”
(just kidding, esquires....)
I think we all know the fix is in. One way or another
if SCOTUS rules to overturn state marriage definitions and protection for religious conscience,
You will see A lot of States Abolish Marriage completely in their State, which by the way they should, it wasn’t til the early 1900’s that States got involved and started requiring a LICENSE to MARRY in an effort to stop Blacks from Marrying Whites.
GIVE IT ALL BACK TO THE CHURCH where it belongs, Marriage is a Religious Institution.
Alito did NOT say opposite sex siblings living in the same household was incest, nor was it implied. Back years ago it was not uncommon for bachelor and maiden siblings to live together either before or after their parents died or even after spouses passed away. Only a dirty minded liberal’s would jump to incest.
I know siblings who were going to share an apartment, but one died just prior to the move. Families take care of each other.
The problem lies with the legal system. It's broken, when it comes to social issues.
You do realize this is about 2% about gay rights and 98% about criminalizing Christian beliefs, right?
So the attempts to compromise with them on this issue are fruitless, no pun intended.
Does this mean the gay community would condemn two sisters who wished to marry? How quaint.
If a state is forced to “recognize” gay marriage, then it is the solemn obligation of all Christians in that state to push hard for secession from the union.
That’s because even if states get out of the marriage business, they’ll still have to treat “married” queers the same as they would regular married couples for purposes of taxation, employee benefits, etc.
That would leave us no other choice but to separate from the United States. If no states break away after a few years, it will be time to consider re-settling en masse to other, more hospitable countries. That would leave the U.S. with only its liberals/takers, leading to its rapid decline.
I heard Rush talking about the same thing today.
“You will see A lot of States Abolish Marriage completely in their State, which by the way they should, it wasn’t til the early 1900’s that States got involved and started requiring a LICENSE to MARRY in an effort to stop Blacks from Marrying Whites.”
At that point, I think the left would successfully argue that they cannot because their motives are bad.
There is no such thing as "same sex marriage" just as there is no such thing as man giving birth.
That’s because even if states get out of the marriage business, they’ll still have to treat “married” queers the same as they would regular married couples for purposes of taxation, employee benefits, etc
No they Don’t, just ABOLISH EVERYTHING with regards to Marriage, Marriage is a RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, do it on 1st Amendment Grounds and ELIMINATE ALL BENEFITS,Tax Breaks... at the STATE LEVEL precisely because it would be an “Endorsement” of Religion.
Then watch them squeal.
“Verrilli did not trip up on the fact that Alito just openly compared same-sex love with sibling incest”
Same-sex love....hahahahaha that is so laughable.
What one man does to another man’s anus is not love...it is vile, filthy, and disgusting...and it is deadly and leads to HIV/AIDS.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention statistics March 2015:
Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men. At the end of 2011, an estimated 500,022 (57%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs.
No reasonable society should consider making something so incongruent with societal norms and so dangerous to that same society without fully considering all the ramifications. No reasonable society that is.
It’s amazing that I live in a time where these questions are even being asked.
It is as though all of history is on trial and we’re finally going to have to answer questions about morality.
I see the big conflict as an issue of ethics systems. Our laws and system of government were *always* compatible with Judeo-Christian *ethics*. It was the basis of thinking. Those that wish to eliminate religion do not realize they have no ethics basis for law and the laws they want passed will, inevitably, be in conflict with existing laws.
In this case it manifests as an incompatible set of rights - gay rights vs. religious rights. Those that aren’t religious are not sensitive to religious rights and therefore don’t care about them. They’re as guilty as those that didn’t care that slaves were slaves, it didn’t impact them. So while it is usually liberals going on about “revolution”, REAL revolution is caused by trampling on peoples inalienable rights. The left really thinks that they can use this issue to mock, ridicule, punish and silence Christians. It isn’t about marriage, it is about the legal hammer the issue gives them against Christians, which is why the left supports them as they do.
They naively believe that they will “win” - which means having the law as they wish and *forcing* Christians to comply - and that once the issue is “won” the issue is over with. It is naive because that will be just the beginning, eventually they’ll be on the losing end.
It may seem strange but...I blame the Internet - it is a cultural change catalyst. Then again....all things must come to pass.
Thirty-five years ago, the smaller group pleaded simply for a little "tolerance."
. What has changed in the interim to justify the tsunami of societal dislocations of doing the reverse?
The dysfunctional minority continues to demand a scorched earth policy over a word!
It is madness and a sociopathy which makes the entire process a mockery of an orderly society governed by rational laws.
...also, what about two gay male siblings?
Why not? And if not, can you *really* discriminate against male/female sibling marriage?
Thank you for posting this.
Well, I’m not a dirty liberal mind, but, until you pointed that out, it never occurred to me that siblings living together DOES NOT imply incest (although I never would have thought that thought, until after reading the excerpt).
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.