Posted on 05/14/2004 4:42:47 PM PDT by pollywog
The supreme court is a blight upon our country.
And thus saith the Lord:
"Let brotherly love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them; and those who are ill-treated, since you also are in the body.
Let marriage be held in honor among all; and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for God will judge the immoral and adulterous.
Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have; for he has said, "I will never fail you nor forsake you." Hence we can confidently say,
The Lord is my helper, I will not be afraid; what can man do to me?" Hebrews 13:1-8
All except Scalia and Thomas.
As to Souter, I expect he and whatever "partner" he meets during his park rendezvouses will marry soon in Massachusetts.
Agree. Rights not specifically mentioned in the constitution are for the states to decide. If Mass wants to become the "gay state", let them. If want to stay away from Mass, we will. Too bad the USSC won't let abortion be decided the same way - state by state as it should be.
Going nowhere. The idiots who opposed the FMA claiming "states rights" will now see what the Supreme Court thinks of "states rights". Fait accompli, thieves in the night. Such bs.
"As it should be. The Supreme Court should have NO jurisdiction in how a state issues licenses."
I really -want- to agree with you. I oppose gay marriage, but I really -don't- want the answer to be to put even more unconstitutional power in the hands of the federal government.
Only one problem. The Federal government actually interacts with married couples just as much as the States do. What will be the Federal government's tax policy concerning them? If MA has gay marriage, and AL doesn't, does a married couple get taxed in MA and not in AL? -That- would be pretty unprecedented, federal policy differing according to state laws. Different federal tax form for every state? Now what happens if the couple married in MA moves to AL?
What about SS benefits? Transfer or don't transfer? Do they just hop a state line, get benefits, and go back home?
These to me are real reasons that the Federal government needs to have a position independent (tho not necessarily binding on) the States. I don't know if there's something in the Constitution that would legitimately put that under Federal jurisdiction for those reasons. If there was something that wouldn't turn into yet another slippery slope, great, but is there?
Qwinn
The state did not decide this. Four proflagate judges did, and they should have their a$$es hung from the highest flagpole.
You can bet yer states rights that SCOTUS will rule they are.
Hello Bama.
so long as the federal defense of marriage act is in place - they are not valid nationwide. but I think there are 5 votes on this SCOTUS to toss that, then they will be. that's why the amendment is the only way to stop it from going nationwide.
What is it about Alabama? :-}
And who does this surprise?
good post. but in the end, this is the people's fault (of Mass in this case). they elected these legislators, they would likely re-elect them. the votes just aren't there for a "get tough" approach.
>>I have not heard anything about Bush actually doing anything to get that constitutional amendment. I am waiting.
So what have YOU actually done about it? I am waiting.
Such appropriate scripture Pegita. You posts are like a soothing stream of water in a parched land. The Word of God brings life.
only when the federal defense of marriage act is tossed, will this amendment have any grounds for movement. that hasn't happened yet, but the first challenge will likely come very soon - as soon as the first couple married in MASS is denied the recognition by Florida or some other state.
let's have it out on this issue in this political year. But I will be honest, even though the polls show opposition to gay marriage, I don't think its an issue that will change most people's votes.
My prediction - the gays have won this. The amendment will not pass, the votes just aren't there, and we won't be able to get one of the liberal SCOTUS justices replaced in time to prevent a 5-4 ruling tossing the Federal defense of marriage act. Don't shoot the messenger.
Hehehe, honestly, it -was- pretty random. Initially, I was going to do NJ, but I live here, and I know this state, and I wanted at least a plausible scenario (sigh). So I tapped keystrokes randomly until I found two letters that made a state where a ban wasn't just silly :)
Qwinn
The Supremes should be found in contempt of court and impeached.
I wonder if the same people that always gripe about state's rights come out on this thread.
I read a long analysis of the state of judicial affairs concerning the homo agenda. It was written by an attorney/author who has done a lot of research on the issue. He goes into detail about cases that are never mentioned in this issue, yet have already set devastating precedent. The bottom line of his analysis was a prediction that within a year or two, SCOTUS will have given the homos virtually everything they want, that the foundations for these moves have already been laid, some very visibly, some very quietly. The prognosis is dark indeed.
To say the least, our current era looks a little more like "the days of Lot" with each passing day.
MM
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.