Roberts will cave.
What a sham. They know Roberts believe it’s “unconstitutional” to ban gay marriage.
From Wiki...
“Newspeak is explained in chapters 4 and 5 of Nineteen Eighty-Four, and in an appendix to the book. The language follows, for the most part, the same grammatical rules as English, but has a much more limiting, and constantly shifting vocabulary. Any synonyms or antonyms, along with undesirable concepts are eradicated.”
Look around folks, the gay rights movement is forcing schools to push gay sex and transgenderism on kids, and even to keep what goes on in these sexualized schools from being told to the parents!
Johnny will be a girl at school using the girls’ room, and his parents will not be told. This is law in Mass. now.
So imagine how much worse this will get once gay marriage is declared a Constitutional right.
I think its a perfectly fine analogy
And the libtards are going to hate it, so there’s that too
Rush knows a thing or two about getting married. Not as much as Mickey Rooney, but a lot.
I am waiting for one of the Justices that actually have a brain to retort to one of these fag loving lawyers that “gays” already have the same exact right to get married as everyone else in the country. Any queer in this country can go to any Justice of the Peace and marry someone of the opposite sex, just like normal people can. That is their equal right. It is the queers that want separate but equal rights. They want to be able to fornicate with something different and call it “marriage.” Then they call those of us who are against it as homophobes. A phobia is an irrational fear. No one is afraid of some turd pushing nancy-boy. We are simply disgusted by them.
Rogers postured on the Obamacare issue before caved too.
Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg
The left has a problem with reality.
“Chief Justice John Roberts Compares Gay Marriage To Forcing A Child To Call Someone ‘A Friend.’”
Yeah, that crazy talk. Roberts is the MAN!! The MAN I tell ya.... It would be like, passing a law that says something is a “penalty”, but instead we will just call it a tax....
Oh wait.....
Roberts will cave on this, saying that if we want 'better' laws we should elect 'better' representatives. We'll all go, "Huh? But we elected the people who voted in DOMA!!", but Roberts will have already disappeared to some remote island and won't be available for 3 weeks (or until the furor dies down).
If Roberts is consistent — with himself — he’ll say it is up to the people to decide these things.
As for his analogy, labels have practical consequences. If your new “friend” he can’t keep his hands to himself, you should not include him in sleep-overs, but...is that any way to treat a friend?
Likewise there are consequences to legalizing gay marriage, aside from watering down the word “marriage.” And among those consequences would be tolerating and creating opportunities for evil behavior.
Still, Roberts will say that if that’s what the majority rules, the majority rules!
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Roberts’ argument is arguing in favor of the concept of language...I have been beating that drum for quite some time - nice to see it finally made its way into the discussion on this issue. You can’t have a marriage without a husband and wife - and by definition, a husband is a man, and a wife is a woman. There’s no getting around that. Arguing that two people of the same sex have a right to “marriage” is an assault on the concept of language. This would only be the start of setting aside definitions of words to twist meanings to suit a particular purpose - witness the school system up in Massachusetts now trying to implement policies which disregard gender altogether and that people aren’t born a certain gender and can choose what they want to be (ironic concept for those who argue homosexuals are “born that way”...but I digress).
Marriage existed before there were any statutes passed by the states to govern them, and there were no “same sex marriages” then either because that does not and cannot fit the definition of the word. And of course, when these statutes were put into place (likely due to the fact there would be disputes over where property goes in the event a spouse dies, when there is divorce, etc. that required court intervention to settle and therefore there needed to a framework to deal with it), marriage was not defined as a husband and wife in the laws - why? Because that would be completely redundant - you don’t have to spell out the definition of words in statutes to have meaning. The word means what it means. “Marriage equality” is nonsense. Language is language.
If language does not prevail in this case, it is only the beginning of a cascade in many other issues and there could be no clear framework for anything if we can simply disregard what words mean to get what we want in any instance.
They're outraged that "silly little states" get votes in the Electoral College, or that their votes are even counted.
Who cares what rubes from Stickland think? They should be broken to helotry and bought and sold as slaves, by loyal Obama voters.