Wouldn't surprise me, because it seemed like the Muslims were taking over that suburb before I left DFW.
Posted on 03/27/2013 7:44:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Not quite that simple. The Supreme Court has held marriage is a fundemwntal right several times. So if a state says Only Mormons can marry. Would that be constitutional in your eyes?
I am doing my work, but I need timely breaks, so FR fills the bill. I have listened to my talk shows in quite a while.
Are we really THAT old that no one else remembers having to get blood tests when you got married?
I think we should reinstitute the VD checks and force the gays to get their diseases checked according to the Federal mandate and have their status put on a Federal register of known carriers like heterosexuals were forced if they were found to have the clap.
It would only be fair.
The government has always had a role in marriage going back many thousands of years and individuals entered marriage on their own until the Council of Trent, and even then, that only controlled the people who fell under the rule of the catholic leadership, it didn’t affect England.
In the colonies the government was defining marriage as early as the 1600s by limiting marriage to certain racial combinations.
THIS is what should be said to our Supreme Court Judges! Let THEM see what God has in store for us when we defy HIS word! The 4% gay population can bring down the 96% if we keep our voices out of their vicious fight for “rights”.
Just came back to the USA after 7 days in ISRAEL on a Holy Land tour. I’ll take God’s word over the Supreme Court’s decisions anyday and know what I need to do here on Earth for my hereater!!! I do not live in the judge’s everyday lives and happy for that!
for decades did we ever hear the radical elft say how they should drop queer sham marriage,?
hell no they just refine their message much like health care, while our side goes,”oh no we have to be like them “
“The liberals now use the 14th Amendment to justify everything under the sun, even though its only intent was to confer the same rights to newly freed slaves as everyone else.”
Yes, I am beginning to think that everytime a COTUS ammendment happens or a piece of legislation is produced, it should have attached to it a clear statement as to the reason and intent the legislation and a disclaimer that it cannot be used in other cases outside the original intent.
The 14th Ammendment being a prime example.
Wouldn't surprise me, because it seemed like the Muslims were taking over that suburb before I left DFW.
About a month ago I was on Campbell rd in Richardson and saw a sea of them clad all in black outside a mosque. It was a spooky, nauseating spectacle. I mean...there is a great deal of diversity in Richardson.
What is the State's interest in preventing you from marrying your cousin or sister? Is it merely the chance of producing "defective" children?
If the State can prohibit unhealthy relationships like that, then it can prohibit marriages based on sodomy.
OTOH if a State allows homosexual marriages, then why can't a brother marry his brother or a sister marry a sister, or a father marry his son or a mother marry her daughter?
Those are all homosexual relationships that cannot produce genetically defective children.
“don’t make a federal case about it” used to mean something.
Cruz is being intellectually consistent.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Do you, Senator, want California dictating marriage laws for Texas?
Not an issue, according to Levin.
A SCOTUS decision in the thirties assured that one state's decision in a discretionary matter -- such as marriage -- could not force another state to act outside its own laws.
Indeed, DOMA re-affirmed this decision.
Texas, for example, is under no obligation to accept or recognize a same sex "marriage" from Massachusetts.
Is Nebraska, with a marriageable age of 17 required to accept a marriage of a 21 year old man and a 13 year old "woman" (with parental consent) from New Hampshire (yes, that is apparently legal in NH)?
Or does Nebraska put the 21 year old away for statutory rape?
Article IV Section 1 says the former.
If it came up before SCOTUS, I would imagine that SCOTUS would use the same principle for homosexuals.
The people in my state(California) voted against homo marriage in 2008, but our votes were overruled by jackasses in the higher courts..so they basically told all us voters to suck it and we all got screwed.
And Ted Cruz is a natural born leader. I surely hope he's President some day......soon.
No offense, but in a contest between your legal opinion and Mark Levin’s legal opinion, I’ll go with the constitutional lawyer.
No offense, but Mark Levin does not know what SCOTUS will do. Neither do you. Neither do I. There is no precedent.
Mark Levin may believe that SCOTUS should do (and if I heard his reasoning, I would probably agree with it), but, hey, we were ALL surprised with Roberts' ruling on Obamacare, weren't we?
Until there is a precedent set, we will just not know. And I'd rather work to protect against a nasty surprise than be a lemming.
Time to purge the GOP of the cowards and infiltrators
**
It really is past time for this. I believe the majority of the American people don’t want this — problem is, our reps don’t “represent” and our media convinces us that there are less of us than there are of them.
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.