Posted on 06/26/2015 5:32:37 PM PDT by C19fan
At any other time, this statement would be wholly unremarkable. In the thick of a GOP presidential primary, though? Right after the the hottest hot-button social issue of ‘em all has gone nuclear? When Mike Huckabee’s vowing some sort of second American revolution in defiance of the Court’s ruling?
Kinda newsy.
“I believe that marriage, as the key to strong family life, is the most important institution in our society and should be between one man and one woman. People who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage have the right to change their state laws. That is the right of our people, not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court. This decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
He certainly has turned into a big disappointment from when he first hit the political scene.
The False Bush’s fidelity to the law does not seem to apply to illegal immigrants.
Add Rubio to that list of Rinos who find crossing the border and working without papers just peachie
Cruz in the end had 2 issues added to his campaign issues.
Obamacare and Religious Freedom. Ted will make this campaign on these issues.
The GOP-E-Lib clowns running for POTUS are going to trip over themselves bowing in surrender to the Lavender Mafia’s Supreme Gay Court victory.
Rubberio
Next will be forcing churches to perform same sex ceremonies or give up their tax free status.
And those that pay full fare will probably face some sort of punitive ‘sin tax’/jiza tax for not bowing down to liberalism. Just as strip joint taxes fund rape prosecutions (indicting all adult entertainment observers as potential rapists) I could see them establishing a ‘GBLT’ fund from the additional taxes reaped from ‘corporate for profit’ churches (those without tax free status).
Goodbye freedom of religion.
Rubio needs to run on the dimmy ticket
That was always part of the plan. Before the end of the year I figure.
and I as my family will always correct them.
I’m not extraordinarily surprised by the decision but I am somewhat saddened by it.
On a similar note... just the other day... I overheard a couple of young girls saying how weird it must be to marry a man who ends up wanting to become a woman
I live in the Republic of Texas. Those laws I follow.
We believe, as much as Judge Douglas, (perhaps more) in obedience to, and respect for the judicial department of government. We think its decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it, has often over-ruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to over-rule this. We offer no resistance to it.
Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both with common sense, and the customary understanding of the legal profession.
If this important decision had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part, based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, to not acquiesce in it as a precedent.
But when, as it is true we find it wanting in all these claims to the public confidence, it is not resistance, it is not factious, it is not even disrespectful, to treat it as not having yet quite established a settled doctrine for the country.
That is a good point.
Rubio: “We live in a republic. Submit to your rulers.”
Except when it comes to amnesty, ey Rubio?
Exactly. States were voting this down in ballot measures, then their courts were implementing it anyway. Not the SC has shoved it down the entire country's throat, against the will of the people.
Ditto!
States prohibiting gay marriage must act uniformly and join to defy this “Dred Scott’ decision of our times, a constitutional Putsch.
They know that.
Their fight is against God, but not being able to reach Him, they attack us, His witnesses.
Their goal is to get us to accept their “marriages” as the equivalent as our marriages.
We need to continually make the point, it is nothing more than a civil union contracted by the State.
Even if they find some leftist church that will perform the ceremony, it is not a marriage in the eyes of God.
And God will not be mocked.
It’s actually NOT the law.
What the libs want, and what most Americans believe, is that USSC decisions are PART of the Constitution. They’re not.
As well as Dred Scott
and Rov v. Wade.
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.