Posted on 06/26/2015 7:21:53 PM PDT by Engraved-on-His-hands
With the Supreme Court’s historic ruling that effectively legalizes same-sex marriage in all 50 states, the 2016 presidential candidates really have no choice today but to comment on the decision from one angle of another. Here’s what they had to say.
Hillary Clinton was quick out of the gate with a personal statement, followed by a rebranding of her campaign logo that has already been retweeted more than 20,000 times:
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
Well said, savagesusie. Good.
Walker is the only one willing to cut funding to the government schools and many other offices supporting homosexual activism. He has the record to prove it.
That’s the only way to solve the problem: to decrease the funding that allows the animals money and time for their political activities.
That’s also why fans of some of the other candidates are so misbehaved. They rely on big government for enough time and money to insult and lie to their true private sector opponents. Their candidates are lying, too. When have those other candidates so much as promised to cut public school teacher positions and pay? Not that I’d believe them, if they did.
Walker has the record to prove it, and cutting the funding of domestic enemies is the only effective way to eventually put a stop to it.
But we’ll win anyway. The forced and inevitable repudiations of debt ahead will accomplish the same depositions of those domestic enemies, even if another liar gets into office.
My best hope is that SSMs can only get married at a government office. The state sanctioned this, they can also do the dirty work and leave the rest of us alone.
Gays can get married in Norway but only at a government office. The Church of Norway hasn’t caved.....yet.
I know in Washington state (where I was married) that anybody can marry you. You don’t have to be revrunt or rabbi.
I shall never consider two gays to be married. I will not participate in their perversion.
I've read posts suggesting the Individual States (for John Roberts clarity) should just nullify the USSC decision. However, you actually bring up a legal issue that is problematic to States' laws and constitutions, providing such stipulate that marriage is between and man and woman. It will be interesting to see how the States handle this.
Most State Statutes do not include language that if one sentence of a statute is declared unconstitutional that the remainder of the statute will remain in effect.
When these laws limiting marriage licenses to one man and one woman, not members of the immediate family or first cousins, not under the age of 17... etc., were enacted, nobody in their wildest dreams ever thought that even one sentence would be found to be unconstitutional.
But since the Supreme Court has ruled that any marriage law that prohibits same sex marriage is now unconstitutional, the entire marriage law has been declared to be unconstitutional and the state is left with no law at all on the books governing marriage.
Unless the State Legislatures pass new laws redefining the terms under which a couple or group of people may get married, then there is no legal authority for the issuance of marriage licenses or certificates.
Any County Clerk who issues a marriage license to anyone (gay, straight, whatever) is doing so without any legal authorization to do so.
The Supreme Court not only legitimized gay marriage, but ended marriage for everyone at the same time.
SCOTUS ruling is NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.
Everyone who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution has an obligation to ignore this ruling and to declare it illegitimate.
States can continue to abide by their state law and refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, or they can refuse to give marriage licenses to anyone. They have no legal authority to do anything else.
Marriage by another name is still marriage. A word is its substance, not its title.
Would a rose by any other name smell so sweet? Better, would poop by any other name still stink?
I am not talking about business arrangements. Everyone but everyone knows homo civil unions are marriage by another name to calm down emotions of the opposition.
It is irrelevant now anyway, but it does taint my view of Carson — greatly.
That is all I need to know about your level of intelligence.
They’d better stay out of Poland, where I am now, if they know what’s good for them.
If they go to Muslim Countries, they get a sky diving lesson without the parachute.
Moreover, if a law is cut up, and it had no idea it would be cut up, it is no longer the unified whole that it once was. It's only reasonable that the entire law be rewritten.
I agree with you that it should simply be rescinded and the state announce that in order to treat everyone fairly, it no longer will be in the marriage license business at all.
So far as other forms of state nullification, I do think that fair minded people can see that the scotus decision was unconstitutional. I would expect states simply to ignore such a ruling, and tell the oligarch's and elite to go to hell.
Your inability to express a intelligent reply provides the opportunity for your intelligence to be measured also.
The Supreme Court is no longer a legitimate third branch of the Federal Government. It is a lawless entity that apparently thinks it answers to nobody.
It is time that WE THE PEOPLE stood up to this lawless bunch of judicial thugs.
NULLIFICATION.
It it the RIGHT AND DUTY OF THE STATES AND THE PEOPLE to stand up against judicial tyranny!
The Constitution means nothing if those charged with upholding it view it as an obstacle to their power rather than a limitation on it.
Nullification is an act a few steps short of rebellion. It’s the right step at this point.
We are not rebelling against the United States of America, we are rebelling against a tyrannical lawless court.
They are the ones who have rebelled against the United States of America by ordering the States to commit blasphemy against God and Nature.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS DECLARED WAR ON THE STATES!!!!!!!!!
I agree with you, but have you heard that the President and Congress are objecting in any serious way?
Obama?
Boehner?
McConnell?
The oligarchy is a bit larger than the 9 black robes. (Although Kennedy is deserving of special contempt, since he’s another on-again-off-again user of the actual words in the constitution, meaning that he knows he’s a sell-out.
That is why the States must engage in the battle. Expect no quarter from the power mad oligarchs in Washington as they will give none.
If there was ever a reason to raise the rebel flag as a symbol of states rights, yesterday gave the reason.
Our only hope is in fighting this battle from the ground up. We cannot expect any support from any branch of the Federal Government.
The Constitution is a pact between the States and the People of the States and the Government of the United States.
The Government has repeatedly violated that pact and yesterday they told the States that they are no longer considered a part of that pact. All power now rests in Washington.
Either we fight for our liberty or we lose it. Once lost it cannot be recovered without blood and in only one instance in World History has the result of a bloody rebellion led to a Government such as we once had here.
We must resist this decision as if our very liberty depends on it. Because it does.
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.