[agitator]

y'know the repetition of "manufactured right to privacy" as if it were some kind of mantra really gets on my nerves. My right of privacy preceeded govt and the constitution and doesn't have to be manufactured by anybody seeing as how it already existed and nobody can lawfully take it away.

[OXENinFLA]

Griswold?

[SwinneySwitch]

Haven't felt this bad since BJ Clinton was twice elected POTUS!

[rhema]

Kennedy dismisses thousands of years of law, history and theology, choosing to rely solely on modern times: "In all events we think that our laws and traditions in the past half century are of most relevance here."

Yeah, sure, Kennedy. Gland-driven laws and traditions rooted firmly in the sand of statistical morality will surely endure.

[lilylangtree]

We the People need to assert our authority. Impeach the U.S. Supreme Court!

[carolina_rn7]

"2Tm:3:13: But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

2Tm:3:14: But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;"

[Russell Scott]

No surprise here becasue the Bible is always right, especially about the days we are living in. The last days of fallen men on a planet ruled by a fallen supernatural being named Satan.

Very soon a remnant of divine creatures transformed by the resurrection power of Christ, will transform His creation from earthy to heavenly, and Christ will remove Satan, and rule the planet inhabited with creatues like Him. If you say you are like him now, you lie, because you are getting old and dying. Christ does not age, because he has no sin or death in him.

Romans 9:
28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

[Iris7]

The Constitution means whatever the powerful say it means. The Supreme Court is merely their mouthpiece. Alexander Hamilton pointed out long ago that the people would not defend the Constitution, and he has been proven right. No use crying over spilt milk. The idea that the Constitution is some sort of bulwark of freedom is merely a social myth. Grieve if you must, but we must go on. Face reality with courage.

[Cachelot]

Supreme Court decisions like this one also have far-reaching consequences. Griswold led to Roe, which led to partial birth abortion. And this ruling will lead to same-sex "marriage," because the court has removed from the people their right to create community standards for themselves.

Same-sex marriage is indeed next on the menu after this decision, and the gay community didn't waste a second pursuing that goal.

Talking to Nix the other day, she wondered why no one seemed to be thinking about the economic ramifications of a whole class of new marriages. And she's right - there are far-reaching consequences of this, for example for the social security system.

[DoctorMichael]

Fortunately, these Justices are much older than me so that I will be allowed the satisfaction of, in my lifetime, being able to piss on their graves for what they have wrought.

[colorado tanker]

Cal gets it.

[mikeb704]

America: Still a work in progress

[rudypoot]

"It is a compelling state interest that we ignore the Constitution." - US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Communist

[unixfox]

But the end of the Constitution has arrived.

Good, then it's time for all good men to come to the aid of their country and take it back.

REVOLUTION !!

[Mike4Freedom]

Can anyone explain to a libertarian why simply ignoring two gay people having sex in private is so terrible, but no one has time to worry about US citizens held prisoner without any charge, trial or anything resembling due process. That is the unbearable violation of the constitution that has to be challenged.

When we have all the due process violations that are imprisoning innocent people and allowing forfeiture and on and on, taken care of, then maybe we can take the time to debate this issue. Right now, it pales into insignificance.

[dogbyte12]

Christians used to be executed, tortured, stoned, crucified, tossed to lions and they survived quite well.

A supreme court decision is supposed to signal the end of christianity? How about those who look at this as a moment of potential rebirth?

Christianity has gotten soft, rote, familiar, and unreal. Being in a safe little town, with safe little morals, made it easy to profess faith, without being called to any great tests to defend it.

I genuinely can't understand some of the gnashing of teeth. Early christians might think of some of these complaints as quite petty in comparison. Christians were a persecuted minority longer than this republic has even existed. There was alot of sodomy, adultery, lewdness going on in Rome as well. The christians prevailed. Without a Supreme Court, elected representatives, or a friendly Emperor for 300 years. Yet, some think this is the end of the world? Some perspective people.

[JoeSchem]

What gays do in the privacy of their public toilet stall has never been at issue here. What's at issue, and everyone knows it, is the health insurance and pension money that will have to be paid to 'gay spouses' if gay marriage is recognized as legally indistinguishable from heterosexual marriage.

Just as a guestimate, this will cause everyone's health insurance payments to go up $50-$100 a year. Not that you'll notice it, because the accounting will bury it and you'll never see it in your paycheck. But someday, you might wonder how come economists proclaim that the economy is so much better off than it was in the 1960s, yet families were able to live on one breadwinner's income back then, and now we're just barely keeping above water with both parents working . . . it's because you're being nickel and dimed by the Perversfare State. And this has been another nickel out of your paycheck.

[Arrowhead]

Get your history book out. There is a case in 1761 between John Otis, the defendent, and Jeremiah Gridley, the prosecutor for the British Crown and ironically Otis' tutor at Harvard Law School which involved an argument over the legality of what was called the writ-of-assistance. This writ was like a search warrant that could be used for more than what is intended; to search beyond the scope of what is actually being looked for or even where they could look.

While facing a panel of three judges-one of which was a nemesis throughout John Otis' life, Thomas Hutchinson-Otis argued a great oration based upon the arguments by one, Sir Edward Coke, who "challenged the King's power...calling judges to nullify any act that went against an Englishmen's common rights, or against reason,...or if it violated the English constitution."

Now dig this: According to A.J. Langguth, author of Patriots, he writes: But a newcomer to the law like Hutchinson, who had not poured over Coke's commentaries, accepted Gridley's version of more recent history. For Hutchinson, British's Glorious Revolution of 1688 had not only deposed James II, but left Parliament the empire's Supreme authority. The British constitution was now only and whatever Parliament said it was.

Does this not sound strangely familiar to what Cal is saying with regards to Kennedy only relying upon case law within the last 50 years to determine decisions; instead of relying upon the previous centuries of wisdom that travailed through the trial and error of one society to another?

What we have here folks is classic history repeating itself.

Oh, by the way, Otis won the case. Be mindful that this case is what set in motion pre-notions of declaring independence from the Brits.

Arrowhead>>>-----Kennedy-->