Posted on 06/26/2013 8:10:28 AM PDT by haffast
Can’t get government out of marriage. It is the foundation of all cultures/rules/regulations/systems of organizations-—it is like saying getting government out of culture. There has to be a “basis” for organizing society at the fundamental level which is universal and accepted by all.
laws are government-—and when they violate Natural Laws and God’s Laws they are tyrannical, irrational, evil law-—and St. Thomas and Founders and John Marshall would say that when Laws cease to be Just (Virtuous and in line with Natural Law (Right Reason)—they cease to be Law.
This ruling strips Reason from Law-—and strips Natural Rights and God from our Constitution. It flips Good and Evil and eliminates Christian Ethics and installs Satanic Ethics of sexual immorality which will destroy children and the future.
"DO NOT PASS GO. DO NOT COLLECT $200."
Why does it seem as though since Reagan was President conservative America has been playing 'Monopoly'...and landing on nothing but Park Place and Boardwalk (with Dem/Lib hotels on them); the 'Pay Income Tax' space; landing in Jail, or flipping of the 'CHANCE' card, instructing us to 'PAY HOTEL ASSESSMENTS'??
If there were a "GO STRAIGHT TO HELL' space, we'd already hit it over and over.
Legislation? We don’t need no stinking legislation!
We got these here robes, and we be your SUPREMES.
You may genuflect.
Everytime I play Monopoly I always land on that, right after getting my $200 for Passing "Go"... That's today's America in a nutshell.
It’s not really about liberty, it’s about forcing society to accept an agenda by use of government. It’s the agenda that really matters to them, and as it gains momentum it will turn continually toward erasing God from society, since that is their ultimate goal.
Ditto!!! Well Said!!!
They did not actually “strike down” proposition 8.
They ruled that they had no standing to hear the case.
They also ruled that the appeals court had no standing to hear the case.
And they told the Appeals court to re-rule based on the lack of standing, which SHOULD mean the appeals court will now rule that the district court had no standing to hear the case.
Which SHOULD mean the district case will be thrown out, and there will be no more active ruling against prop 8.
At which point the original plaintiffs could go back and sue again. And with no standing for anybody to defend the case, a default judgement would be entered. And that would continue for each person who sued, but it would only apply to each person who sued. So you would have the law, the law would be valid, but everybody who sued would get released from the law, until someone with standing decided to defend one of the cases.
A bedrock principle of our judicial system is that you can have no judgment if there are not appropriate adversaries.
Of course, we have so little concern for the law these days that who knows what the judges will do.
June 26, 2013 shall henceforth always be known as Gay Wednesday.
Barely a year after the vast majority made their thoughts on the matter known at Chick-Fil-A’s across the land, the elites doubled-down and crammed it down our throats.
This is a street war, people.
[[Neither ruling established a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage,
That’s the one good thing. The rulings appear to be technical in nature. ]]
there is nothign good about it- it is just onem ore stepping stone for the militant queers to foist their perversions o nbthe nation- they are chipping chipping, chipping away until they get to the point where the whole damn foundation is compromised and the building collapses-
this ruling was just another assault on morality and on the institution of marriage- and it was another blow to the constitution by activists judges who apparently don’t give a damn that marriage is NOT a right, NOT a liberty, NOT a civil right- it is a privilege granted for the purposes of procreation and raising future generations of taxpayers-
IF marriage is a right, civil right, liberty- then ANYONE can be married to whomever or whatever they wish and the court has NO right to stop them
The supreme court is destroyign our constitution on unconstitutional ruling after another
Practically Every freakin day I wake up lately, I hear another bit of news that is an unbeleivable, shocking, disgusting kick to the gut- What a disgrace thsi country is becoming- and it’s shockign how fast it is deteriorating
The CA Prop process is rule by Mob. I can’t stand it.
very well put..
Practically Every freakin day I wake up lately, I hear another bit of news that is an unbeleivable, shocking, disgusting kick to the gut- What a disgrace thsi country is becoming- and it’s shockign how fast it is deteriorating
Yep.
5.56mm
[[They did not actually “strike down” proposition 8.
They ruled that they had no standing to hear the case.
They also ruled that the appeals court had no standing to hear the case.
And they told the Appeals court to re-rule based on the lack of standing, which SHOULD mean the appeals court will now rule that the district court had no standing to hear the case.
Which SHOULD mean the district case will be thrown out, and there will be no more active ruling against prop 8.]]
Let me see if I’m following and understandign htis correctly
The peopel voted for prop 8- it passed, gay marriage was banned- a district court judge ruled the peopel couldn’t ban gay marriage by vote, the peopel took their case to an appeals court, the appeals court upheld the district court’s decision, so the peopel brought their casse to the supreme court
Am I right so far?
The SC said “Niope- you haven’t made a good enough case to brign htis to us- n or did the appeals court have an obligation to hear the case, so they must rerule statign that htey shouldn’t have ruled oen way or the other in the first place, so this now goes back to the district court’s decision, who were the original court to deny the people their voice by ruling agaisnt their vote (ie: ruling that hte peopel had no right to ban gay marriage)
Sounds to me like the surpeme court is sayign the peopel must accept hte district court’s decision
OR do ui have that mized up some? Did the district rule in favor of the peoplke, and he state brought the appeals case agaisnt the ruling?
Hear Hasbro is changing the 'Monopoly' game pieces? The Shoe will now become a Boot, the Thimble will be a Condom, and the Cannon, will now be a Limp-Wrist. Those b*stards.
%^/
Without a Federal amendment, basically the courts have said, The Fed's can't trump a state's perogative to recognize marriage as it sees fit. It's the state's right to define marriage not the Fed's. As long as the state recognizes the marriage the Fed's have too.
And with respect to Prop 8, the SCOTUS basically said California needs to elect different officials. I don't like the way the court dismisses cases for standing. What if the officials were blatantly violating the state constitition. Would SCOTUS refuse to step in?
This may be difficult, but it’s time to get DOMA into an an Amendment to the Constitution.
a) 2/3 majority in the House (doable)
b) 2/3 majority in the Senate (tough, but doable with a GOP majority in 2014)
c) and passed by simple majority in 3/4ths of the State legislatures. (difficult)
The President has no veto or role in the process.
This will be arduous and requires very good lawyering, but it is not impossible.
momrons are already pushing polygamy, to come out of the shadows.
“get government out of marriage altogether”
“Exactly!!”
Right! Does anyone disagree? Why are no Republican/Conservative pols taking this position?
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.