Posted on 10/07/2014 7:51:30 PM PDT by Phillyred
On the far right, reactions to America's march toward civil marriage equality for same-sex couples are often – there's no gentle way to say this – far out. U.S. Senator and GOP presidential wannabe Ted Cruz this week accused the Supreme Court of 'judicial activism' for...choosing not to act. Peter LaBarbera, who has turned his apparent inability to stop worrying about homosexuality into a career, commanded his followers in AFTAH – Americans for Truth About (guess) – to commit “civil disobedience on a massive scale.” But as same-sex marriage bans tumble from coast to coast, no histrionics can top those cited by the 9th Circuit Court ruling that invalidated the bans in Nevada and Idaho. It seems Idaho Republican Gov. Butch Otter's breathtaking name is downright mundane compared to his lurid fantasies about marriage equality. The ruling notes that Otter “states, in conclusory fashion, that allowing same-sex marriages will lead opposite-sex couples to abuse alcohol and drugs, engage in extramarital affairs, take on demanding work schedules, and participate in time-consuming hobbies. We seriously doubt that allowing committed same-sex couples...
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
Borrowed from a related thread, please consider the following.
Regardless that PC interpretations of the Equal Portections Clause (EPC) are wrongly being used to advance the gay agenda, the EPC found in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A), I wonder if pro-gay judges and activist are even aware that 14A exists?
As mentioned in related threads, Section 1 of 14A actually prohibits the states from making policies which unreasonably abridge the constitutional rights of citizens, such rights expressly amended to the Constitution by the states, religious expression being one of those rights evidenced by the 1st Amendment.
And since the states have never ameneded the Constitution to expressly protect gay agenda issues, such as gay marriage, certain states are now violating 14A by wrongly using constitutionally unprotected gay rights to trump the constitutionally enumerated right of religious expression.
Regarding the EPC, judges and gay activist are wrongly reading gay rights into that clause. The problem with doing so is that the Supreme Court has historically clarified that 14A added no new rights to the Constitution. It only protects rights expressly amended to the Constitution by the states.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
In fact, the above excerpt reasonably reflects John Bingham's official clarification of the scope of 14A, Bingham the main author of Section 1 of that amendment.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
Again, since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay "rights," there are no enumerated rights for the courts to apply to the states via 14A. So the states are actually free to make policies which discriminate against gay agenda issues, such as gay "marriage," as long as such policies don't unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated protections.
As previously mentioned, the reason that activist judges have been getting away with wrongly amending gay rights to the Constitution from the bench is the following imo. Sadly, parents have not been making sure that their children are being taught about 10th Amendment-protected state powers versus the reason why the Founding States enumerated certain rights into the Constitution.
Why would homo apologists quote that? Those civilizations fell, not good for their point of view. I’ve never heard that and doubt you could readily find an example.
Actually, that Roman Hierarchy engaged in homosexuality at the baths shows it was in these instances at least, a choice was made similar to partying with alcohol.
Excellent quote! Harvard Law School (back when a Harvard degree actually MEANT something), used to require incoming students to be familiar with Blackstone’s Commentaries prior to commencing their legal education. It was accepted that human laws were never to countermand Natural Law. Then, the termites of Progressivism started gnawing away, with disastrous results....
Apparently many people now give them the respect they crave and approve these recent court decisions which grant them special rights that we normal people can't aspire to. Special "rights" such as forcing employers to hire them even if they're unqualified for the job in question.
Their strategists know the danger of exposure as other than "different" guys that like to hold hands and watch the sunset.
Too many posts I have had with their defenders that always come back with "So what is is different about it with heterosexuals?"
Does not matter if it is about diseases, sex play, etc. Same response.
They always try to equate what they do to each other as being no different than male-female sex. Can drive yo insane trying to argue with the insane..........
They are totally filth-ridden perverts. They play in each other’s sewer-pipes, wallowing in their excrement. This is what they are. And they want society to celebrate it, and equate it as the same as a husband-and-wife. Sick, depraved bastards, with diseased minds.
Blackstone’s statement on “natural law” is no less then the assertion that God is relevant and essential to a moral, ethical and enduring human society. It is the very thing, also, that Progressives adamantly oppose. Ultimately, it is a battle of two opposite ideas: God is God vs. Man is god!!
Stupid and Slanderous.
It means the kid is a candidate for government-mandated re-education about "gender" and "gender discrimination" in the "struggle" for "diversity". Within a year or so, we will see that on a massive scale.
Not only that, two straight guys can get married. I know someone who is thinking about doing it because it breaks the connection with his ex-witch.....er, wife.
They understand word usage perfectly.
They also understand that if they can control definitions and language, then they can control the thoughts of people. Once you control the thoughts of people, you control them.
This is all being done quite intentionally.
Bitterness combined with hate is a terrible tragedy...has men considering ruining themselves with homo lifestyle to “get even with” women. Sick.
That is the core of the war.
I think you misunderstood me. As a kid I knew it was wrong even though I did not know what it really was. It is against human nature and I instinctively knew that as a 9 year old child.
Every child knows that by nature. That’s all the more reason for our schools to undertake rigid indoctrination programs to make sure they “forget” it.
Exactly right. I thank God every day that my family and I are on the winning side in the long run. I also pray that my friends and neighbors will come to know Him through His Son Jesus Christ.
I fully believe that life is gonna become very difficult for all American Christians in the near future. Very few true Christians had easy lives over the last 2000 years. We American Christians have been exceptions to the rule, up until now at least. But just one or two appointments to the Supreme Court could, and probably will, radically change that.
Your meaning was certainly clear for me. I think all kids have in their uncontaminated minds the desire for a female mother and a male father and only that pairing seems right. The basic mechanics of rearing is deeply imbedded in our subconscious from birth, the same as with any species. We yearn for what feels normal and are repelled by what feels wrong. Psychology used to recognize this, but in deference to PC, it has seemingly kicked that knowledge aside. Homosexuality is a mental disorder, but modern psychology can’t refer to it that way any longer.
The founders of this great free republic called that “the laws of nature and nature’s God.”
One "feature" of gay marriage will be access to teen boys.
I’m actually in Philly right now on business.
I’m downtown, 12th and Market.
Never knew it was so diverse.
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.