Posted on 10/08/2014 5:47:12 PM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
Tonight on Bill O'Reilly's show, Megyn Kelly was only stating her opinion. She was not espousing gay marriage.
This gay marriage is against the will of the American people, against history, and against nature. Time and time again the people voted against it only to be overturned by learned judges who, through their own life experiences believe they know better than everyone else.
How will this experiment work out? How will you get muslim, christin and jewish fundamentalists, to whom gay marriage is prohibited by their religion to acquiesce? Will the religious be forced to accept this abomination? Will free speech be prohibited on the subject? Will religious liberty be subverted? What a hornets nest.
With all due respect The_Media_never_lie, don't be deceived by good-looking socialist blondes.
There appears to be a scandal going on in the courts, imo, the corrupt media unsurprisingly in cahoots with this scandal. The purpose of the scandal is evidently to promote gay marriage. And given her background in law, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama guard dog Megyn Kelly, along with guard dog OReilly, are a part of the corruption since they both should know better about 10th Amendment-protected state powers and constitutionally unprotected gay marriage.
More specifically, the recent surprising news where justices have chosen to ignore challenges to 10th Amendment-protected state laws which ban constitutionally unprotected gay marriage, the states then suspiciously giving up without a real fight by blowing the Supreme Court's unprofessionally apathetic response off with a weak, "the courts have decided" mentality, suggest a brilliantly staged Marxist / Alinsky-type deceptive plot imo. In this plot both the states involved, along with pro-gay activist justices, are seemingly trying to force gay marriage on the country, 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty be damned.
As mentioned in related threads, the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution's silence about issues like marriage means that such issues are automatically uniquely state power issues.
The Constitution's silence about marriage also means that things like the so-called "right" of gay marriage is actually constitutionally unprotected, the 14th Amendment (14A) applying only constitutionally enumerated protections to the states as we shall see below.
So the states have the constitutionally unchecked 10th Amendment-protected power to make laws which prohibit gay marriage imo, as long as such laws don't unreasonably abridge rights which the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect.
Getting back to 14A, judges who declare state bans on gay marriage unconstitutional are basing such statements on a PC interpration of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protections Clause (EPC) in Section 1 of that amendment as per the following explanation.
Pro-gay activist judges are wrongly putting on their "magic glasses" to subjectively read the right to gay marriage into the EPC. But in doing so they are wrongly ignoring that the Supreme Court has previously clarified that 14A didn't add new protections to the Constitution. It only strengthens protections 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 Court's statement from Minor reflects the official clarification of the scope of 14A, the clarification mady by John Bingham, the main author of Section 1. Bingham had stated that the amendment applies only protections enumerated into the Constitution by the states to the states.
“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 state have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay issues, gay marriage in this case, there is no enumerated constitutional protection for gay marriage for the courts to apply the states.
The question concerning the Supreme Court's ignoring of this issue is this. Did pro-gay activist state lawmakers make laws to prohibit gay marriage for the real purpose of using them as pawns for pro-gay activist justices to ignore, both the states and the Court actually intending to promote the constitutionally unprotected gay agenda with such a ploy?
On the other hand, did the legal professionals who have dropped the baton on this issue study law at institutions which are actually teaching post FDR-era pervervions of the Constitution?
The courts of these United States should not have any power over marriage...It was probably only licensed in the beginning for tax money.....you used to have to have blood test to get married to make sure you didn’t have Syphilis do we need blood test today?
True, Buchanan is a liberal nut case on some issues. But he is still a conservative Catholic who be great at defending sacred male-female marriage. If only Roger Ailes would put him on the air! The self-professed atheist George Will and agnostic Charles Krauthammer will not defend traditional marriage.
Me neither. When Rupert Murdoch created Fox (and later took over the Wall Street Journal), liberals shrieked that Murdoch was a right-wing sleaze master plotting to take over the world.
Well the libs were half right. Murdoch is a sleaze master, just not very right wing. Now working on his third divorce, Murdoch hangs out with Hillary and puts out gay propaganda on Glee.
Conservatives need to get on the Libertarian bandwagon and stop fighting gay marriage. If two gays want to marry, it is a free country and let them. I have a daughter in college, who is a libertarian conservative. She is pro constitution, fiscally conserve, but libertarian on marriage, drugs, abortion.
Evolve or die.
I admit I am easily deceived by good-looking socialist blondes.
Thanks for that tip.
Maybe there is more to this than it appears at first.
Support homosexuals marrying? This goes against scripture, which makes it impossible for a Christian to support.
Condone the use of drugs? This goes against scripture, which makes it impossible for a Christian to support.
Abortion? This is not possible for a Christian to support, or any other moral person.
I’d rather die than evolve into someone who supports homosexuality, drug use, and abortion.
There’s no way I’m selling my soul and embrace such perverted depravity. Not only will I die first, I’m going to go down fighting such evil to my last breath.
Thanks for the Fox list.
As you say, the network is dreadfully gay. It will address a few of the lesser politically correct issues, such as the Indian names of sports teams. It generally stays a mile away from two biggest issues — marriage and abortion. It defends Columbus Day from liberal attacks but ignores a million abortions.
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.