Posted on 04/28/2015 3:33:45 PM PDT by Jan_Sobieski
WASHINGTON – The most dramatic moment in a historic case before the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage Tuesday morning came after the first attorney had wrapped up her argument. “Gay marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God,” suddenly screamed a protester in the courtroom.After continuing his protest, the man was escorted from the court room.
Justice Antonin Scalia quipped, “That was refreshing, actually,” causing loud laughter to ripple through the courtroom. Scalia’s approval of ancient wisdom echoed his previous referral to the ancient Greeks and Romans to argue against government sanctioning of same-sex marriage.
The justice noted the Greeks and Romans had no moral disapproval of homosexual relations, yet neither culture ever considered approving same-sex marriage. The implication was that those cultures must have found it would cause some sort of harm to society.
Scalia used the same example to indicate that modern state laws defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman were not motivated by dislike of, or discrimination against, gays. He asked attorney Mary Bonauto, who argued in favor of same-sex marriage, if it were true that homosexual relationships but not marriages were sanctioned by those cultures.
When she said yes, Scalia continued, “So their exclusion of same-sex marriage was not due to prejudice, right?” Adding, unless she considered Plato prejudiced...
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I didn’t say Sodom didn’t exist. I said we haven’t found it. Which happens to be true. One of the common notions is that it’s under the Dead Sea.
I don’t think Jericho was ever considered legendary, though the whole “walls fall down” bit certainly has been.
Jericho has been inhabited more or less continuously for 8 or 10 thousand years, so nobody ever had a chance to forget where it was.
I'd be interested if somebody could point out a bigger waste of time.
2/3 of both Houses. 3/4 of states. Does anybody seriously contend that such an amendment has a hope in hell of being ratified?
If it doesn't, what's the point of proposing it, other than to piss people off, which I support.
Amen.
Marriage was defined by the Supreme Judge of the Universe long before the United States Supreme Court existed, and His same definition will be in force long after the United States Supreme Court is gone.
AMEN
Yep.
These sociopathic deviants would kill for the sake of insisting on hijacking a word.
If the Feds simply declared that civil unions of any kind had the same legal benefits as traditional marriage, they would have a monumental drama-queen hissy fit.
Fortunately the other 97% of us will never accept a deviant "marriage," laws or no laws.
Freedom of association is in the Bill of Rights, pro-sodomy pervert "marriage" is not.
The Constitution was never meant to enumerate the obvious, BUT assumed certain natural law and biological laws as self-evident.
It never occurred to them that sociopaths would ever challenge those self evident laws of nature.
Our greatness is of God. Lose God and we lose that greatness.
A self-serving question would be my logical guess.
I can’t say there was no case of two guys considering themselves “married”. When Nero, I believe, had his lover castrated and married to him, they still did fertility rites to try to turn the kid into a woman.
Though that seemed to have been the case of a raving lunatic, and definitely not societal.
There was an article on FR yesterday or the day before arguing that it’s in the Preamble: “...and to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity....”
‘Stirred a bit of row, to which I argued, and remain in agreement.
[[BUT the SCOTUS ruled in Lawrence that these same deviant acts were permissible because they were expressions of homosexuality,]]
What the hell is that supposed to mean? The ‘acts are permissible’ because ‘they are an expression of ‘love’”?
By that same twisted reasoning, acts of pedophilia, bestiality, necromancy, polygamy etc etc etc are all ‘permissible’ because they ‘are an expression of love’
Surely there was more to the Lawrence ruling than that? If not then that is insane! Homosexual acts are a deviation- a deviation every bit as immoral as any other deviant behavior- These supreme court judges can’t just arbitrarily pick and choose which pet deviant behaviors they allow- either they allow all or they allow none!
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/558/case.html
You can read it yourself in this truncated version. The end result will be to allow ALL because they have removed the “rational basis” to deny anything by their logic of using the 14th amendment so slavishly.
And that is where the courts have gone: using the 14th amendment to bludgeon states like mine that passed a Constitutional Amendment!! stating marriage was betwixt a man and a woman. Feh! Voters!..WE don’t care what you believe or want....
Disgusting but true.
know how they separate the men from the boys in greece
with a crowbar
Yes. No doubt about it. All the traditional rights available to British citizens under the Common Law, plus any other rights established by the 13 colonies and by the 13 new states, were "passed down" by the 9th and 10th Amendments to U. S. citizens.
Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
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.