Posted on 04/30/2015 8:55:52 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
One moment in the Supreme Court's oral arguments over same-sex “marriage” reveals what an embarrassment Sonia Sotomayor is as a justice.
John J. Bursch, who argued on behalf of marriage, said that the people, not five unelected justices, should be able to decide whether to redefine a pillar of society that predates the government and written history.
“This case isn't about how to define marriage,” he said. “It's about who gets to decide that question. Is it the people acting through the democratic process, or is it the federal courts? And we're asking you to affirm every individual's fundamental liberty interest in deciding the meaning of marriage.”
The “wise Latina” immediately interrupted him with the following non-sequitur:
“I'm sorry. Nobody is taking that [liberty] away from anybody. Every single individual in this society chooses, if they can, their sexual orientation, or who to marry or not marry. I suspect even with us giving gays rights to marry that there's some gay people who will choose not to.”
I'll pass over Sotomayor saying that “every single individual..chooses” his or her sexual preference. But don't miss the full illuminating brilliance of her argument: The Supreme Court is not trampling on the right of 50 million people in 35 states to settle their own law as long as straight people are not forced to “marry” homosexuals.
For Sotomayor, apparently anything short of judicially mandated sodomy is within the justices' constitutional prerogatives – a view that would surprise any of our nation's founding jurists, whether Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
No. She’s as shameless and arrogant as Bader Ginsburg.
Some of us will be forced to photograph a gay “wedding”, which is a creative and expressive form of communication counter to our religious values.
Some of us will be forced to bake a custom artistic cake for a gay “wedding”, which is a creative and expressive form of communication counter to our religious values.
Some of us will be forced to print invitations for a gay “wedding”, which is a creative and expressive form of communication counter to our religious values.
Some of us will be forced to invite people onto our property and into our home, if we run a B&B, for a gay “wedding”, which is a government taking of our private property.
But despite all that, Chief Thug Sotomayor from BigGov.org says she is not taking away our liberty. It would be prudent for the Thug Party to take away our Second Amendment rights first, which is why the far left is frantic to disarm us before they take these reprehensible actions that they claim will not take away our liberty.
IOW, "Unfree Labour".
"Unfree labour is a generic or collective term for those work relations, especially in modern or early modern history, in which people are employed against their will by the threat of destitution, detention, violence (including death), lawful compulsion,[1] or other extreme hardship to themselves or to members of their families. Unfree labour includes all forms of slavery, and related institutions (e.g. debt slavery, serfdom, corvée and labour camps). Many of these forms of work may be covered by the term forced labour, which is defined by the International Labour Organization (ILO) as all involuntary work or service exacted under the menace of a penalty.[2]"
A pro gay “marriage” ruling in this case will officially place Christians in serious peril of persecution like has never been seen in this country.
Sad times we live in.
Sotomayor is just modifying the old pro-abortion canard: If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.
As Joe Sobran said: Beware the man who offers you his position as a compromise between his position and your position.
What if there are only two people, but they’re brother and sister?
Where did she get her law degree—from a box of Crackerjax?
Only God gives rights. And she is most definitely NOT Him.
The idea that men can arbitrarily give rights is fatal to all of the foundations of this free republic.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
Crappy argument. Wrong, and weak to boot.
So, the "answer" was based on administrative complications, not any sort of principles.
Some liberal please ANSWER that and I will actually start listening to your arguments."
Sorry, messed up formatting of my previous post.
One of the Justices actually asked that question during oral arguments (Alito, I think). The answer of the lawyer for the same-sex couples was, essentially, that once you add in a third (or fourth, or . . .) person, things like family law, inheritances, etc., become much more complicated. The example she gave was something to the effect of - if a man has four wives, and divorces the fourth wife, would the second wife have visitation rights over he fourth wife's children?
So, the "answer" was based on administrative complications, not any sort of principles.
"gays" are not a class; they are a verb. HOMOSEXUALS are what we are talking about. Homosexuals cannot marry up to their own and reproduce; it is as simple as that. They recruit and manipulate but given their own devices (even on liberal terms of there is no GOD!!!) they simply cannot exist as a predominant anything. They can't reproduce. Homosexuality is a mental disorder; that is it. And WHEN things get ugly in this land (i.e., a collapse) their type will be extinguished with no government left to defend their depraved ways.
She just people choose their sexual orientation. Hmmm isn’t that against the narrative?
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.