Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sotomayor: We’re not taking away your liberty, because we won’t force you to marry a gay person
LifeSiteNews ^ | 4/29/15 | Ben Johnson

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Indiana
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; indiana; libertarians; marriage; medicalmarijuana; mikepence; rfra; samesex; scotus; soniasotomayor; sotomayor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-114 next last
To: BlatherNaut

We won’t force you to marry a gay person...? Not yet!


21 posted on 04/30/2015 9:06:53 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut

If you refuse to marry the homosexual couple they will take away your freedom.

Pray America is waking


22 posted on 04/30/2015 9:09:53 AM PDT by bray (Cruz to the WH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut

What a moron.

Is she then going to also stipulate that the state cannot force you to cater to cater or officiate a same sex wedding?


23 posted on 04/30/2015 9:10:09 AM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

People won’t be forced to marry a gay but will Christian churches be forced to marry gays?


24 posted on 04/30/2015 9:11:28 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

I’ve tried that MANY times. I even asked why cant 20 people get married to 20 other people and have a 40 person marriage.

They then launch into some thing about “we are only talking about 2 people” TOTALLY DESTROYING THEIR POSITION THAT THEY WANT “MARRIAGE EQUALITY”!


25 posted on 04/30/2015 9:12:29 AM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut

“And we’re asking you to affirm every individual’s fundamental liberty interest in deciding the meaning of marriage.”

Exactly, Justice. I affirm that. Thus, the government should not coerce an individual to accept a definition of marriage that violates their religious principles.

I gave her pass on the phrase “fundamental liberty interest”. What on earth does that mean?


26 posted on 04/30/2015 9:16:29 AM PDT by rightwingcrazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

interpretation ... Want Liberty? Support Homo liberty only or board the cattle car!


27 posted on 04/30/2015 9:16:39 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Do what is Right ... Take This Freepathon Over the Top!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut

“I suspect even with us giving gays rights to marry...”

Typical Leftist. They think they bestow rights. Our rights come from God, not from man (or from a wise Latina, for that matter)


28 posted on 04/30/2015 9:17:20 AM PDT by bk1000 (A clear conscience is a sure sign of a poor memory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik

There is no doubt they should also authorize a threesome..since it is a frequent combination. Plus..there is no problem with a father marrying a son to pass down the family fortune.


29 posted on 04/30/2015 9:17:24 AM PDT by Oldexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut
"Every single individual in this society chooses, if they can, their sexual orientation, or who to marry or not marry."

Whoops, Sandra needs to get back on message - gay is NOT a choice, it is genetic, it is "what people are."

Well, kinda, sorta. Because we are also told that gender is a social construct, and that it is unfair to force people to accept the gender indicated by their sexual organs.

We are also told that gender is something that can be a result of mere "self-identification," that it can change, and that there are no hard-and-fast boundaries between gender categories.

So homosexuality is genetically-based, except when it isn't, or . . . whatever.
30 posted on 04/30/2015 9:17:58 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldexpat

Libs can provide NO rationale for prohibiting threesome, foursome, or fivesome marriages, or marriages between close relatives or parent and an adult child.


31 posted on 04/30/2015 9:19:28 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

stop making sense ... is too confusing to those not understanding sense ... Please!


32 posted on 04/30/2015 9:19:51 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Do what is Right ... Take This Freepathon Over the Top!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut
Not "forcing" us to marry a gay person! Is this woman stupid or nuts or what???

All sex education "forces" the idea of gay sex as healthy and good.

Kids are being "forced" to not judge others.

If we watch TV we are "forced" to accept a lifestyle that is at its core disgusting.

If we dare to voice an opinion or sell a cake without a gay couple on top of it we are "forced" to accept the wrath of the entire gay media.

And then we are sued for making them feel bad.

Good Lord!! This lady is stupid beyond repair.

33 posted on 04/30/2015 9:19:57 AM PDT by Slyfox (If I'm ever accused of being a Christian, I'd like there to be enough evidence to convict me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bolobaby

Rice? Code-word for white.


34 posted on 04/30/2015 9:20:55 AM PDT by Scrambler Bob (an icon of resistance within the oppressed patriots, who represent resilience in the face of SSV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

No. She’s gay


35 posted on 04/30/2015 9:21:01 AM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut
Any member of SCOTUS who has performed a gay wedding should recuse themselves from this case.
36 posted on 04/30/2015 9:21:46 AM PDT by Slyfox (If I'm ever accused of being a Christian, I'd like there to be enough evidence to convict me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut

” 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?”

Isn’t it interesting that in the case of obamacare Roberts scolded us by telling us, hey don’t expect us to bail you out from your dumb political choices, in a case where he actually had the obligation to do so, yet in this case they’re going to tell us your political choice doesn’t matter.


37 posted on 04/30/2015 9:21:53 AM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; mulligan
This woman is not bright

I wonder if she graduated from the same schools as Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake?

38 posted on 04/30/2015 9:23:23 AM PDT by TYVets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

So they should. But the unwise Latina has a different opinion.

...

She didn’t come close to comprehending what he actually said.


39 posted on 04/30/2015 9:25:30 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: aquila48
Someone needs to ask a liberal politician of journalist: Do you think it is fair and proper to fine a Christian baker $135,000 for not baking a cake for a gay wedding? (This has happened in Oregon.)

Put THEM on the spot. Make them say, "Yes, we believe people should be financially ruined for opposing gay marriage. MAKE THEM SAY IT. Ask Obama the question, ask Hillary, ask Andrea Mitchell, ask Diane Sawyer.
40 posted on 04/30/2015 9:25:43 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-114 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson