Posted on 06/26/2015 11:19:36 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Will never embrace you perversion of law. Just because you demand something because you want it doesn’t mean you are entitled to it.0, worthy of receiving it, or will ever get it. I will do jail time first and take advantage of my tax $$$ at work. It may be the only timw I ever actually received a benefit of it rather than driving on newly paved roads.
Will never embrace this perversion of the law. Just because you demand something because you want it doesn’t mean you are entitled to it, worthy of receiving it, or will ever get it. I will do jail time first and take advantage of my tax $$$ at work. It may be the only timw I ever actually received a benefit of it rather than driving on newly paved roads.
So will American Muslim men now be entitled to up to four wives?
After all, it’s in their religion. And who’s to say who can’t marry who after today?
How about lovestruck 12 yr old Romeo and Juliets? I mean, who are the states to set an age limit?
And what will happen to Imams who refuse to marry homosexual couples?
What an effing slippery slope.
Nothing; the left will turn on a dime. This is a war against Christianity and the Muslims are allies.
No. It says all states must issue the licenses, not just recognize the marriages of other states. It is a full trump card for the left.
I am far more personally affected by the horrible bill passing the CA legislature. Reading all of the arguments above by kennedy, how is it we have a fundamental right, inherent in our Gd given liberty, to marry whom we want, but NO RIGHT TO REFUSE HARMFUL INVASIVE MEDICAL TREATMENT (vaccines the manufacturers refuse to back)???
Sorry, I can’t stop being upset over the vaccine bill having passed. I knew the gay marriage thing would pass and it doesn’t affect me personally. But now I have to live as if in the USSR and find doctors willing to break the law, or leave CA.
To me, that is far worse. I didn’t trust the supremes and I told y’all this thing would pass. Gay marriage was toothpaste out of the tube as soon as we gave them the word marriage. It could have been so much better if conservatives had fought for all rights for gays BUT that word. I got flamed for this for years. But I was right.
What if a state simply stops licensing marriages?
Can states get out of the marriage licensing business altogether and require people to be married by churches or by Federal judges when churches have objections? Can a state say we don’t do any licensing of any marriage?
“What if a state simply stops licensing marriages?”
That would be the correct response.
The two issues that were answered in this case are:My take, on brief reading of the case, is that both questions were answered in the affirmative. States are required to issue same sex marriage licenses, and states are required to recognize same sex marriages licensed by every other state.1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
These are known as the "marriage" and "recognition" questions, respectively. The Court answered the first question in the affirmative but did not address the second. ...
This ruling requires states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, though it doesn't necessarily say that their own state laws must change. The effect, though, is that recognition of same-sex marriage by all 50 states is now the law of the land.
I’ve posted on this before, but to me it’s all about the word “marriage”. Should it refer only to a union (or a holy union) between a man and a woman? Should it have a legal meaning?
I posted earlier a piece from wikipedia saying that gays are simply unsatisfied with terms such as “civil union” because they they don’t command the respect of “marriage”.
The Supreme Court should have ruled that all pairs of people have the right to enter into a ‘civil union’ which brings with it various privileges. The Supreme Court should have scarcely mentioned the word “Marriage”.
And Liberals are trying their best to give animals the same rights as humans....Hmmmmmm.....that means ole Joe down the street will soon be able to marry his dog....ole Joe has been saying for a long time he’d like to marry that bitch.
There’s gonna be a LOT fewer straight marriages, that’s for sure.
Marriage will be seen even more as meaning nothing.
As far as I can tell, this directly affects only about 3% of the population. Why would someone think there will be a decrease in normal, real marriages?
Nobody would invite me to a homosexual wedding, so it is not going to spoil my life. Only theirs.
Which also means you can marry as many people as you want. Also, is there really a limit on whether it needs to be a person? Can it be a monkey, dog, sheep or tree?
Psalm 2
1. Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagion a vain thing ?
2. The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3. Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh : The LORD shall have them in derision.
5. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
Get ready, God is getting ready to shake the heavens, and the foundations of the earth shall be moved.
The sun shall be blotted out and many will fear the signs in heavens.
That is their goal.
Destroy the family and elevate the State.
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.