Heads really will explode

Thomas says they should reconsider same sex marriage and contraception guarantees by Feds...

Queers should be unceremoniously thrown out of the military, along with most of the women.

The .gov of any stripe has no business being involved in marriage. Straight/gay/same sex, or not.

it's sure gonna make heads explode

I am with Teal on this. Gays should have every right to fugk up their lives by just like straight people

I think you may have misunderstood my point.

I don't want the government - be it local, state or federal, to have a damned thing to do with marriage of any type. Not in the constitution that I'm aware of.

You want to get married - find a church/religion that will marry you - bam, married. Plenty of those around to handle all possible permutations.

Divorce? - Small claims court for division of property. Family court for custody. Done. Those already exist but they aren't necessary to GET married.


I would never invite a cop to "come in and look around" - never invite the man into your life. Why are we so quick to invite the .gov into marriage?

I agree.
Folks can enter into “domestic partnerships” for legal purposes. What most consider “marriage”, the gov has no business being involved in.

Yesterday, I posted on a thread here that this needs to be next. It's equally bad law.

Agree

Yep. Women make good nurses.

I’d like the SC to look at the Bolt decision and tribal treaty status in general.

I disagree completely. Marriage is now and always has been, in principle, intended to secure a future for children, which is pointless between two people of the same sex.

There are people who have tirelessly promoted this idea that gays should marry. They do this specifically to damage Western Civilization. Those people should be resisted with every available resource.

Spot on.

They are not connected. If the .gov had zero business in marriage - the push for gay marriage, basically doesn't exist. Goes to zero.

People can get married in whatever church they'd like - again, the .gov stays out. Historical marriage can and would continue to happen without .gov interference - same as it did forever before the .gov decided they wanted their piece of it (marriage license fee/tax) . Of what value is the government to "secure a future for children"? None. Hetero marriage or not.

I'm a liberatarian, I don't give a chit.... and in the same breath I don't want my kids being exposed to their bullchit propaganda at every turn in society. I really don't understand why they just couldn't be happy with "civil unions".... at that point it was just the term "marriage" that they were after. Like someone else said , it's all about the destruction of western civilization.

I'm with you, talk about heads exploding!!

It seems to me that this is another Tenth Amendment issue. No such authority is given the the central government...at least, not that I can see.

For all the "I don't care what they do in their bedroom" folks... YOU are the problem. Evil should not be tolerated. Period. Look what happens when phaeggotry is tolerated. You gave them an inch....and wonder why they took a mile.

The word "matrimony" derives from the Latin word for "mother". You lolberterians live in a fantasy world.

Marriage is between you, spouse and God. (via your Church)

Marriage is not connected to nor is it derived from the government. At all. Full stop. Mother =/= Government - unless you're a "it takes a village" Hillary type who believes the parents have no say/sway.

The government involvement has ZERO to do with "guaranteeing a future for children" - The government did NOT recognize marriage under law until the Revenue act of 1913. What does that have to do with marriage? (TAXES not "Securing Children") Compare the sanctity of marriage before 1913 and after....

Government involvement in marriage is what created the push for gay marriage. Equality under the secular rule/instrument.

Had .gov stayed out of marriage and left it to a person's individual Church - they'd not push for it.

Of what redeeming value is there in having the government involved in your marriage. I'll wait. I can understand it involved in dissolution of "a" marriage - whatever that might be within your own church -division of property/child custody but in CREATING the marriage? They offer nothing but a pathway to what we have now - determining who can/can not get married, how and when and who MUST recognize it.

I'll wait while you explain to me why the government has any input on marriage that makes sense in any way/shape or form. Seriously - I want to learn. Explain to me why having the government involved in a union between me, the wife and God via our Priest is better than NOT having the government involved.

What’s the Bible say about marriage? Is Christianity or the bible affiliated with the United States and it’s founding?

Leviticus 18:22...............Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is ABOMINATION.

Pretty simple

I disagree. James Wilson, one of the Founders, said that "the family is that seminary on which the nation ultimately depends for its manners as well as its numbers". Limited government works but only for a moral people and the influence of marriage on the well-being of the family and hence of the body politic is incontrovertible. Most of society's problems today can be traced to the destruction of the two-parent family, which, at its root, is the problem of the destruction of marriage between a man and woman. You cannot have limited government and a weak or non-existent family structure because the latter is necessary to raising up decent citizens.

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/02/7821/

Well nice to see you and this boomer look at things the same way.

This.

I don't like it period and agree that "marriage" is between a man and a woman, but this is a "free" country.... what's next? They gonna tell you, you can only have one child ? YOU are making the same argument that the gun grabbers do........ We have the right to keep and bare arms....some people are gonna get shot..... '"IF" we are free....then you're gonna have to deal with some phags.... if we have freedom of religion, you're gonna have to deal with atheists.

Do not confuse Liberty with libertarianism.

Government has no business redefining marriage which is a religious rite between man and a woman.

Do not confuse what is "right" with what is constitutional..... it ain't perfect but it's all we got.

And the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to gay marriage, either by word or implication. Such things are state matters.

There goes our Air Force.



Just kidding.

Exactly.... it also does not say they don't .... kind of like what everyone is cheering about in the overturning of roe vs. wade?

It’s simply not an issue that the federal government has any business in deciding, that’s up to the states. I hope that we’re in for a resurgence of returning the power back to the people via the states. Instead of congresspersons and senators spending their time kissing ass in DC they should be in their home state kissing their constituents ass instead. 😉

And sometimes, good sandwiches.

What about if Elvis married you in Vegas?

Is his wife a mud shark?

The Constitution DOES NOT give the federal government the right to make decisions on marriage. Period.

One of the most basic functions of government is to regulate civic order, and regulating marriage is part of regulating civic order.

But you think that eliminating the legal concept of marriage will stop the people firing phag warheads at the institution of marriage, so I know this will bounce clean off your head.

When the Constitution is silent on a right, and it's not a right traditionally accepted with deep roots in our national tradition (in which case, it would be protected by the 9th Amendment), that right isn't enforceable by the Supreme Court. Neither the right to abort a child, nor the right of gays to marry, exist (nor are they implied) in the Constitution. Therefore the 10th Amendment leaves them to the individual states. That's how the Constitution was designed to work.

That's the way I read the Constitution.

I really don't much care what the gays are doing or if they want to marry but if some state wants to ban it then them's the breaks for gay marrige in that state.

I suspect banning being gay might fall under free speach and should fall under SCOTUS.

It isnt "law" at all and neither were any other rulings. Thomas is throwing the onus back to the people or forcing the representatives to do their jobs.

Congress shall make law....

Striking down an un-Constitutional law doesn' t make the opposite a law by fiat, unless youre a liberal hack.

It still needs to go through the legislative process.

This.

Marriage of any kind or definition, like abortion, is not a constitutional matter. Whether you agree in principle or not. Neither are guaranteed by the constitution. These are religious matters and not legal matters and are exclusive of each other as our country is rightfully bound by the premise of the separation of church and state. That is absolutely why these issues were purposely left out of the constitution by the founders. Therefore, it is not up to the federal government or federal courts to police it. These are State issues.

The right to keep and bear arms is clearly defined by the constitution, but somehow in the left winger world those words don't matter. They are somehow, open to interpretation in their view.

However, they want protection for their views from the supreme court for things that aren't even addressed in the constitution. It's really F'd up how they view the purpose and duty of the court.

I swear, the liberal left wing dems can't fu kin read. If they would actually read the fu ckin thing they would understand all this.

In fact, I don't even think most people in this country understand that the Supreme Court are the constitution police and are bound by the words that are and ain't in it. For the justices these are (or at least should be) questions of law, not morality. Whether they or anybody else agrees or not is immaterial. The founders left us with a process to amend the constitution. It can be amended to change with the times. Unamended, then we got what we got. The constitution is only thing that is currently holding our democracy, all be it currently by a thread, together. Thank God the founders gave us a supreme court to police the legislative and executive branch, or God help us all.

Where do you draw the line when ceding power to the federal government to "regulate civic order?"

Anything put back to the States to decide is a victory for Conservatives. After seeing the last decade of gay rights developments, legalizing gay marriage has done us zero favors.

I was agreeing with you hence my reference to roe vs. wade.

Governments SOLE legitimate purpose is to promote the welfare of the people.

Therefore, it is well within the bounds of good government to support the institution (marriage) that promotes the continued welfare of the people. Homosexual unions only enhance the power of the government through vote pandering while it destroys the people. Immoral people, that same-sex marriage promotes, require immoral, totalitarian government.

Where does it say that in the constitution?

Don't confuse your morals or religious beliefs with constitutional law.

The difference between a constitutional conservative and a pie in the sky libertarian is that a constitutionalist recognizes some limits on behavior in the interest of society. Not allowing Prostitution on street corners, drug use ect.

Finding that exact thin line between individual liberty and complete societal anarchy is the tricky part. The left has wildly bent public policy to their ends for decades. If they can read gun control and a right to an abortion into the Constitution to name just two hot topics. I can absolutely read Tyrone’s view into it. There has to be a balance on some issues for a society to function libertarians refuse to acknowledge that and liberals feed off of it. We’ve errored way to far to the left.

Our founders envisioned a nation of mostly rural Caucasians of various Christian backgrounds that would adhere to excepted social norms and minimize the need for government involvement. That was the ideal situation and why John Adams said what he said. Without that there has to be a minimal amount of public policy. Even at our founding it wasn’t a free for all to do anything that you wanted. Our two biggest mistakes have been way to much public policy and allowing it to lean heavily to the left.

Every State legislature looks at every issue through the lens of "Will it cost us Fed money if we do
this?"

Anyone who denies this has not the smallest understanding of the power grabbing that is government. We have just lost sight of the fact it is our money to start with, but the pigs want a spot at the feed trough so they can take local money to buy local votes with.

The constitution very clearly does guarantee the right to keep and bear arms.

It does not guarantee abortion or define marriage. The liberals want it to guarantee abortion and not define marriage. The conservatives want it to protect against abortion and define marriage as a union between men and women. It does neither. You can't pick and choose what you want the constitution to say based on your political and/or religious/moral beliefs, regardless of which side of the fence you stand on. It says what it says.

Anybody that wants to can open a joint checking account. Anybody that wants to can form a legal partnership that defines rights and responsibilities. Why not just let people get married in any fashion they choose including gay, polygamy or whatever as long as all are adults and no violence or involuntary servitude is involved. As with divorce a partnership can be dissolved in court if the parties can't dissolve it themselves. In the case of children courts could step in as they do even now with unmarried parents and make orders for the financing and custody of the minor children and property division. DNA can end any controversy over who watered that garden nowadays.

In short, if you have religious beliefs that lead you to believe you should have a marriage ceremony by all means have one and if you want to file your partnership with the county, go do it.

The state probably got mixed up in it for the protection of joint property and to insure children are cared for and that could be done without a state/county licensed marriage certificate.

You guys realize that if the decision was whether a state could pass a law legalizing gay marriage, Thomas would vote in favor of it???



Thomas is my favorite SC justice, but conservative judicial philosophy and conservative political views don’t always line up ….

The definition of marriage was assumed. NOBODY would have given any other definition then.
Go back and read you some Blackstone - our entire legal system is based on his writings.

The only heads that will explode are the heads of people who worry and make comments about it.

Except mine.

I used to take Teal’s more libertarian stance on this as well but have come to see that there are few institutions more foundational for the peace and prosperity of a culture than the family.

How therefore can marriage and it’s veneration NOT be central to the business of a just govt?

I leave that up to the Church - my POV. I agree, strong marriages are critical to a society - I just don't want the .gov involved at all with it because I've yet to see a .gov do ANY good when it comes to it. It's simply getting worse - everywhere. Insanity is doing it over and over and expecting a better result. VERY little of what the .gov gets involved with gets BETTER. Especially when it's about people.

The 10th amendment,

If you believe the ruling on RvW what makes you think marriage should be handled by the federal government?

Marriage is a religious ritual that has nothing to do with the constitution. Keep your religion out of the government.

Thomas Jefferson, The guy wrote the constitution.

Divorce lawyer lobby was happy when homo marriage was legalized I imagine. New customer base.

Money, time, resources wasted on a tiny fraction of the overall population. Meanwhile, we have very serious threats being overshadowed.
In Pfizer We Trust, comes to mind.