Lawless decisions today from SCOTUS. State govs and AGs can nullify state law at will; feds can't stop SSM but states can (maybe).
Supreme Court overrules God.
5 people in robes said they are bigger than the voters of CA and Congress combined. And bigger than God. May He forgive us all.
How long before federal agents haul pastors out of the pulpit?
DOMA restricts no rights. Gays have equality: can marry 1 non-relative member of opposite sex like everybody else.
With the DOMA decision, we have ceased to be a constitutional republic. The words "We the People" are now meaningless.
As for me and my house - we follow God's law.
The DOMA ruling has now made the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable. Matter of time.
Won't be long before they outlaw the Bible as hate speech.
One man, Kennedy, has decided marriage policy for 315 million people. That is tyranny. All hail the king.
God defined marriage at the dawn of time as one man and one woman. What God has defined, the Supreme Court may not redefine.
Sodomy-based marriage is an egregious violation of the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God." May God have mercy on us.
In our battle to defend marriage as God has defined it, we will never give in. We will never, never, never, never give in.
The battle now turns to defending religious liberty. The DOMA ruling is the greatest threat to the 1st Amendment in history.
If I’m told I have to marry same sex couples I will refuse.
No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted. (Bachman)
How long under IRS determines that non-profit status disappears for any church that "discriminates" against same-sex couples?
Also, good to know that governor and AG of a state can unilaterally declare a duly-passed statute unconstitutional, with no recourse
Now we get to pretend that SCOTUS decisions had something to do with Constitution. What a fun game!
https://twitter.com/GovMikeHuckabee
https://twitter.com/toddstarnes
https://twitter.com/BryanJFischer
https://twitter.com/benshapiro
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by moon1969Why not?
Like if 1 million people wanted to marry each other?
But that wasn't what I was thinking about. I was thinking of a more traditional plural marriage. It is quite common in some cultures, why is it so wrong? There are many advantages to having many people working toward a common goal.
26 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarYou do not see any problem with 1 million people marrying each other, and it no different than 2 people marrying each other? Just confirming.
Why not?
But that wasn't what I was thinking about. I was thinking of a more traditional plural marriage. It is quite common in some cultures, why is it so wrong? There are many advantages to having many people working toward a common goal.
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by moon1969Do I see anything wrong with it? That doesn't matter.
You do not see any problem with 1 million people marrying each other, and it no different than 2 people marrying each other? Just confirming.
The question is if the government has the right to stop people from doing what they want with their lives.
26 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarI did not ask if you thought it was wrong. Instead, I ask if you thought there was no problem with it. Do you see no problem with 1 million people marrying, and that it no different in implementation than 2 people marrying?
Do I see anything wrong with it? That doesn't matter.
The question is if the government has the right to stop people from doing what they want with their lives.
By the way, the government and the majority can constitutionally take into account "problems" in regulating society. Individual rights are not unlimited. You cannot cry "fire!" in a crowded theater.
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by moon1969The only reason why I'd have something wrong with it would be because I think there is something wrong with it.
I did not ask if you thought it was wrong. Instead, I ask if you thought there was no problem with it. Do you see no problem with 1 million people marrying, and that it no different in implementation than 2 people marrying?
By the way, the government and the majority can constitutionally take into account "problems" in regulating society. Individual rights are not unlimited. You cannot cry "fire!" in a crowded theater.
I see no reason why the government should not allow any group of consenting adults to get married. True, it isn't a traditional American cultural thing to do, but the government does not base its decisions on traditional American culture.
Yes, the government can take hypocritical positions and apply rules inconsistantly. The government can do anything it wants, unless people are willing to take up arms against it.
Go back and read my original post again and perhaps now you will see what I meant.
26 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarI was not asking about culture or morality but instead about objective implementation.
The only reason why I'd have something wrong with it would be because I think there is something wrong with it.
I see no reason why the government should not allow any group of consenting adults to get married. True, it isn't a traditional American cultural thing to do, but the government does not base its decisions on traditional American culture.
Yes ...[text shortened]... st it.
Go back and read my original post again and perhaps now you will see what I meant.
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by moon1969Yeah I know, you are only interested in trying to rationalize your hypocritical position. That's OK, all of us have to feel good about our positions and when we hold hypocritical ones it helps to rationalize.
I was not asking about culture or morality but instead about objective implementation.
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by EladarPlease elaborate.
How are Conservatives hurt? Things have not changed. This country is what it is.
My only question is how long it will take for the government to be consistant with its liberal view of marriage and allow for all relationships between consenting adults.
26 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarI personally sympathize with polygamy, for example, and would like for a women to be able to marry 10 men if she wanted, for instance. Yet, I also know that individual rights are not constitutionally unlimited.
Yeah I know, you are only interested in trying to rationalize your hypocritical position. That's OK, all of us have to feel good about our positions and when we hold hypocritical ones it helps to rationalize.
26 Jun 13
Originally posted by EladarOur entire infrastructure including banking, property, and other economic considerations, as well as family law including marriage, children, property rights, and other legal structures, are all based on 2 people marrying. That infrastructure is essentially unaffected by the sex of the 2 people marrying.
Yeah I know, you are only interested in trying to rationalize your hypocritical position. That's OK, all of us have to feel good about our positions and when we hold hypocritical ones it helps to rationalize.
It is an incredibly big leap to go from 2 people marrying each other to 1 million people marrying each other. There are many moral-neutral objective considerations which the Supreme Court would likely find the government can constitutionally take into account in prohibiting 1 million people from marrying each other.
You seem to completely miss that.