Same Sex Marriage at the Court

Allahpundit has a nice run down of early tea-leaf-reading regarding what the Court may do – some are arguing that the Court will just side-step the issue (which would have the effect of invalidating Prop 8 in California but not asserting a constitutional right to same sex marriage – a half victory and half loss for both sides), while others are still pretty certain that Roberts will ensure the Court comes down on the side of same sex marriage on the Ruling Class theory that its inevitable and thus the Court better not find itself in a Plessy situation.  This is the view I hold – while three of the Justices (Thomas, Scalia and Alito) actually understand the Constitution and law and other such trivialities, the other six to a greater or lesser degree are more influenced by what is fashionable and so will go with what they perceive elite opinion desires (yes, we may get on this – as we have on other issues – a ruling which merely ensures that a Justice won’t have to be embarrassed when asked a question at a DC cocktail party).  While there cannot be a right to marry – because marriage requires the voluntary consent of at least two people – I believe we’ll have a 6/3 ruling in favor of a constitutionally protected “right” to marry, which means all laws prohibiting same-sex marriage will be invalidated.  The people have voted and voted and voted and made their views clear – and 6 Justices will soon ignore all that and just do what the Ruling Class wants…and they’ll do it without even for a moment thinking of the ramifications of their action (two or three years from now we will start getting the cases where a man is suing to be able to marry his brother, etc).

But, what of it?  Its a Phyrrhic victory by a dying Ruling Class.  Yesterday I came across a quote attributed to the Prime Minister of Luxembourg regarding the ongoing financial crisis in Europe – in effect, the man was quoted as saying that of course everyone knows what to do, but none of them know how to get re-elected after they do it.  In other words, with the failure of the system already apparent and everyone already knowing what needs to be done, they still won’t do it because they don’t want to be booted out of office at the next election and lose their pathetic, little place at the public trough.  These are the people who are in charge all around the world – and they are finished.  Clinging to power like Bourbons or Romanovs, they will soon be swept away.  Here and everywhere around the world.

Why gay marriage?  Not because the people want it – their votes show otherwise.  Not because even most gay people want it.  No, its only wanted because it allows the twits who run our society to continue to view themselves as brave, advanced people who are taking on the corrupt Powers…namely, the Christian Church, which hasn’t had any real power in centuries.  Of course, none of these brave souls in favor of gay marriage will actually go out and try to stop Muslims from murdering gays…because that would take some genuine guts.   100 or so years from now, no one will be marrying people of the same sex – because only an irrational, dying society would allow such a thing…and by 100 years from now, this irrational society will be dead, and its replacement, being rational, won’t go in for such nonsense.

UPDATE:  Bit of a humorous note on the cowardly Senate Democrats who are “evolving” on gay marriage now that they don’t have to face their voters for 6 more years.  The first two were firm against it, back last fall when it could have cost them re-election…

UPDATE II:  And if we can get 10,000 people to march in favor of marriage when gay marriage is allegedly popular, then just wait and see what happens if the SC rams it down our throats…in a few years, we’ll get a million…

About these ads

89 thoughts on “Same Sex Marriage at the Court

  1. bardolf2

    Same sex marriage is allowed in some Scandinavian countries and it doesn’t occur that much because there aren’t that many gay men and they generally aren’t interested in replicating an essentially religious institution. Even if same sex marriage occurs it won’t change the cultural landscape much, and if Neoconehead is hoping that at least the endless whining by activists will end, well he need only look at what still goes on with the Jesses of the world with Obama in the White House.

    I will also not bring up the truly horrific crime of abortion as practiced in the US today and its implicit support by many in the GOP. If a person can be denied life because of inconvenience, any other moral speechifying is so much picking fly sh*t from among the pepper.

    In between the doesn’t affect much of anyone same-sex and kills the defenseless abortion is the BIG problem of gambling which doesn’t seem to trouble Mark too much. It is of course a sin in many religious traditions (violating the prohibition against coveting the things of others, i.e. wanting money without the work associated to earn it) but goes unnoticed in today’s USA. Actually, besides destroying the lives of countless people daily, gambling is actually celebrated in the USA and even provides part of the underpinning for education. It leads to the mentality among many youth that hard work is not to be pursued if they can just hit the lottery. It tells my educator colleagues to ‘radically innovate’ on their classes and if things by chance turn out well go on a glory tour, if things turn out poorly and the students learn nothing, let the next colleague clean up the mess. It tells Obama to throw money at Solyandra type companies and if things click, grab the glory.

    So gambling, especially with other peoples money is one of the main problems today, and yet same-sex marriage grabs the headlines. The beam in the eye is still endemic today.

    1. neocon01

      Dr. baldork

      the defense of EVERYBODY DOES IT is on a sixth grade level…..If every body “married” a pony would you?

      1. bardolf2

        Neoconehead

        Just the opposite. I said almost NOBODY DOES GAY Marriage when available. It’s impact would be zip so I can’t be made to care about it. OTOH gambling does impact my life even if I am against and it is eroding the very fabric of our society as mentioned.

    2. neocon01

      and yet same-sex marriage grabs the headlines.

      the leftist AGENDA and complicit press
      redefine the terms destroy the family, destroy Christianity, usher in marxist socialism.

    3. neocon01

      I believe we’ll have a 6/3 ruling in favor of a constitutionally protected “right” to marry, which means all laws prohibiting same-sex marriage will be invalidated.

      States rights issue, put it in the states constitution and tell the feds to buz off.

      1. M. Noonan Post author

        Neocon,

        Already done – we, the sovereign people of the State of Nevada have already voted, twice, to define marriage in our State constitution as an institution of one man and one woman – the Supreme Court is almost certain to tell us that we’re not allowed to amend our constitution because there is a “right” to marriage which somehow includes gay marriage even though no one ever thought of such a thing until the 1970s…

        Gotta remember for our Ruling Class nitwits, the fact that the people want something to be a certain way makes it a requirement that it be the opposite. They have monumental contempt for us; hate us and want us to just do as we’re told – which is to pay our taxes, serve in the wars and maintain them in a lavish lifestyle.

      2. neocon01

        Mark

        as like in the OJ jury nullification, if several states refused there is little they could do.
        With hold federal monies? WHAT federal money IF we were to with hold our states federal income tax to them and keep it for selves…..time for a showdown.
        We are either a constitutional republic run by elected representatives or run by a thug using fiats and a left wing oligarchy. If we have become the later there is no reason to continue the farce.

      3. M. Noonan Post author

        Neocon,

        We are no longer living in a constitutional republic…we are ruled by an oligarchy which so far has managed to perpetuate itself, mostly by bribing us with our own money. But, it is coming to an end and we will, again, have a constitutional republic.

      1. bardolf2

        thanks

        I was going to add CEO’s gambling with stockholders money whereby they profit if things go well and the stockholders lose if things go poorly :)

        actually, thinking about the WORD marriage, its history, etymology and how laws restricting it came to be in the US has been another example in the law of unintended consequences

        essentially marriage was a religious institution but the British government wanted to get in on the act for money reasons, the US when founded basically incorporated most of the common law from Britain and started adding laws against miscegenation. With the invention of federal income taxes the government discovered that people complained less about having their pockets picked if they got some special exemption that others didn’t.

      2. neocon01

        Dr baldork

        I was going to add CEO’s gambling with stockholders money whereby they profit if things go well and the stockholders lose if things go poorly

        being in the halls of academia has left you totally in the dark about corporations and CEO’s. ALL and ANY CEO’s income is tied directly into profitability (stock holders money) and usually are paid up to 70% in stock rather than cash.
        Please define “gambling” with their money….dog track? horse races? poker at the club?
        you see WE stock holders DEMAND a certain return on our investment, a company’s investment is all part of operating procedures.
        Life is a gamble like your “job”, in a real crash you will be as useful as T**s on a bull and will be collecting welfare checks.

      3. bardolf2

        Neoconehead

        Suppose a CEO gets to keep 1% of profits he is responsible for in a given year and gets NO wages or salary if the company loses money that year. Seem reasonable?

        Well now suppose he is a risk taker and essentially takes risks which win/lose the company a billion dollars with a 50-50 chance. In the good years, he makes 10 million, in the bad years he makes nothing. So he averages out taking 5 million per year even though the company isn’t making money. In Switzerland they ‘clawback’ previous earnings to keep this kind of ‘risk taking’ from destroying companies.

        Fundamentally the time scales between short term CEO pay and the long term goals of a stockholder are at odds. I do have stocks and watch them somewhat.

        Second, being tied to profitability has ZERO correlation to making better management decisions. It’s counterintuitive, but there is no evidence to support the idea that a CEO makes better decisions if his bonus is tied to corporate profits.

        Third, there is an incentive to hide certain liabilities, appear profitable according to certain accounting firms, take the money, leave and watch Enron go down the toilet.

  2. Cluster

    Folks, this is state issue. Not a federal issue. Proving that a blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn, Casper inadvertently just admitted that fact. And demonstrating once that the gay lobby and liberals everywhere do not care who they offend, they are not just satisfied with having the rights bestowed upon them via civil unions, they want to hijack the word. It’s not ok to offend them mind you, but they can offend anyone they please, and they really don’t give a damn. My question then is – why should I?

    1. 02casper

      Cluster,
      Please feel free to offend anyone you want. As for this being a state issue, I guess that’s up to the SC isn’t it?

      1. Cluster

        Casper,
        Do you see the irony in that statement? Probably not. You got to be one of the dumbest SOB’s I have ever come across.

        Is it a state issue. Marriage is ingrained in state constitutions, and it is not an enumerated power of the federal government. Any chance you can wrap your feeble mind around that. And for once in your life, try making a bold statement.

      2. neocon01

        cluster

        and “he” is a “teacher” which leaves NO question why we have the dumbed down society we have today and having a discussion that 40 years ago would have landed you in the loony bin as a nut case.

      3. 02casper

        “we have today and having a discussion that 40 years ago would have landed you in the loony bin as a nut case.”

        And 40 years from now your remarks will have the same impact as the remarks of those attacking the idea of mixed marriage from 40 years ago.

      4. Amazona

        And here goes cappy again, with his pathetic effort to equate the use of a single WORD with racial discrimination.

        casper. you have established your bona fides here as a fuzzy-minded non-thinking emoter without a clue. You really don’t need to keep adding to that.

        For example, you say “As for this being a state issue, I guess that’s up to the SC isn’t it?”

        Uh, NO, casper, it ISN’T up to the Supreme Court. Duh. Oh, we might very well have five unelected political appointees make a ruling, and the ignorance and stupidity of at least one of them was highlighted when Kagan’s comments were aired (what an imbecile!!) but the fact is, they cannot change the Constitution.

        It is quite scary to remember that you are actually given the opportunity to infect young minds with your ignorance.

      1. Amazona

        Yes, the IRS treats single people differently than it treats married people.

        Are you trying to make a point?

        If you are trying to make something out of the fact that gay couples are not considered married under IRS tax law, then do it.

        In fact, this IS true, and it can be changed quite quickly and easily, without hijacking a WORD .

        But that is not the goal of the activists. It is NOT about equality, it is NOT about anything but the desperate and quite sad belief that if they can use a word that has historically, religiously and culturally had a deep significance to billions of people for centuries, the application of that WORD will convey normalcy and therefore acceptance of deviant behavior.

        Let me say here that unlike some on this blog, I do not attach a moral distinction to what I call “deviant behavior”. Personally, I don’t care who does what with whom, as long as it is mutually consensual and between adults. I fail to see the outrage and hysteria and claims of knowing what God thinks, etc., regarding this behavior. God made these people, He made them the way they are, and I for one am not so arrogant that I want to look God in the eye and say “You made a mistake”. I am quite repelled by the attitude of some here toward homosexuality. But homosexuality IS deviant, in that it deviates from the norm.

        And slapping an inaccurate word on it won’t change that. In addition, it IS “imitative”. If gay people really ARE comfortable with their own sexuality, not ashamed of it, then why do they need to pretend their relationships are the same as those of heterosexuals? I find the whole gay need for this word to be a sad admission that there is something wrong with them,which they hope to fix with a WORD .

        And all that is going to happen is that their bullheaded insensitivity to the feelings and beliefs of others is going to widen the gap between them and straight couples, create more divisiveness, and have the very opposite effect of what they say they want to accomplish. Generating dislike and resentment because you are trampling on something very significant and meaningful to others, with absolutely no respect for their position, is hardly the way to mend fences and create mutual respect.

        If gay activists had come forward and said, to traditional couples, “We are not that different from you, other than our attraction to people of the same sex. We love, like you do. We want the same social and cultural and even religious recognition of our love and the status of mutual commitment that you have, and we want the same legal protections and advantages of marriage, but we understand that this particular word has a very specific meaning, which we respect. So we ask that you recognize the word “____________” as the equivalent and equal of “marriage”, as this is what we want it to signfify.” there would be little or no pushback.

        But no. We have strident and antagonistic activists squealing that the feelings of millions simply do not matter, that the historical context of the word “marriage” simply does not matter. I have absolutely no problem with gay unions with equal rights, protections and responsibilities, but I have no respect at all for what I see as a wall-kicking temper tantrum of some who feel that the rights and feelings of others don’t matter. All I hear is IWANTIWANTIWANTIWANT and the murmurings of the squishies like casper in the background, when none of it is necessary.

        We would not be having this conversation if it were not so advantageous to some to have a nation divided, distrustful, and contentious—–and distracted by the superficial so no one is paying attention to what is going on behind the curtain.

      2. neocon01

        Ama

        God did not make a mistake, he made man in his image.
        As a Christian though I (we) believe mankind to be in a fallen separated state from God. thus people are born with disabilities, inabilities etc.
        I believe homosexuality to be a mental pathology, and in the Christian religion we use the bible as our constitution. It is clearly stated that homosexuality ( among other) is a sin that separates us from God and those who participate in it will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.
        I have vehemently opposed the homosexual AGENDA here on this site and have no choice as a Christian but to do so.

        With that said. I have gay customers, & friends. I could care less what people do in their bedrooms or barns for that matter.
        I do however care when they want to change our country’s values and norms, I do NOT want their agenda (pathology) taught to my children, grand children, nieces and nephews in schools who take my tax dollars, or in private groups like the Boy scouts.

        There is no way anybody has to self identify who they are by sexual preference but for an agenda, a threat, a demand, etc.

        At the end of the day love the sinner hate the sin……however that “love” is not capitulating to their illness or demands it is leading them to salvation and away from the shackles of their sin.

      3. neocon01

        j1369

        The IRS treats married couples different than single people correct?

        .47% pay NO federal taxes married or single…is that discrimination for the 53% eh?

        Hey! national sales tax….ALL pay, ALL the SAME percentage……

  3. Cluster

    Just an observation, though an astute one at that. There is only one thread that Casper consistently frequents, and really only one thread that he consistently comments on, and those are threads pertaining to gay marriage. Curious, no?

    I believe it is because Casper, like so many other liberals, has a Dudley Do Right complex. He is here to save the day against evil oppressors, real or perceived. Keep in mind, there is no opposition to civil unions for gay couples which would afford them all the legal rights of a traditional marriage. But that isn’t good enough for super heroes like Casper. He wants to unwind the definition of a word that is universally recognized in every culture throughout the beginning of time, all because of the perception that some evil right wing cabal is determined to oppress some minority subset of society out of spite and malice.

    Comical really.

    1. 02casper

      Cluster,
      You got me. I care about people. I want everyone to have the opportunity to enjoy the kind of relationship marriage I’ve enjoyed for almost 38 years. As for offending millions of people, I am more concerned that millions of people have the right to marry the one they love. I have friends, family members, and students who are gay. I would be thrilled if all of them can marry those they love.

      “Not satisfied to find common ground with the tens of millions of people in this country who are offended by redefining a tradition rich word, liberals press their agenda forward, hoping that nine people in robes will do for them what the general population has not.”

      Apparently you haven’t been paying attention to the polls or the recent election results, the general population is for gay marriage.

      1. Cluster

        Well Casper once again I must point out the obvious, which you are seemingly impervious to – I have time and time again admitted that attitudes are shifting on this issue, mainly beciae of ill educated young people of which i am sure know a thing or two. Interesting however, those attitudes are not yet reflected in the voting booth:

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/03/25/why-do-polls-show-support-for-gay-marriage-when-state-election-results-reveal-otherwise/

        Hence the need for nine people in robes to do your work for you.

        Now lets move on to another little conundrum you might find your squishy, little, touchy feely self in. You state that “love” is all that is needed to be welcomed into the arms of holy matrimony. And as precious as that is – the question then arises – can I marry my daughter? Can I marry my son? Can I marry the Johnson twins?
        I do love them all, that I promise you.

      2. 02casper

        “Hence the need for nine people in robes to do your work for you.”

        I don’t need the robes to do anything. The voters are going my way.

        I read the article you linked too. I’m guessing that the polls are rigged the same way the polls were rigged before the election. Oh wait, they weren’t.

      3. M. Noonan Post author

        Casper,

        There is precious little evidence – in the form of votes – that the voters are going your way…but the Ruling Class wants it and so we’re almost certain to get it. But just like Roe, all this will do is create yet another strong movement on the right…I find it pleasant to contemplate that on the day the SC was hearing arguments on gay marriage, a State has banned abortions after the 6th week of pregnancy…that shows what happens, in the long run, when the Ruling Class defies the will of the people, as they are about to do on the matter of gay marriage.

        What we’ll do – while your side tries to sue Christian churches out of existence and attempts to enact all manner of fascist laws to support gay marriage – is counter with laws which will make having a marriage entirely inconvenient to anyone who is not a couple constituting one man and one woman…we’ll do it by separating marriage and State and then piling on the benefits for children who are being raised in the same household as both of their biological parents. Bit by bit, just as on abortion, we’ll chip away at this insanity…elective abortion is on the way out, and one day gay marriage will be, as well…because no one aside from a few anti-Christian fanatics actually wants it to be (joined, naturally enough, by people who simply want to be on the fashionable side).

      4. 02casper

        .” Noonan March 26, 2013 at 11:33 pm #

        Casper,

        There is precious little evidence – in the form of votes – that the voters are going your way”

        Twenty years ago marriage equality wasn’t an issue. Today it is a reality for a fifth of the country and being argued before the SC. Tell me what’s not going my way.

        “I find it pleasant to contemplate that on the day the SC was hearing arguments on gay marriage, a State has banned abortions after the 6th week of pregnancy”

        Which will be overturned.

        “What we’ll do – while your side tries to sue Christian churches out of existence ”

        Which isn’t happening.

        “is counter with laws which will make having a marriage entirely inconvenient to anyone who is not a couple constituting one man and one woman…we’ll do it by separating marriage and State and then piling on the benefits for children who are being raised in the same household as both of their biological parents.”

        Go for it. It’s a losing issue.

        As I said, please make this the center of your movement.

      5. M. Noonan Post author

        Casper,

        Center? No, but part of it – one of the things you liberals don’t realize is that just because you care about something doesn’t make it entirely important for everyone else. Those of us in the traditional values side of the aisle actually have bigger fish to fry than gay marriage…but once you ram it down our throats, we will find room for opposing it strenuously, and increasing support for our views, just as we have for our pro-life views. That is another thing you liberals don’t understand – getting a few judges to agree with you doesn’t end an issue.

        And I doubt that the SC will overturn ND’s law – it still does allow for an abortion, but cuts the line – which was left under Roe for the States to decide – about when it will happen, and ND has pretty much gone with the point that the child is clearly alive (heart beating), when it is impossible to argue that its just a “blob of tissue”.

        And there’s yet another thing about you liberals – you really live in the past. You think you are still striding towards your progressive future when all you’re doing is fighting a rear-guard action to defend a corrupt and incompetent Ruling Class which mouths liberal phrases while robbing everyone – including you – blind.

      6. 02casper

        Mark,
        “one of the things you liberals don’t realize is that just because you care about something doesn’t make it entirely important for everyone else. ”

        I assumed since this is your thread that you were the one who considered important.

        “And there’s yet another thing about you liberals – you really live in the past. ”

        Which is funny coming from a person that wants to return to the 18th century. The reality of the situation is that I work with the future. My students will be voting in 5 to 7 years. Their attitudes are changing and continue to change. But don’t believe me, believe the guy that predicted the last couple of elections.

        http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/how-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage-is-changing-and-what-it-means/?hp

      7. neocon01

        catspuke

        I want everyone to have the opportunity to enjoy the kind of relationship marriage I’ve enjoyed for almost 38 years.

        Wow DADT, !!!!

      8. Bob1

        “Marriage” is more than just a label to be attached to a personal matter or relationships. It is a legal and cultural term that defines the nature of a particular personal relationship between two individuals. And everyone doesn’t have the “right” to get “married”, which is why it requires a civic license to do so. And there are laws in place that are associated with “married” couples to protect the “rights” of individuals, particularly those of women and children, in such relationships. It isn’t clear from current discussions regarding the legal details for “gay marriage” as to who in the relationship is the “provider”, who is a “dependent”, and what legal steps are required to break the “relationship” between the individuals. The legal definitions of “marriage” also affect the definitions for which children are to be considered as “bastards” or “orphans”, which has implications for who is responsible for such children in any community. “Marriage” has more to do with how individuals express their “love” for each other than just their “sexual orientation” or ways of sharing sexual activity. I don’t think that the “general population” really understands that the personal rights of gay and lesbian individuals to share in the establishment of common property and visitation privileges could be secured without attaching the civic and legal term of “marriage” to their relationship or partnership.

    2. 02casper

      cluster,
      Personally, I hope you and other conservatives continue to push this issue. Please spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours trying to prevent gays form marrying those they love. Make it the centerpiece of the conservative movement. If you truly think this is the most important issue out there, let’s put it before the American people and see who wins.

      1. Cluster

        It has been put in front of the American people Casper, and lost so far. You’re laughably dense, but you are good for a laugh.

        No doubt attitudes are changing, but you’re not there yet sport, hence the need for nine people in robes. Can’t wrap your head around that yet can you?

        Any chance you can acknowledge that this is a state issue? I know what a constitutional scholar you are.

      2. 02casper

        “Cluster March 26, 2013 at 10:44 pm #

        It has been put in front of the American people Casper, and lost so far. You’re laughably dense, but you are good for a laugh.”

        Which is why Gay marriage is ok in 9 states and DC. At the rate the issue is losing it will be the law of the land within 10 years in another 10 years.

        “Any chance you can acknowledge that this is a state issue? I know what a constitutional scholar you are.”

        I consider it a state issue the same way slavery was a state issue.

      3. neocon01

        once again the LIE and straw man catspuke spews forth with such ease relating race relations with deviant sex.

        Cluster
        I DO see a pattern of our “good teach” only showing his shrunken cranium when the subject id homosexuality which he is such an advocate of. He works with Children?? pretty damn scary.

      4. Amazona

        casper, casper, casper—-you silly little twit, you.

        It is the activists who are working so hard to divide the nation and sow distrust and acrimony who are spending all this money and effort, to ram their agenda down the throats of people.

        And it is brainless squishies like you, who constantly snivel about “marriage equality”—the new phrase for the mindless sheeple like you.

        There IS “marriage equality”. Any man can marry any woman, as long as both are of legal age and not already married to someone else, and not closely related. This is absolute equality. It is not dependent on age, race, religion, ethnic background, income, geographic location, or any other superficial identifier. Any man/any woman. You simply cannot get more “equal” than that.

        IN ADDITION, couples who are of the same gender have achieved near-equal status under the law. Many of the whines about “inequality” have been bogus—for example, a gay woman has always been able to make out a legal document (what we call a “will”) to leave her estate to her female partner, and to make out a different document (what we call a “living will”) giving that partner the right to visit her in the hospital, make life-and-death decisions for her, etc. States either have or soon will pass civil union laws, giving same-sex couples equal treatment under the law. The only holdout is the IRS, yet no one is pushing for legislation to address tax law regarding same-sex unions.

        So the issue of “EQUALITY” is pretty much resolved.

        So why the obsession with a WORD ?

        Because of a wistful desire to normalize deviant relationships by giving them a different name. That’s what it is really about.

        It is about a deep-seated shame, in being gay, and a Magical Thinking approach to this, which is not to openly embrace their differences and celebrate them but to try to hide them behind a word which might, they hope, convey a different meaning.

        It is in no way about “EQUALITY” and only the profoundly stupid and the ardently dishonest try to claim it is.

  4. Cluster

    So here we are once again dealing with the extreme elements of liberalism. Not satisfied to find common ground with the tens of millions of people in this country who are offended by redefining a tradition rich word, liberals press their agenda forward, hoping that nine people in robes will do for them what the general population has not. Democracy is not something that works well for them, so they on a group of elites to bid their case for them. Upstanding people aren’t they?

    1. neocon01

      cluster

      Not satisfied to find common ground with the tens HUNDREDS of millions of people in this country who are offended by redefining a tradition rich word

      fixed buddy :)

    1. neocon01

      reekO

      the truth once again evades you………it is about breaking down all the norms of civilization that made us a great society. We are now plummeting to the lowest of low. why we are even discussing deviant perverted sex between LESS than 1/2% of our society is insane. Yet alone elevating it to normalcy is even insaner.

    2. Amazona

      OF COURSE it’s all about a word.

      It’s not about “civil rights” much less “equal rights”. It’s only about the ability to lay claim to a WORD .

      “Rights” can be, and have been in some states, addressed through various legislations. As far as I know, the only real issue left is about taxes and that is an IRS matter that can be taken care of at the federal level in a quick vote.

      No, it’s about the WORD

      I heard a gay man on the radio the other day say that he used to be against gay marriage because he thought it so “imitative” of straight people, but now he has come to realize that it is really a matter of civil rights.

      No, it isn’t. But the belief that it is is proof of the fuzzy-mindedness of today’s populace.

      And the Leftist puppetmasters are so good at what they do that most of the young people in this nation now identify gay “marriage” as the most important problem facing the country.

      Yeah. Not the economy, not immigration or national security (which ARE related no matter how much the demagogues try to separate them), just who can use what WORD

  5. Jeremiah

    True definition of family – Man, Wife, and Children.

    The Supreme Court will be held accountable on their decision concerning marriage … just as every other person will with an opinion. No one is above God. The Author and Creator of marriage.

  6. Doug Quinby

    First off, you need to change your view that there can’t be a ‘right to marry’ because it takes two people. Just as the right to bear arms and the right to assemble and for speech is regulated, so is marriage – to the point that it requires signatures on a piece of paper, of which no signature can be coerced.

    To me, and since I consider myself closer to Thomas than Scalia as far as the constitution is concerned, my belief is that if it were a question of whether the federal government could make a law saying gay marriage is legal, then you would have even Thomas saying that is constitutional. If the feds say gay marriage is not legal, then Thomas and the conservatives would also that is constitutional.

    The issue of gay marriage, to them, falls outside the scope of the authors of the constitution and instead would be dealt in the same way as they would deal with the legal use of heroin or crack. If there is an overwhelming public good reason for having a one man-one woman requirement for marriage (as has always been) then it is in the govt. scope to regulate that.

    If there is a an overwhelming public good reason for banning a certain type of marriage, then the government may do that. – That is how they would think.

    However, they would also know that it is not the job of the courts to determine whether or not there is that need, that job is the job of congress.

    It won’t be the court that determines whether gays have constitutional equality as far as marriage – they don’t. However, they do have the same rights under the constitution that allows them to convince congress to give them the same legal abiity to marry.

    So, whatever the Prop 8 thing is about, I imagine the conservatives will opine to that effect. If that means they slap around another court to put them in there place, then they will – that is make sure that the law was passed through the legislative process and not passed through the courts.

    1. Cluster

      If there is an overwhelming public good reason for having a one man-one woman requirement for marriage (as has always been) then it is in the govt. scope to regulate that. – Mr Quinby

      But Mr Quinby, that is not how our government is authorized to govern.It would be in overwhelming public good reason to not allow people to swim in shark infested waters. It would be in good public reason to not allow people to drive through the south side of Chicago late at night. But the federal government is not established to govern based on “good public reason”. There are specific enumerated duties. As stated before, this issue falls under the states purview, something liberals can’t wrap their head around, mainly because they don’t trust the general population to comply to their agenda, whereas it is a lot easier to convince nine people in robes.

  7. percybeezer

    Its pretty easy to see why democrats want to change marriage to mean nothing at all, they’ve been so successful at ruining marriage in the black community that to be married has no meaning so all the children, all the mothers are on welfare and all the fathers (or sperm donors) are free from financial responsibility.

    If they liked it once, they’ll love it twice!

    More government dependents/more democrat voters.

  8. neocon01

    Grifters

    A VACATION A MONTH…
    FAMILY SPRING BREAK TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER WHITE HOUSE TOURS…

  9. M. Noonan Post author

    Sarah,

    Really? It was implied in the 14th Amendment – you just have the typical tunnel vision of liberals who can’t imagine anyone being as smart as you.

    Anyways, I can predict what will happen in 100 years because truth always wins out, in the end. Its why we conservatives knew the old USSR could be undone while liberals were saying it never could be – lies can gain great power and endure for quite a while, but lies are always irrational and irrational things cannot go on forever.

    We are at the end of an epoch which started round about 1750 (though its roots go back to the break up of Christendom in the 16th century) and asserted, fundamentally, that people using their own, unaided reason could devise a wise and just society without reference to God and His revelation. Well, it didn’t take long for such people who purported to use to reason to abandon it entirely and go from one bit of insanity to another…the corpses piled up, the sky was blackened with filth, the people lost their land, immorality strode down to ever greater depths of depravity…all the while, those who still held to Christianity kept pointing out – quite calmly, actually – that all that is being done would lead to catastrophe, and it has. Its all over, now – all that remains to happen is the final collapse (which I believe will happen fairly soon, in the grand scheme of things) and it will be left to actually rational people – people, that is, who know that reason comes from God and without reference to God there is no rationality – to pick up the pieces, just as they did after the fall of the Greco-Roman world…we’ll put it back together (and fend off the Islamists liberals are so greatly terrified of), but we’re not going to bother putting it back together just so liberals can immediately wreck it again. Your point of view may yet have another day – but not for a long time.

  10. M. Noonan Post author

    Sarah,

    My values are truth – I don’t try to pick out what I think is true, I find out what is true and try to adhere to it. Its your side which absurdly believes there can be antagonistic truths.

    And as for leading us to prosperity – if you call this prosperity, then I am sorry for you.

  11. M. Noonan Post author

    Pel,

    Easier to pick out what has been an actual improvement:

    1. Indoor plumbing.

    2. Electric lights.

    3. Improved transport methods.

    Other than that, not much has actually improved and many things have gotten worse – especially in the core matters of family, adherence to truth and rationality and the ownership of property by average folks.

  12. neocon01

    perryjelolo

    Name 10 ways in which the world was better off in 1600 than it is today.

    No
    marxists
    nazis
    anarchists
    leftists
    poisonous press
    atheists
    nutty leftist professors
    to name a few

  13. Amazona

    Lil’ Red——nice try, but Mark never SAID “the world was better off in 1600 than it is today”.

    This kind of deceptive discourse may come naturally to you, or you may have been trained to basically claim someone has said something indefensible and then challenge them to defend it when in fact no such comment was made.

    I see you sucked casper in, but then he is a sucker for deceptive Leftist rhetorical tricks. The poor sap actually thinks that the whole hullaballoo about gay “marriage” is about “marriage equality”.

  14. 02casper

    mark,
    “Easier to pick out what has been an actual improvement:

    1. Indoor plumbing.

    2. Electric lights.

    3. Improved transport methods.”

    What about the U.S. Constitution or government in general, the end of slavery in most countries, improved communications, all the improvements in medical science, and Applebees to name a few. I doubt you will find many people alive today that would give all that up to return to 1750.

    “Why gay marriage? Not because the people want it – their votes show otherwise. ”

    Currently nine states and Washington D.C. allow gay marriage. We recently reelected Obama after he came out of gay marriage. Polls show that the support for gay marriage is increasing throughout the country. Regardless of how the Court rules, gay mariage is going to be the law of the land.

  15. pelirrojito

    That wasn’t my question. And I can list 100 things that are better now. So can you list 10 things that were better then?

  16. neocon01

    gay mariage is going to be the law of the land.

    the law of what is left of the land, after you commie nitwits have torn it to shreds……….Im considering the thought of splitting the country in half……you nitwits will manage to end up having one where people would flee to somolia, mexico, and haiti to escape what you would become in 10 years.

  17. neocon01

    catspuke

    where does the God you supposedly worship stand on the sins of sodomy? murder? adultery?

  18. Amazona

    So NOW Casper likes the Constitution. Gee, doesn’t that make him a misogynist racist?

    This poor guy flutters around like a wounded moth, from one shiny light to another, absolutely clueless.

  19. GMB

    Could never happen Neo. The looney tune leftys need our money to run their paradise. Who do you think is going to pay for all their welfare?

  20. neocon01

    and MANY other places I support.

    INCLUDING the VFW and American legion something you would know nothing about and could only attend as a visitor……..aren’t you proud of your self?

  21. 02casper

    Actually, I’ve been to both places on several occasions. Haven’t in a few years though. They just aren’t that interesting.

  22. neocon01

    of course not…how kerryesque of you.
    cowards and heroes really have nothing in common.

  23. watsonthethird

    Cluster said:

    Well Casper once again I must point out the obvious, which you are seemingly impervious to – I have time and time again admitted that attitudes are shifting on this issue, mainly beciae of ill educated young people of which i am sure know a thing or two. Interesting however, those attitudes are not yet reflected in the voting booth:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/03/25/why-do-polls-show-support-for-gay-marriage-when-state-election-results-reveal-otherwise/

    I wonder if you actually read the article. Tony Perkins is quoted as saying: “The polls that really matter are the polls that are taken when the people actually vote on this. When people have voted as late as 10 months ago, 30 states have put the natural definition of marriage into their state constitution on average by a vote of 67 percent.”

    But then the article correctly points out, “It is no accident that Mr. Perkins attempts to argue that, as recently as 10 months ago, voters cast their ballots in opposition to gay marriage. What Perkins is referencing is the vote in North Carolina which took place last May. But what Mr. Perkins does not bother to point out is that Minnesota’s ballot measure to block gay marriage failed by a 5 point margin in the November, 2012 election and, more importantly, these are the only ballot measures on same sex marriage that have occurred since November, 2008.” Not to mention the three other ballot measures in the November 2012 election that were all decided in favor of same sex marriage.

    The article you cited then goes on to conclude: “As a result, for people like Gary Bauer and Tony Perkins to stake their position on attitudes and demographics as they existed over five years ago is not only disingenuous but reveals how they—and those who share their prejudice—have already lost the war.” You and Bauer and Perkins.

    Hint to you Cluster: When the author of the article you cite goes by the slogan, “Writing from the left on politics and policy,” he’s probably not making your point for you.

  24. pelirrojito

    Trying to amke a point. Mark constantly makes statments and refuses to back them up. He said life was better in 1600, yet refuses to state any examples.

  25. neocon01

    perrywinkle

    maybe next time double dog dare him……OR quit asking MORONIC questions. capice?

  26. Cluster

    How many states are there Watson? Let me help you out. nine other states prohibit same sex marriage by statute and 30 states have it actually written into their constitution. If you truly had the people behind you, this issue wouldn’t be at the SC now would it? Did I really have to make that point?

    And again, why can’t petulant children like you and Dudley Do Right, admit that this issue is all over a word? There would be no opposition to civil unions, but evidently liberals are not satisfied with that.

    Secondly, if we define marriage simply by “love”, may I marry my daughter? Or the johnson twins? Dudley Do Right wouldn’t answer this question.

    Finally, I, and nearly every other conservative here have admitted that we recognize that attitudes are changing on this issue, yet that doesn’t stop people like Dudley Do Right from ignoring that and still wanting to lecture the “unwashed masses”. I will tell you that attitudes are mainly shifting because the educational system that Dudley Do Right is a part of, is churning out hyper emotional, mal educated children everyday of the week.

  27. neocon01

    cluster

    How many states are there Watson?

    by their DEAR LEADER’s (you know the kenyan/indonesian) account 57

  28. neocon01

    cluster

    Secondly, if we define marriage simply by “love”, may I marry my daughter? Or the johnson twins? Dudley Do Right wouldn’t answer this

    well that is the next step of this slippery slope. Remember isalm allows for more than one wife, and men marrying 12 year old’s.
    Though homosexual “marriage” in an islamic state would be adjoining burial plots.

  29. watsonthethird

    Cluster said:

    How many states are there Watson? Let me help you out. nine other states prohibit same sex marriage by statute and 30 states have it actually written into their constitution. If you truly had the people behind you, this issue wouldn’t be at the SC now would it? Did I really have to make that point?

    Cluster, YOU brought up the Forbes article as a source behind your statement, “Interesting however, those attitudes are not yet reflected in the voting booth.” First, your statement is false. And second, the article did just the opposite of your implication. It pointed out how quickly public sentiment has shifted, exemplified by the 2012 election, in which voters affirmed same sex marriage in all four states in which it was on the ballot. To claim “those attitudes are not yet reflected in the voting booth,” is simply not true. So either you were ignorant of the article’s contents, or disingenuous in citing it, or downright dishonest. You can tell us which. You and people like dbschmidt throw out falsehoods as though they’re irrefutable facts, probably in the hopes that nobody will check.

    More Cluster:

    So here we are once again dealing with the extreme elements of liberalism. Not satisfied to find common ground with the tens of millions of people in this country who are offended by redefining a tradition rich word, liberals press their agenda forward, hoping that nine people in robes will do for them what the general population has not. Democracy is not something that works well for them, so they on a group of elites to bid their case for them. Upstanding people aren’t they?

    Once again Cluster plays the victim card. You see, he and people like him are the true victims here. What nonsense. Next week he’ll be stereotyping liberals as always playing the victim. Such are the arguments of Cluster.

    As for the argument that “this issue is all over a word,” as Cluster put it, tell that to Edith Schlain, who brought the DOMA case to court. That word cost her $350,000 in estate taxes–something even conservatives ought to be sympathetic towards. And if it’s just a word, then really, what difference does it make if the word is “marriage”? After all, it’s just a word.

    And I have no idea who Dudley Do Right is. Like it matters.

  30. The Return of Rathaven

    Cluster plays the victim card????

    Oy Vey, such a nudzh!

    All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

    So too the application of that will must be rightful and reasonable.

    There is nothing rightful or reasonable about usurping a sacrament, consistently modeled from thousands of years of societal mores by unaccountable individuals as experimentation with no evidence of benefit.

    To demonstrate, as “Cluster” did of the oppression of the minority is the antithesis of “victim”.

    So, it would kill you to learn a little history?

  31. The Return of Rathaven

    … and before you make a fool of yourself, the oppression is the oppression of the minority of unaccountables visited upon the majority,

    And please, take Bardolf’s advise and don’t separate the fly shit from the pepper.

  32. neocon01

    RoR

    this is the history that waspstooge studies……

    Saul Alinsky was a brilliant man. Evil, but brilliant. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, everyone on the Left from the President on down is playing by his rules in the political arena.
    his tactics have become universal.

    Sadly for conservatives, when two evenly matched forces go head-to-head outside of a fairy tale, the side that tries to play nice usually ends up with its head in a box. So, don’t lie or become an evil person like Alinsky, but learn from what he wrote and give the Left a taste of its own medicine.

    Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

    The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people.

    …The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

    …the fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

    …the fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

    …the sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

    …the seventh rule is: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

    …the eighth rule: Keep the pressure on.

    …the ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

    The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

  33. watsonthethird

    Yes, Rathaven, Cluster is playing the victim card. He can’t come up with a defensible reason for why DOMA should remain the law of the land, except that gay people marrying each other offends him.

    Thomas Jefferson would never have resorted to such a lame argument.

  34. watsonthethird

    This from a man who considers the Gospel of Matthew to be “a childish way of circumventing his word.” You have no standing whatsoever, Clown.

Comments are closed.