The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: txradioguy on June 26, 2013, 09:25:46 AM
-
The Supreme Court has struck down a federal provision denying benefits to legally married gay couples.
The 5-4 decision found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/26/supreme-court-strikes-down-defense-marriage-act-provision/
:thatsright: :censored: :banghead:
-
Here's the dissent, written by Justice Scalia:
http://news.yahoo.com/scalia-high-handed-kennedy-demeans-institution-101636785.html
-
Well, I guess I'm one of the
"enemies of the human race."
-
This doesn't surprise me at all. Kennedy has often sided with the gay rights movement. In some ways this is good in that it puts the right to marry in the hands of the states but it also opens up a can of worms when those rights come into conflict. It's going to get messy but the pro homosexual crowd wouldn't have it any other way.
-
Yep, FlaGator. The divorce industry will make a killing.
-
This whole pandering to what 1 or 2% of the population and in the meanwhile destroying what's left of the moral fiber that made this country so great is disgusting. :banghead:
-
No big surprise here.
-
I do not support gay marriage, but it should be a state issue. Last time I checked, marriage is not a right. I have no problems if gays want to have civil unions. I consider gay marriage a very low priority issue for me.
-
Put this week's decision together, and you have a pretty strong federalism streak measured out by SCOTUS.
The decision should belong to the states.
-
And with that decision, two pillars of the Clenis' presidential legacy are gone- leaving him with nothing but impeachment.
Hillary '16... the Twofer!
-
So what's next? Bigamy?
-
From twitter, and I kinda agree:
EEÉ (D) â€@EEElverhoy 2m
Love that lately SCOTUS has basically told US citizens, "Elect better people. Stop crying to us on everything.
-
So what's next? Bigamy?
If your state legalizes bigamy, then yeah.
-
So what's next? Bigamy?
Bigamy and on it's heels with be pedophilia, incest and bestiality (in no particular order).
-
Also--other good news. The SCOTUS couldn't find five votes saying that gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right.
At least not yet...
-
From twitter, and I kinda agree:
EEÉ (D) @EEElverhoy 2m
Love that lately SCOTUS has basically told US citizens, "Elect better people. Stop crying to us on everything.
That is why we have so many incumbents running for decades.
-
Also--other good news. The SCOTUS couldn't find five votes saying that gay marriage is a constitutionally protected right.
At least not yet...
Just wait a couple of years.
-
So what's next? Bigamy?
The Polygimists and the Pedophiles will file their legal briefs next.
-
Just wait a couple of years.
True, but TODAY, there are not 5 votes, or else that's exactly what would've happened.
-
The legal redefinition of marriage means the loss of freedom to express and to act according to beliefs at odds with the gay agenda; more ominously, it will grant to the state an enormous and unprecedented power for remaking society according to its own designs. Marriage properly understood is an essential prerequisite for stable, healthy families. Societies throughout history and across the world have learned this from experience, and modern sociological research, despite the barrage of propaganda to the contrary, bears it out.
While marriage opponents will no doubt point to individual A or person B as an exception, we know that, on average, children raised in traditional monogamous marriages with both father and mother do better in school, are less likely to be criminals or drug-addicted, have fewer mental and emotional problems, are less likely to commit suicide, and on and on. families are, along with organized religion, the most important "mediating institutions" between the individual and the state. Mediating institutions are groups of people large and small that help serve as a check on the government, and provide individuals with a way of influencing the state much more effectively than they can do on their own.
These independent sources of authority are essential to the preservation of liberty: without them the behemoth of the state would easily crush the lone citizen. That's why totalitarians of every stripe make the subjugation or even destruction of these institutions (especially the family and organized religion) a top priority. Giving the state the power to manipulate, redefine and hence to unmake such essential protectors of freedom must necessarily lead to an ever more powerful state, and an ever smaller place for individual liberty.
-
So what's next? Bigamy?
Why not? The essence of this ruling is that the States must recognize any marriage, and did so with a ghey marriage that was executed in Canada. The very next step will be for a Yemeni man to say, "see this? You have to recognize this marriage between this woman and that other woman; what is the difference between that marriage, and mine between me and my four wives".
-
The Polygimists and the Pedophiles will file their legal briefs next.
The people behind the FreeKate movement will assume their time will come very soon after this ruling.
-
I read both decisions.
The DOMA decision is a victory for federalism. Issuing marriage licenses is a state power. Based on that principle, the role the Federal government has given itself is to provide Federal benefits based on whether applicants for benefits are married in their state of residence. Extending this principle to its logical conclusion, the "right thing to do" from a 14th Amendment perspective would be:
1. Grant Federal benefits to any applicant who produces a marriage license recognized by the state of his/her residence*, or
2. Eliminate all Federal benefits based on marital status.
Given the entitlement attitude of the majority of Americans, and the eagerness of King Hussein's administration to pander to that attitude, I expect the Federal government will continue to open the feedbag to all who want to eat from it.
The Prop 8 decision was a punt, but a reasonable one. It is a recognized principle of civil law that a party must have suffered measurable damages (actual or potential) to bring a lawsuit, and the appellants were unable to show damages (and therefore, standing). When the State of California refused to defend its own constitution, the outcome was preordained.
*Edited to clarify: "marriage license recognized by the state of his/her residence"
-
The legal redefinition of marriage means the loss of freedom to express and to act according to beliefs at odds with the gay agenda; more ominously, it will grant to the state an enormous and unprecedented power for remaking society according to its own designs. Marriage properly understood is an essential prerequisite for stable, healthy families. Societies throughout history and across the world have learned this from experience, and modern sociological research, despite the barrage of propaganda to the contrary, bears it out.
While marriage opponents will no doubt point to individual A or person B as an exception, we know that, on average, children raised in traditional monogamous marriages with both father and mother do better in school, are less likely to be criminals or drug-addicted, have fewer mental and emotional problems, are less likely to commit suicide, and on and on. families are, along with organized religion, the most important "mediating institutions" between the individual and the state. Mediating institutions are groups of people large and small that help serve as a check on the government, and provide individuals with a way of influencing the state much more effectively than they can do on their own.
These independent sources of authority are essential to the preservation of liberty: without them the behemoth of the state would easily crush the lone citizen. That's why totalitarians of every stripe make the subjugation or even destruction of these institutions (especially the family and organized religion) a top priority. Giving the state the power to manipulate, redefine and hence to unmake such essential protectors of freedom must necessarily lead to an ever more powerful state, and an ever smaller place for individual liberty.
Californians voted not once, but twice, on ballot measures defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and both times the courts struck it down. What good does it do to vote if the courts can overturn the decisions?
Now the liberal lawyers will start filing suits where states have upheld that marriage is between a man and woman. Also, here come the lawsuits forcing churches to marry same sex couples.
-
So much for all that "Rule of law" stuff.
-
So much for all that "Rule of law" stuff.
Scalia's dissent on US v. Windsor is phenomenal.
-
Scalia's dissent on US v. Windsor is phenomenal.
Rush Limbaugh is describing it right now. From what little bits I've read, it sounds excellent.
-
Rush Limbaugh is describing it right now. From what little bits I've read, it sounds excellent.
Just turned on the radio to catch it. Thanks for the heads-up!
-
What happened to the wall between church and state? Our government has been in the marriage business for what, 220+ years, while religion has been in the business of marriage for over 4,000 years. I'd say religion is the sole owner of the institution of marriage and as such the determining agency of what constitutes a marriage.
Personally, since the government has destroyed the family unit with its many acts/laws/programs against that unit, government should just get out of the marriage business altogether.....no tax benefits for marriage/children/nothing.....no government forced child support....no government aid for unmarried or married pregnant women....you made it, you take care of it......this would truly make all people equal.....this would make men (and women that can't or chose not to get pregnant) equal to homosexuals that can't benefit from being married and not having children.
-
What happened to the wall between church and state? Our government has been in the marriage business for what, 220+ years, while religion has been in the business of marriage for over 4,000 years. I'd say religion is the sole owner of the institution of marriage and as such the determining agency of what constitutes a marriage.
Personally, since the government has destroyed the family unit with its many acts/laws/programs against that unit, government should just get out of the marriage business altogether.....no tax benefits for marriage/children/nothing.....no government forced child support....no government aid for unmarried or married pregnant women....you made it, you take care of it......this would truly make all people equal.....this would make men (and women that can't or chose not to get pregnant) equal to homosexuals that can't benefit from being married and not having children.
:thumbs:
-
I do not support gay marriage, but it should be a state issue. Last time I checked, marriage is not a right. I have no problems if gays want to have civil unions. I consider gay marriage a very low priority issue for me.
Same here. It's almost a non-issue considering everything else Obummer is doing.
-
Rush Limbaugh is describing it right now. From what little bits I've read, it sounds excellent.
Scalia tore the majority a new asshole in his dissent.
In a ripping dissent, Scalia says that Justice Anthony Kennedy and his colleagues in the majority have resorted to calling opponents of gay marriage "enemies of the human race."
But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "dis- parage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.
Scalia says that the court's holding – while limited to the Defense of Marriage Act – is a sure sign that the majority is willing to declare gay marriage a constitutional right.
It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress's hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will "confine" the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with.
http://news.yahoo.com/scalia-high-handed-kennedy-demeans-institution-101636785.html
-
Scalia tore the majority a new asshole in his dissent.
http://news.yahoo.com/scalia-high-handed-kennedy-demeans-institution-101636785.html
Thanks TRG!
-
Now we get to see if Rubio is true to his word for once or goes back on it...again.
The voiding of DOMA now means that the gay partners of illegal aliens are now recognized when Obama gives amnesty to them.
Rubio said that was a deal breaker for him.
We shall see...
-
The voiding of DOMA now means that the gay partners of illegal aliens are now recognized when Obama gives amnesty to them.
Wouldn't they have to have a marriage license from their country of origin?
-
Wouldn't they have to have a marriage license from their country of origin?
Slight correction on my part...it will grant green cards to illegal alien partners of gay Americans.
Rubio said that was a deal breaker. I'm sorry for the confusing way I typed it above. :thatsright:
-
Slight correction on my part...it will grant green cards to illegal alien partners of gay Americans.
Rubio said that was a deal breaker. I'm sorry for the confusing way I typed it above. :thatsright:
Roger.
I don't hold out any hope that Rubio will back out of his support of the amnesty bill.
-
The Prop 8 decision was a punt, but a reasonable one. It is a recognized principle of civil law that a party must have suffered measurable damages (actual or potential) to bring a lawsuit, and the appellants were unable to show damages (and therefore, standing). When the State of California refused to defend its own constitution, the outcome was preordained.
I would think that the courts denying the voters their right to make a decision via the voting booth is "damage". (but I'm not a fast talking lawyer)
.
-
What happened to the wall between church and state? Our government has been in the marriage business for what, 220+ years, while religion has been in the business of marriage for over 4,000 years. I'd say religion is the sole owner of the institution of marriage and as such the determining agency of what constitutes a marriage.
Personally, since the government has destroyed the family unit with its many acts/laws/programs against that unit, government should just get out of the marriage business altogether.....no tax benefits for marriage/children/nothing.....no government forced child support....no government aid for unmarried or married pregnant women....you made it, you take care of it......this would truly make all people equal.....this would make men (and women that can't or chose not to get pregnant) equal to homosexuals that can't benefit from being married and not having children.
Agreed. I always say government should get out of business of marriage period. Like I said, it is not a right.
-
Roger.
I don't hold out any hope that Rubio will back out of his support of the amnesty bill.
Me either.
-
I would think that the courts denying the voters their right to make a decision via the voting booth is "damage". (but I'm not a fast talking lawyer)
.
Thee voters got to exercise their rights when they voted. Their votes were counted. The state constitution was amended.
The Federal courts later ruled the constitutional amendment to violate the US Constitution. The citizens can't file suit against a Federal court for violating their right to amend the state constitution.
The State of California had the duty to defend the constitutional amendment, which it refused to do. The citizens did not file a suit against the State of California for failing to perform its Constitutional duty. They should have, in my opinion.
My opinion is that the Supreme Court's proper decision would have been to vacate all Federal decisions regarding the case, but they didn't call me before they made their decision.
-
So what's next? Bigamy?
Hey, get in line, behind necrophilia and bestiality. Animals are people too.
-
On a separate note, take a look at the 85 senators who approved DOMA. You'll see some interesting names: Biden, Schumer, Durbin, Reid, etc.
link (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280)
-
Next up...I predict the Military will officially recognize gay marriage and force those states that don't recognize gay marriage to do just that and the Libs will get via brute force what they couldn't get otherwise. Federal recognition of gay marriage across the entire country.
-
Next up...I predict the Military will officially recognize gay marriage and force those states that don't recognize gay marriage to do just that and the Libs will get via brute force what they couldn't get otherwise. Federal recognition of gay marriage across the entire country.
You must have been watching Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, almost word for word.
.
-
I do not support gay marriage, but it should be a state issue. Last time I checked, marriage is not a right. I have no problems if gays want to have civil unions. I consider gay marriage a very low priority issue for me.
Well, with this decision, it is now a right. You can now have more than 1 wife, even marry your daughter and/or son, maybe your dog Pokey can be your spouse. Probably the biggest winners are NAMBLA. Not opinion, 100% grade A fact. Marrying goats, cows, even the dead is legal. Fact!!!!
-
On a separate note, take a look at the 85 senators who approved DOMA. You'll see some interesting names: Biden, Schumer, Durbin, Reid, etc.
link (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280)
Dana Loesch on twitter is telling everyone far and wide that this was a Dem initiative to grow big gov't. She remembers well, because at the time she was a demwit handing out pamphlets about it. So she gets nasty tweets back, "ugly bitch" which she then RT'd.
The left threatens you with rape now if you bring up how DOMA is Dems’s baby. NOH8!
-
You must have been watching Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, almost word for word.
.
Really? Wow. No I don't have AFN at my off post house so I can't see FNC.
It's not rocket science though really. If you know Liberals and what their end game is its easy to predict their next move.
-
And right on cue:
Hagel: Defense Department Welcomes Supreme Court Decision
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=120364
-
And right on cue:
Hagel: Defense Department Welcomes Supreme Court Decision
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=120364
We're headed for an "All Girl" military.
-
Really? Wow. No I don't have AFN at my off post house so I can't see FNC.
It's not rocket science though really. If you know Liberals and what their end game is its easy to predict their next move.
He was actually on FBN talking about all the NEW claims for social security and other federal benefits via gay "spouses".
If they get married in one state that allows gay marriage.... they can move to one that does not allow gay marriage and the flood gates open.
.
-
Dana Loesch on twitter is telling everyone far and wide that this was a Dem initiative to grow big gov't. She remembers well, because at the time she was a demwit handing out pamphlets about it. So she gets nasty tweets back, "ugly bitch" which she then RT'd.
That's where I got the info for the roll call. She's a smart cookie.
-
The Department of Defense will immediately begin the process of making benefits available to all military spouses.
http://www.pentagonchannel.mil/Video.aspx?videoid=294801
ETA: This on the same day that the Army announces they're cutting 10 additional BCT's to save $$$.
-
Well, with this decision, it is now a right. You can now have more than 1 wife, even marry your daughter and/or son, maybe your dog Pokey can be your spouse. Probably the biggest winners are NAMBLA. Not opinion, 100% grade A fact. Marrying goats, cows, even the dead is legal. Fact!!!!
I don't agree with the ruling; but I believe that is just as much an over reaction as the Dem's reaction to the part of the VRA being voted down yesterday.
-
I don't agree with the ruling; but I believe that is just as much an over reaction as the Dem's reaction to the part of the VRA being voted down yesterday.
Apples and oranges. People are right to be outraged over this ruling today.
We just let 3.8% of the U.S. population dictate to the majority what "normal" looks like.
Section 4 of the VRA getting shot down does just the opposite. No longer can a vocal minority who needed this 50 years ago dictate to and jerk around the majority in an era when we've elected a black man President two times by a healthy majority.
-
Apples and oranges. People are right to be outraged over this ruling today.
We just let 3.8% of the U.S. population dictate to the majority what "normal" looks like.
Section 4 of the VRA getting shot down does just the opposite. No longer can a vocal minority who needed this 50 years ago dictate to and jerk around the majority in an era when we've elected a black man President two times by a healthy majority.
I understand that; but to hear some on the Left, the VRA ruling meant that the South was going to put guards at the polls to keep blacks from voting....over reaction.
-
I understand that; but to hear some on the Left, the VRA ruling meant that the South was going to put guards at the polls to keep blacks from voting....over reaction.
That's just the professional race pimps and the White Guilt crowd pissed that they don't have a leg to stand on anymore. They've had their pulpit yanked out from under them.
-
A good friend of mine became a pastor. We discussed this issue some years ago.
He said a number of pastors in his city agree that if the govt forced churches to marry same sex couples, then the churches would declare they would no longer perform marriages. Marriage would be civil only.
The church would then perform a "blessing," it would look like a marriage. feel like a marriage, have all the trappings of a marriage...BUT it would be open only to church members-not to people walking in off the street. further the church would have the freedom not to give a "blessing to anyone who did not meet the churchs rigorous standards.
--since a "blessing" is a religious only event, the govt could not do a thing about it.
-
Next up...I predict the Military will officially recognize gay marriage and force those states that don't recognize gay marriage to do just that and the Libs will get via brute force what they couldn't get otherwise. Federal recognition of gay marriage across the entire country.
You didn't have to wait long. Hagel was all over this shit.
-
You didn't have to wait long. Hagel was all over this shit.
Yup...almost like they knew before it was announced what the decision would be.
-
A quote from me on my other forum...
"Libs over the years have perfected some very effective strategies. One of which is to make conservatives fight a multi front war.
Many of the fronts they attack on are not earth shattering, and they do that purposely. The next part of the strategy is what has worked so well for the libs, they propagandize issues to be "not important" to lull conservatives into marshalling their forces in other areas.
Then when the libs sense weakness they press, and like in this case they break through on that front and escalate that attack into a flank attack on another front.
That's why conservatives should never acquiesce to anything that libs want."
-
Well, I'm done with voting in California and in any other elections for that matter. It's a waste of my time since the State and Federal governments just told me my vote doesn't count. I'm going to the Registrar of Voters of my county and requesting to have my name removed from the voter list. After that any election material I receive will be marked "Return to Sender" and placed on the mailbox.
-
Well, I'm done with voting in California and in any other elections for that matter. It's a waste of my time since the State and Federal governments just told me my vote doesn't count. I'm going to the Registrar of Voters of my county and requesting to have my name removed from the voter list. After that any election material I receive will be marked "Return to Sender" and placed on the mailbox.
I understand your frustration Zath...but that's playing right into the Liberals hands. That's what they wnt you to do.
And you just can't...
-
Conservatives are in pain now. It seems society is deaf to the conservative clarion call. But what works best for society, what is good, truthful, moral and ethical is on the side of the conservative. The success the libs are having now cannot be sustained.
-
Well, I'm done with voting in California and in any other elections for that matter. It's a waste of my time since the State and Federal governments just told me my vote doesn't count. I'm going to the Registrar of Voters of my county and requesting to have my name removed from the voter list. After that any election material I receive will be marked "Return to Sender" and placed on the mailbox.
Zath, Prop 8 is still the law of the land in California. The people have it right, even if the government doesn't.
-
Conservatives are in pain now. It seems society is deaf to the conservative clarion call. But what works best for society, what is good, truthful, moral and ethical is on the side of the conservative. The success the libs are having now cannot be sustained.
(http://i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag72/conscave/Forward_Obama_Lenin_lemming_zps999ff86f.jpg)
-
Well, I'm done with voting in California and in any other elections for that matter. It's a waste of my time since the State and Federal governments just told me my vote doesn't count. I'm going to the Registrar of Voters of my county and requesting to have my name removed from the voter list. After that any election material I receive will be marked "Return to Sender" and placed on the mailbox.
So, you're moving out of blue state hell then? Because "taking your ball and going home" is definitely not the way to be heard.
-
So, you're moving out of blue state hell then? Because "taking your ball and going home" is definitely not the way to be heard.
^^^ this Hi5
-
So, you're moving out of blue state hell then? Because "taking your ball and going home" is definitely not the way to be heard.
Hard to be heard when nobody in this state gives a **** about what I have to say.
-
Zath, Prop 8 is still the law of the land in California. The people have it right, even if the government doesn't.
Is it? Is it really the law of the land when the state government refuses to do their duty and defend it in a court of law? Sorry but when you have officials that shirk their duties just because they don't like the law are telling the people who voted the proposition into law that their vote means nothing then voting itself is a waste of time. Until we get a viable opposition party here in California, my time is better spent on things other than voting.