SCOTUS legalizes Gay Marriage - 10th Amendment Obliterated

[GunnyFreedom]

Guys, I'm TRYING to do work and you keep sucking me back in!

What special privelage does someone who is homosexual have if they legally can't be fired for their sexual preference?
Folks have GOT to start using the Golden Rule!

If being heterosexual was being the minority, would you think it would be okay for your boss to fire you when she found out that you were attracted to women?

Yes. Of course. It's her money, not mine. It would be wrong for me to hold a gun to her head and force her to continue paying me against her will, regardless of the reason, for good cause or bad.

You could just as well say I consider it my personal right to never shower, and because I consider that a lifestyle choice, I would use the power of government to force people to keep paying me even though my smell drives all the customers off of the sales floor and keeping me around will make the company go bankrupt.

It doesn't matter whether you LIKE or HATE the thing being forced. It is the use of force itself that is wrong.

I am appalled at the number of 'liberty' people who are okay with the use of force via government guns, as long as that force is providing something that they, personally, like. You may not think so, but y'alls mindset is the exact mindset that justified chattel slavery, so long as they were the beneficiaries.

You can call this position whatever you like, but please don't call it "liberty." Giving governments more power is the antithesis of liberty.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

No one is forcing any church to accept the legitimacy of gay marriage.

They said the exact same thing about Christian bakeries. How'd that work out?

 

[ProBlue33]

I am going to post how another poster reacted to this picture.

I saw this on the local news earlier, and I think it's an absolute embarrassment. As far as the gay marriage issue, I think this ruling was long overdue, and I'm glad that the Supreme Court ruled the way they did. If course, it's not enough that due process was followed and they made the correct decision; Everything has to be made into an advertisement or a publicity stunt.

And so, tonight, the primary seat of power in the Western world looks like a float in a gay pride parade. It's unprofessional, and it's a goddam embarrassment.

I don't think I have ever seen America more divided in my lifetime than right now, I saw a tweet from somebody who said 6/26 is equivalent to 9/11 morally to Christians Americans right now.

As for state rights to govern with some morality because thats what their voters expect, the blow back might be stronger than some think. How will the feds make Texas for example do it, if they say no, be delaying the process unreasonably.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Sorry but that is so ridiculously not true. Government has been in the marriage business for millennia. Anyone who says differently is woefully ignorant of history. But I agree government has no place in a religious ceremony, but to claim it is a recent phenomena is incorrect.

Governments have recognized marriage since ancient Greece. Governments have only licensed marriage for the last 150 years or so. There is a rather large difference.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Am I going to be forced to marry a man? No, of course not. So my personal liberty isn't being trampled.

Obama care dies force you to do something and fines you if you dont.

I don't see why some people are lumping these 2 issues together.

Let's assume eating healthy is a good thing. I would oppose SCOTUS requiring the states to pass laws forcing people to eat healthy, too.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

It is only a matter of time, now, until we see federal hate speech laws requiring the States to punish people for unpopular opinions, and the advent of true thoughtcrime laws.

So yeah, y'all do your little celebratory dance, but in 8 years when you are getting hauled off to reeducation camps for criticizing police brutality, don't say you weren't warned about what would happen with this sort of power grab from the federal courts.

This kind of "The sky is falling!" stuff is ludicrous. It's the same kind of hysteria that was being peddled after Brown v. Board of Education prohibited racial segregation of public schools.

Consider the May 18, 1954, editorial in the Jackson, Miss., Daily News:

"Human blood may stain Southern soil in many places because of this decision, but the dark red stains of that blood will be on the marble steps of the United States Supreme Court building.

White and Negro children in the same schools will lead to miscegenation. Miscegenation leads to mixed marriages and mixed marriages lead to the mongrelization of the human race."

Georgia Gov. Marvin Griffin said, "No matter how much the Supreme Court seeks to sugarcoat its bitter pill of tyranny, the people of Georgia and the South will not swallow it."

 

[sylcfh]

The war on drugs already shredded the Bill of Rights.

This isn't news.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

If the general sentiment of this forum is to equate homosexuality with the literal destruction of society, I'm gonna jet.

I couldn't possibly care less about how someone wants to spend their time and love. I do care a lot, however, about a bunch of black robed mongrels spitting on the Constitution, and I believe that the incremental and progressive abandonment of the Constitution is in fact leading to the literal destruction of American society.

 

[Sola_Fide]

This kind of "The sky is falling!" stuff is ludicrous. It's the same kind of hysteria that was being peddled after Brown v. Board of Education prohibited racial segregation of public schools.

Consider the May 18, 1954, editorial in the Jackson, Miss., Daily News:

"Human blood may stain Southern soil in many places because of this decision, but the dark red stains of that blood will be on the marble steps of the United States Supreme Court building.

White and Negro children in the same schools will lead to miscegenation. Miscegenation leads to mixed marriages and mixed marriages lead to the mongrelization of the human race."

Georgia Gov. Marvin Griffin said, "No matter how much the Supreme Court seeks to sugarcoat its bitter pill of tyranny, the people of Georgia and the South will not swallow it."

They have nothing to do with one another. You have just accepted the propaganda.

You swallowed it hook line and sinker. Homosexuality (a behavior, not a race) is the new civil right. What is going to be the new civil right? Let your imagination go wild.

 

[Carlybee]

Marriage is not always just a religious ceremony. A lot of people are simply not religious. You can't use the religious imperative as an argument with them. You also can't use the sin argument by saying being gay is against God's will, unless you yourself are sin free. Everyone is a sinner so that argument doesn't play with non-religious people. Government should never have been given the right in the first place to sanction or not sanction marriage, but since it's a legal contract and subject to tax considerations, there you go.
You can't use the argument that government shouldn't be allowed to force something you find morally repellant on you then turn around and try to force your own moral imperatives on others. Conservatives always lose when they try to do that and all it has done is strengthen and empower progressivism.

If it were up to me government would be out of the marriage business altogether.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

This kind of "The sky is falling!" stuff is ludicrous.

Have you even been paying attention to America lately? Or are you just so overjoyed with this Constitution destroying decision that you no longer care about cops raping people on the side of the road without consequence?

It's the same kind of hysteria that was being peddled after Brown v. Board of Education prohibited racial segregation of public schools.

You have quite an imagination; and Brown v Board came to the correct conclusion for the wrong justification. Brown is in fact why we have "group rights" at all in America instead of the individual rights we were founded on. There could be no affirmative action today without the incorrect way in which the correct decision was justified in Brown.

Consider the May 18, 1954, editorial in the Jackson, Miss., Daily News:

"Human blood may stain Southern soil in many places because of this decision, but the dark red stains of that blood will be on the marble steps of the United States Supreme Court building.

White and Negro children in the same schools will lead to miscegenation. Miscegenation leads to mixed marriages and mixed marriages lead to the mongrelization of the human race."

Georgia Gov. Marvin Griffin said, "No matter how much the Supreme Court seeks to sugarcoat its bitter pill of tyranny, the people of Georgia and the South will not swallow it."

What does any of that have to do with the abolition of Constitutional checks and balances on government power?

You are just imagining whatever the hell you want to see, in order to justify your elation at a massive federal power grab. As for me, I would also oppose a massive federal power grab that would require all public schools to teach von Mises. That's called principled consistency, and it's something I used to think the liberty movement had in abundance.

Reactions like yours are leading me to re-think that conclusion.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

They have nothing to do with one another.

Of course they do. The issue is the hysterical complaints about the overreach of the federal judiciary, regardless of what the underlying rulings deal with. The slippery slope arguments were baseless in 1954, just as yours are baseless now.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Marriage is not always just a religious ceremony. A lot of people are simply not religious. You can't use the religious imperative as an argument with them. You also can't use the sin argument by saying being gay is against God's will, unless you yourself are sin free. Everyone is a sinner so that argument doesn't play with non-religious people. Government should never have been given the right in the first place to sanction or not sanction marriage, but since it's a legal contract and subject to tax considerations, there you go.
You can't use the argument that government shouldn't be allowed to force something you find morally repellant on you then turn around and try to force your own moral imperatives on others. Conservatives always lose when they try to do that and all it has done is strengthen and empower progressivism.

If it were up to me government would be out of the marriage business altogether.

Agree with you there. The culture arguments and the religious arguments don't work. The arguments from freedom and liberty work. I don't know how anyone here could not see the solution to this problem. It's not what happened yesterday.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Of course they do. The issue is the hysterical complaints about the overreach of the federal judiciary, regardless of what the underlying rulings deal with. The slippery slope arguments were baseless in 1954, just as yours are baseless now.

No they don't. Homosexuality and race have nothing to do with each other. That is just the progressive propaganda that you have swallowed.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Sonny,

Could you comment on my thread? Thanks.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?477390-The-License

 

[LibForestPaul]

Maybe the state that was once first in succession could lead the way again.

Oh wait,

Lindsey Graham could lead the state away from the evils of homosexual marriage.

Oh wait....

Southern cracker asses can go back to their NASCAR, war-loving, beer-swilling, flag-waving, NFL, finger-licking stupor.

Southern men seemingly love to be dominated by clearly homosexual effeminate men.

'Murika

pretty much. long as they get some money.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Man there's so much to contemplate I don't even know where to start.

Hell, I'm gonna bring up the Confederate flag. Not because I'm passionate about it but because I'd like to take a moment to consider that there might be slight hypocrisy involved when the White House can be illuminated by lights in rainbow colors symbolizing gayness or something, and you can't fly a rebel flag on a government building.

First and foremost the first person to disagree with me is going to point out that it's ludicrous to compare slavery to the gay rights movement. So there, I've pre-empted that response from whomever it may come, and let me proceed to demolish it.

Symbols mean different things to different people. If you take away nothing else from this post, at least understand that.

Before LGBT'ers co-opted the rainbow, it was viewed by Christians as a sign from God. That's two pretty radically different interpretations of the same symbol, seeing as how most gays and God, I'm told, aren't exactly on speaking-terms. And yet it's somehow okay for the administration to promote an agenda by shining a rainbow on a public building, and yet we're told the Confederate flag has no place on public grounds. For some that flag means 'slavery,' for others it stands for the 'freedom to disassociate from tyrannical government.' Again, two radically different interpretations of the same symbol.

Maybe I don't like gays or God. Guess I'm just fucked by the rainbow.

[Don't read into my post too much. I just think it's a bit hypocritical that the white house can envelop itself in controversy and no one will stop them. But it seems to speak to me: Everyone else can go pound sand.]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wh...brate-scotus-ruling/ar-AAcck3b?ocid=ansHill11

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Or are you just so overjoyed with this Constitution destroying decision that you no longer care about cops raping people on the side of the road without consequence?

You win the Non Sequitur of the Year Award.

Look, the 14th Amendment puts limits on what States can do. In case you didn't know, it also explicitly gives Congress the power to enforce its provisions. And the Supreme Court's power of judicial review goes back to 1803. So the "massive federal power grab" you complain about has been around for a very long time.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

There are only two sensible positions you can take if you're truly in favor of liberty:

1. You oppose government being in the business of marriage consistently, whether vehemently or tepidly. If you're only vociferous about it now because you don't like the idea of homosexual couples having marriage equality under the law, your agenda is really transparent.

2. You can acknowledge, celebrate, or show some modicum of happiness for equality finally being granted to individuals who have historically, for all intents and purposes, been treated as "second class citizens" both socially and systemically. Although you may prefer a hands-off government vis-à-vis marriage, you also understand that while government is involved, not granting consenting adults—regardless of sexual preference—the same rights as others due to their sexual orientation, is de facto discrimination.

Religious dogma is nonbinding and has no business injecting itself into law, especially not when it reinforces discrimination at the federal level. Those who want to entwine the church and state can go kick rocks and damn the homosexuals to hell somewhere else.

I have been vehement about the fact that government has no business in marriage since the 1980's. Prior to that I didn't even know what government or marriage was. I am angry about the current ruling because of the doubling down on SCOTUS legislating to the States on issues which the US Constitution does not delegate a given power.

 

[LibForestPaul]

Marriage is not always just a religious ceremony. A lot of people are simply not religious. You can't use the religious imperative as an argument with them. You also can't use the sin argument by saying being gay is against God's will, unless you yourself are sin free. Everyone is a sinner so that argument doesn't play with non-religious people. Government should never have been given the right in the first place to sanction or not sanction marriage, but since it's a legal contract and subject to tax considerations, there you go.
You can't use the argument that government shouldn't be allowed to force something you find morally repellant on you then turn around and try to force your own moral imperatives on others. Conservatives always lose when they try to do that and all it has done is strengthen and empower progressivism.

If it were up to me government would be out of the marriage business altogether.

Yes, 100% correct.
"Couples marrying in Rhode Island must apply for a license at a city or town clerk's office. "
If you need a license it aint a right.