SCOTUS legalizes Gay Marriage - 10th Amendment Obliterated

[Anti Federalist]

"I call on the president and all governors to join me in reassuring millions of Americans that the government will not force them to participate in activities that violate their deeply held religious beliefs. No one wants to live in a country where the government coerces people to act in opposition to their conscience," Walker said. "We will continue to fight for the freedoms of all American."

It already does, daily.

More talk in a bag.

 

[Christian Liberty]

More like 10 years. Factor in the vast cultural chasm and then add the potential explosive economic elements which could lead to bank bail ins, 401k confiscation and a host of other crimes. The U.S. is deeply fractured as it is. It just needs a small push. If the 9 to 5 drone cycle can be disturbed, it's going to get real interesting. The numbness of work and the weekend distractions are the only things suppressing the flames.

I'd be surprised to see it that fast but you may be right. Is it bad that I sort of hope so? I can't take this nonsense anymore.

Huh?

What document bound the states to never ending, impossible to leave, "abusive relationship" with the FedGov?

What document grants the clowns in gowns the power that they have?

Don't get me wrong, I prefer the Articles of Confederation, but the constitution doesn't actually do what you say. The powers government gets in the constitution, like, that are actually spelled out in the same (10th amendment) are relatively limited. Not even the most radically statist of the founders would be OK with what is going on today.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), an expected 2016 presidential candidate, slammed the Supreme Court on Friday for its ruling in favor of same-sex marriage and called for a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision.

"I believe this Supreme Court decision is a grave mistake. Five unelected judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage, an institution that the author of this decision acknowledges 'has been with us for millennia,'" Walker said.

Walker is one of many conservative White House hopefuls who criticized the Supreme Court. However, he took his case further than several of his potential GOP foes by calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision and put control back in the hands of states.

"As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the US Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage," he said.

The governor also appeared to renew his call for so-called "religious freedom" protections for those who oppose same-sex weddings. The controversy over "religious freedom" laws peaked earlier this year when states like Arkansas and Indiana backed down in the face of heated opposition from gay-rights activists and the business community.

"I call on the president and all governors to join me in reassuring millions of Americans that the government will not force them to participate in activities that violate their deeply held religious beliefs. No one wants to live in a country where the government coerces people to act in opposition to their conscience," Walker said. "We will continue to fight for the freedoms of all American."

Not a Walker fan but I (mostly) agree here.

 

[Anti Federalist]

More like 10 years. Factor in the vast cultural chasm and then add the potential explosive economic elements which could lead to bank bail ins, 401k confiscation and a host of other crimes. The U.S. is deeply fractured as it is. It just needs a small push. If the 9 to 5 drone cycle can be disturbed, it's going to get real interesting. The numbness of work and the weekend distractions are the only things suppressing the flames.

Never happen.

Boobus cares less about this than he does liberty.

He wouldn't resist while getting rounded up for "relocation".

 

[Ronin Truth]

Maybe celebrate quickly.

The sun goes down in Jerusalem at 11:48AM Central Time U.S. Then it's 10th of Tammuz. This date is the "burning of the red heiffer"

Ashes of the cow used in ritual purification. A lot of tumblers lining up this month people. Not going to mansplain everything at this point. If you haven't been following along I don't know that "starting" to pay attention is going to be of much help.

About all that I got from that post was "Tammuz".

 

[Anti Federalist]

Don't get me wrong, I prefer the Articles of Confederation, but the constitution doesn't actually do what you say. The powers government gets in the constitution, like, that are actually spelled out in the same (10th amendment) are relatively limited. Not even the most radically statist of the founders would be OK with what is going on today.

The Founders are dead, and the document they left behind is authorizing tyranny on a 100 fronts every day.

Won't be long before their bodies are exhumed and dumped in the sea.

How can you honor anti government terrorists and slave owners?

 

[AuH20]

Never happen.

Boobus cares less about this than he does liberty.

He wouldn't resist while getting rounded up for "relocation".

I'm just stating that underneath the drugged out, materialistic veneer remains the savage instincts to survive. The TPTB can never successfully suppress this core programming and with the rapid diminishment of resources, the rule of law is going to break down rather quickly. I'm certainly not saying that saving this cursed nation is a realistic option, but there will be a conflict of some type that will involve multiple factions.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

About all that I got from that post was "Tammuz".

I do know what wiz is talking about, and it's good news.

 

[donnay]

This is going to get interesting here in the Bible belt.......

Poking a hornets nest...hoping for all out pockets of hate crimes to begin so they (government) can come in and put more control on us all.

The race baiting doesn't seem to be working, you know?

 

[RonPaul4Prez2012]

As a libertarian, I'm all for the right for gays to get married, but I don't like the idea of stealing the concept from the church. It didn't start out as a religious practice but its definitely been indoctrinated into the church over time. A marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. If gayeee's want to have an arraignment thats fine create one of your own and call it something else. But don't trample on the rights of others.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The Founders are dead, and the document they left behind is authorizing tyranny on a 100 fronts every day.

Won't be long before their bodies are exhumed and dumped in the sea.

How can you honor anti government terrorists and slave owners?

Here's the thing though. Its not really the constitution that they wrote that is doing it. Although really, I'm not a fan of that document. "We the people" is a key error in it. It should have been "we, in order to create a nation that will honor Jesus Christ, who is king over all kings" (Psalm 2)

 

[jonhowe]

But whatever. American experiment failed.

K, goodbye.

 

[jonhowe]

I'd be surprised to see it that fast but you may be right. Is it bad that I sort of hope so? I can't take this nonsense anymore.



Don't get me wrong, I prefer the Articles of Confederation, but the constitution doesn't actually do what you say. The powers government gets in the constitution, like, that are actually spelled out in the same (10th amendment) are relatively limited. Not even the most radically statist of the founders would be OK with what is going on today.



Not a Walker fan but I (mostly) agree here.

Which parts of marriage traditions, which Walker points out are THOUSANDS of years old, should we honor?
Should husbands be allowed to rape their wives? That's a tradition.
Should divorce be illegal? It is in most traditions.
Should dowries come back? They're pretty traditional.
Should the wife's property (and body) become her husband's property? That is, after all, the oldest tradition in marriage.


No. It's the 21st freaking century. I don't want my laws based on archaic traditions if they are anti liberty.


That being said, this SHOULD be a state issue. But of all the things for the feds to 'power grab' on, this is the LEAST scary. The scary stuff is already happening.

 

[William Tell]

 

[Occam's Banana]

On the scale of things the Court has done wrong recently, this one ranks pretty low to me.

Marriage shouldn't even be an issue for any government: Federal, State, or local.

I am amazed that anyone could seriously have expected any differently.

Pronouncements that this, that or any other decision in living memory shows that the Constitution is dead are more than a little belated.

The Constitution has been dead since well before anyone alive today was even born.

At best, the zombified corpse very occasionally manages a feeble post mortem twitch ...

 

[wizardwatson]

Which parts of marriage traditions, which Walker points out are THOUSANDS of years old, should we honor?
Should husbands be allowed to rape their wives? That's a tradition.
Should divorce be illegal? It is in most traditions.
Should dowries come back? They're pretty traditional.
Should the wife's property (and body) become her husband's property? That is, after all, the oldest tradition in marriage.


No. It's the 21st freaking century. I don't want my laws based on archaic traditions if they are anti liberty.


That being said, this SHOULD be a state issue. But of all the things for the feds to 'power grab' on, this is the LEAST scary. The scary stuff is already happening.

Scary to you because you, like many, care about laws that effect you and not the standard of law in general.

"It's the 21st century." The premise being that we have "morally evolved". Crock of shit. This country is Exhibit A for the experiment of self-rule by man being inadequate and even when given ALL the advantages and blessings to flush them down the toilet in the name of self-destructive sin.

 

[ZENemy]

Who will the politicians export and exploit now?


I'm guessing S&M folks will rally next, demand marriage with handcuffs be legal NOW!

 

[AuH20]

Like I said earlier, all we need is a little push and humanity will take over........... If the herd runs, even the state can't control the potential carnage. Anarchy at least provides a fighting chance for some semblance of freedom.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-72-fear-economic-crash-concern-highest-ever/article/2567095

The ever-expanding Republican presidential field, which threatens to splinter over social issues as dark horses grab hot-button topics for attention, is being urged to stick to the economy where the real pot of voter gold sits.

"Concern over the economy is the highest I've ever seen," top GOP pollster Ed Goeas told the moderate Republican Ripon Society. He said 72 percent are worried about an economic downturn.

 

[ZENemy]

What we need is not a government that legalizes marriage but rather a people who no longer seek the governments permission.

 

[timosman]

In order to obliterate this stupidity we need to take it to the next level, so it reaches its logical conclusion and forces the government to back off from regulating the marriage completely.

Despite all the laws supporting sexual minorities, there is still a very large group of people whose sexual preferences are not supported by the state and we want to change that. I am talking about people who do not need others to achieve sexual gratification, the wankers, bat cave visitors, etc ... If you have no intention of entering into the marriage contract with another human being (sex prefs aside) you should not be denied the benefits. The current policies are nothing short of discrimination to a large segment of the population. It is time somebody started representing the interests of this silent majority.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

How does the 10th balance against the 14th?

It's pretty clear that gay marriage was not part of the discussion or intent of the 14th, yet it is being used today. Is it a valid extension of the equal protection clause?

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]