Oliviaforever:
Oklahoma may have to become the firewall of Gay Marriage and thus we must make sure that the states more conservative than Oklahoma continue to protect traditional marriage.GeronL wants other, braver people to start assassinations:
time to start making imperial judges disappearfwdude knows the Federal courts are more...profligate?
The article says federal district judge. The sodomites always go to the profligate federal courts first, now.That word...I don't think it means what you think it means...
fwdude is itching for Civil War 2: the gayening.
My question is, why hasn’t the Oklahoma state guard (or the equivalent) been activated for war?fwdude has mixed up strategy for pettiness:
If you notice, they’re striking the conservative heartland and most religious states first, just to be wickedly spitefully.greene66 knows the only solution:
One of the reasons I truly, truly am looking at secession as being the only recourse left.greene66 now actively hates America:
A federal government that regards two perverted homos as a genuine married husband-and-wife is a federal government I view as without any legitimacy. I’ll happily see the country burn to the ground first. And I’d even do my best to lend the matches to get it started.skinndogNN blames all the brainwashed youth:
Unfortunately, it’s just a matter of time. They have been able to brainwash all young people, so they’re just waiting for enough of the old people to die off.DesScorp wants judges killed, for freedom:
If Americans don’t start taking these black-robed demigods out to the hanging tree, then they deserve to be slaves.bert knows all ya gotta do is threaten Oklahoma's gay couples:
The solution is to just not heed the judge’s rulingKnow how I know Viennacon has no arguments?
Queers that think they are married should be sternly advised to move to California
Our lives are but a blink in the eye of eternity. This judge is going to hell.Viennacon has found a new word!
We have entered a ‘kritarchy’ or a period of ‘rule by judges’. This no longer a Constitutional Republic. If there were a draft for war, I’d proudly ignore it. I refuse to fight for a kritarchy. I have no allegiance to a damn kritarchy!Jim Noble is still pissed about no-fault divorce:
Traditional marriage is illegal in all 50 states.ALPAPilot lays out the legal framework:
Louisiana tried to offer "almost traditional" marriage, as an option, and it was ruled unconstitutional and contrary to public policy.
A couple is not an individual. An individual having a right to marry (someone of the opposite sex) does not imply that a couple has a right to be married to each other.
A SCOTUS decision upholding these rulings would be the final nail in the coffin for the Constitutional rule of law, and 226 years of legal precedent. I don't think they will do it.
Reading that thread, all I hear in my head is "Segregation today, Segregation tomorrow, Segregation forever!"
ReplyDeleteThese arguments all sound identical to the pro-segregation and anti-interracial marriage arguments.
ReplyDeleteAnd you would be wrong, shit breath.
DeleteMarriage is NOT a civil right. It's not listed as a right in the Bill of Rights. The bloated federal government you choke your chicken to can't create rights.
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." --Chief Justice Earl Warren on the unanimous Loving vs. Virginia decision
DeleteSo sorry, but you're wrong again. And if the federal government can't create rights, who can? You? God? Because if the federal government can't create rights, then your precious right to bear arms, your freedom of speech and many others are gone, just like they are in China and North Korea.
If our rights come from our "Creator," then why are you asking me to show where it is in the Bill of Rights, fuckhead? The government does create rights, not some nebulous "Creator" who may or may not be someone's idea of a god. Sorry, but government can create whatever right it wants to, and if the people don't like it, they can vote them out if they're lucky enough to live in a democracy.
DeleteGoddamn, arguing with you libertarians is like arguing with a 3-year-old. That's why your arguments are so easy to defeat.
And the winner is, euphgeek! Sorry Anon, better luck next time.
DeleteShow me where it says in the bill of rights that you can blast a guy at a movie theater for texting. Go ahead, I'll wait. Oh, right to bear arms? Sorry. Stand your ground against popcorn? Guess I'm wrong. If it's not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, I guess there's no right to anything.
DeleteEuphgeek, please don't confuse conservatives with libertarians. Libertarians realize that there is a Ninth Amendment, which states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
DeleteMarriage (and the right to have, and control the raising of, children as per Troxler) is one of those fundamental but unenumerated rights.
Constitutional law fail, Anon. :)
There are different types of libertarians (24, I believe :)), and many try to use their arguments to deny marriage to same-sex couples. I find I disagree with a lot of other libertarian beliefs as well, though.
DeleteLoL! Never seen that cartoon - it's funny! You're welcome to disagree with libertarian positions, I often disagree with "leftist" positions. But I try not to confuse them with socialism; please don't confuse us with paleo-conservatives like FR.
DeleteAgain, fuckface, marriage is not an absolute right. This is kinda why it's illegal for adults to marry more than one person, children, siblings, etc.
DeleteHahaha...so you're arguing that marriage is not a right...because it has limits? HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Are you really that stupid? Name one...just one right that doesn't have any limits to it. Go on, I dare you.
Deletelol at all the comments about "marriage equality", as though it's a new term.
ReplyDeleteGoogle site search of freerepublic.com for "marriage equality" brings up 8,730 pages, as early as 2001.
re: "profligate" courts - I think fwdude started out with a thesaurus and the word "liberal" and got a little ambitious.
ReplyDeleteI want to know what Curtis Reeves' (theater shooter) Freeper name is. I've been following those threads. Watching Freepers blame the victim and how the narrative changed on a dime when they realized the shooter and victim were white. A handful of Freepers are being fair. Not cop haters but realizing that texting is not a capital offense and that Reeves pretty much spit on the 2nd amendment by not being responsible concealed carrier.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3111895/posts?q=1&;page=401
Dear Gentle Freepers, please tell me again why guvmint is involved in marriage at all. Who the fug decided a license is necessary for marriage, or that a marriage must have guvmint blessing ? Especially since
ReplyDeleteour rights are indeed endowed by our creator simply by virtue of being born. SCOTUS is right to judge as unconstitutional any bans on marriage between consenting humans,(gay marriage, polygamy etc.). Smaller less intrusive government is what we are after correct ?
Tax breaks and inheritance, mainly. It speeds things up.
DeleteNOT that I agree with it in the slightest. Marriage is between two people in the sight of God. Everything else is contract law.
NOT that I agree with it in the slightest. Marriage is between two people in the sight of God.
DeleteWould that be the same God who doesn't want us to eat shellfish, get tattoos or wear mixed-fiber clothing? Or a different one?
Presumably, it's not the one who seemed to be OK with Jacob and Abraham having a bevy of wives? And with Moses having two? 'Cause that wouldn't make sense, given that you said "two people."
It's must be the God who really doesn't like queers, right? But not the one who wants us to put them to death on the spot, I'm guessing, since you seem to be a good-hearted person who's OK with letting contract law apply to gay relationships. And I really hope it's not the one who warned Lot to flee the perverts in Sodom, turned Lot's wife to salt, and (seemingly) watched in approval as his daughters got him drunk and took turns "preserving his seed" by fucking his brains out? Because not only would that would be kinda creepy, but it would kinda muddy the waters on that whole "Sanctity of Marriage" thing.
Jeez. This is getting kind of confusing! Maybe we better just leave this stuff out of our political system entirely. Sounds reasonable?
The Bible really is kinda gross, but modern day Christians leave out all the gross parts and pretty much use it like a Sunday country club for them and their kids. They reserve the fire and brimstone gross stuff for their anonymous internet handles when they want to denigrate groups that they hate.
Deletemodern day Christians leave out all the gross parts
DeleteI'd love to believe that they'd read it attentively enough to do that. For that matter, I'd love to believe that the average American has the vocabulary and attention span to read and understand the Bible that well. I've seen nothing in nearly 50 years in this country that leads me to believe either proposition is true. Ten bucks says the average arch-conservative God-botherer couldn't even recite the Ten Commandments (despite having broken at least five of them in the previous 24 hours).
The idea that the Bible is anything more than a fetish object for the average U.S. fundamentalist -- brandished conspicuously, but largely unread -- seems like a real longshot to me.
"Would that be the same God who doesn't want us to eat shellfish, get tattoos or wear mixed-fiber clothing? Or a different one?"
DeleteMixed fiber clothing? Sorry, that made me giggle - never heard that one.
You forgot about the God that kills a dude for pulling out instead of impregnating his brother's widow, or drops bears on kids for teasing a guy about being bald.
Still - you know what I mean. Marriage has a distinct meaning, predating government who should, in my opinion, butt out of the discussion entirely. Before you ask - no, I don't support under age marriages. Polygamy or polyandry, homosexual partnerships, line marriages, group marriages, marriages as a corporation - that is up to the people involved. Not my business, nor is it anyone else's.
I too wish that people would actually read the bible, instead of pulling verses at random to support whatever hair is up their ass. It is well worth the read if you can get past the list of begats (boring as hell, those bits). Mix of poetry, wisdom and history - no wonder it's the best selling book of all time!
But make sure you also read the Apophryca.
Still - you know what I mean. Marriage has a distinct meaning, predating government who should, in my opinion, butt out of the discussion entirely.
DeleteNo, I really don't know what you mean. To start with, the claim that "marriage is between two people in the sight of God" is -- at best -- historically and scripturally dubious. As is the idea that it has a "distinct meaning." The marriage that predates government was a fairly harsh affair in which women could be traded for cattle, often at a shockingly young age. And even before whatever you're calling government existed, certain people or groups of people made rulings on what was and wasn't lawful, and that certainly included marriage and the property rights that went along with it. Arranged marriages -- including those to underaged girls -- were common in Western society until the last 100 years or so, and are still common elsewhere.
As women have gained relative independence, they've also gained a greater stake in the legal side of marriage, which has made the role of government more important, not less. Further, their independence -- which, I'd argue, is largely due to secularization -- has also made marriage more meaningful; certainly my marriage means more to me in that my wife entered into it freely, instead of being traded by her parents for three tapestries and an ox.
The idea that there is some golden age for marriage, or some obvious God-approved way of going about it, is kind of nonsensical. And I have to laugh at how many people who consider themselves champions of FREEDOM feel this way. Because there really isn't a much more personal freedom than falling in love. And while some people may say "fine, just don't call it marriage," the plain fact remained that the meaning of marriage is socially defined and is really nothing like it was 100 years ago, inside or outside of the church. To me, the conservative view that we need to stick to some golden-age definition of marriage seems more like a nostalgia for childhood -- some happy time before things got "complicated." I'm sympathetic, but I don't want people like that making laws for me (especially when their own personal lives don't strike me as particularly godly, to say the very least).
Feral savage won't steal anymore..took the scum out of the gene pool..little butt hurt dad crying racism..Oh boo hoo,. here is a tissue
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wisn.com/news/south-east-wisconsin/milwaukee/Surveillance-video-released-after-investigation-into-death-of-Corey-Stingley/-/10148890/23933852/-/o006exz/-/index.html
You got one, just 999 to go!
DeleteIf the liberal media isn't reporting on these crimes, how the heck is he hearing about them all?
Delete