ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, June 26, 2015

More emanations and penumbras

And thus ends the last pretense of democracy in America:
The Supreme Court has declared that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States. Gay and lesbian couples already can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court's ruling on Friday means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage.
Five people can declare a fish to be a horse if they like, but that doesn't make it so. What's so tragic about the abandonment of both traditional morality and the last vestiges of democracy in America is that it was done for such a petty little cause.

I observed that America was dead 11 years ago in a column entitled "You Can't Fix a Corpse". This is just the corpse beginning to stink.

It's wryly amusing to recall all those Republicans who swore that the solution was to elect Republicans so they could nominate Supreme Court Justices. How did that work out for you, especially in light of what I predicted back in 2004.

Any last vestiges of hope in the Republican Party have been shattered by the current regime, wherein a Republican President, Republican House, Republican Senate and Republican-nominated Supreme Court have demonstrated that they have zero interest in the timeless vision of America’s founders. Supporting them in the hopes that they will revive American liberties is akin to hoping that shock paddles will suffice to revive a month-old corpse. American freedom is not only dead, it has been rotting for some time.

Labels:

522 Comments:

1 – 200 of 522 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Aquila Aquilonis Fulminata June 26, 2015 10:12 AM  

But our God raises the dead.

Blogger Edd Jobs June 26, 2015 10:16 AM  

A federal judiciary completely unrestrained by the Constitution. Hoped I wouldn't live to see it.

Blogger Rabbi B June 26, 2015 10:17 AM  

"But our God raises the dead."

He also judges the dead.

Blogger David-093 June 26, 2015 10:17 AM  

#LOVEWINS was the first thing I saw on my facebook feed and I knew immediately what it meant. And to the Left, good job with the rhetoric there, LOVEWINS definitely sounds better than ANALSEXWINS.

Blogger VD June 26, 2015 10:18 AM  

But our God raises the dead.

Not dead nations, much less political structures.

Blogger David-093 June 26, 2015 10:19 AM  

JOHN ROBERTS ON GAY RULING:

'If you are among the many Americans--of whatever sexual orientation--who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not Celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it'

That's an interesting thing to say.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 June 26, 2015 10:21 AM  

The Supreme Court once declared a tomato to be a vegetable and not a fruit.

Given the ages of the members of the Supreme Court and the Senate, death panels are not looking like a bad thing now.

Anonymous Book_Girl June 26, 2015 10:21 AM  

So when does the first lawsuit against a church refusing to "marry" a homosexuals couple come?

Blogger Aquila Aquilonis Fulminata June 26, 2015 10:23 AM  

Not dead nations, much less political structures.

Funny you should say that because the first thought I had was to throw away the American flag I have at my desk. But I have no flag to replace it. All my flags are dead.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus June 26, 2015 10:25 AM  

Nullification now. By any means and by every means.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 June 26, 2015 10:25 AM  

Keep in mind that at one time, the Supreme Court declared that the death penalty was illegal. A few decades later, they overturned their decision.

Their moral code right now is subject to declaring the smallest minority of people as saints while the majority are sinners.

Also, the Court was packed with two butch lesbians.

Blogger Salt June 26, 2015 10:25 AM  

A federal judiciary completely unrestrained by the Constitution. Hoped I wouldn't live to see it.

Never thought it would get this far this fast. Think I should forgo raising the Gadsden on the 4th. Get myself a piece of black cloth instead.

Anonymous JN June 26, 2015 10:27 AM  

How bout this one?

Anonymous Brother Thomas June 26, 2015 10:27 AM  

Why do things like this keep happening you ask?

The Answer can be found by reading the "The Jaffe Memo".

Blogger darkdoc June 26, 2015 10:29 AM  

Sadly, homosexuality is like the canary in the mine. When it prospers, you are watching a culture die.

Plus, look at all the other awful stuff that comes with it (see Romans 1).

In one move, any remaining protection from the Almighty may have been pissed away. I just do not buy all this shit about homosexuality being The Irresistable Sin.

Anonymous Spooner June 26, 2015 10:30 AM  

The Supreme Court of West Virginia in 1931 ruled that Santa Claus in fact exists, so this ghey thing is just another in a long line of delusional laws from on high.

In Other Words:

"The Law is an Ass" - Dickens.



Anonymous Tallen June 26, 2015 10:30 AM  

Given the ages of the members of the Supreme Court and the Senate, death panels are not looking like a bad thing now.

For the chillun'!

It's no wonder the Islamic State is faring so well.

Blogger Rabbi B June 26, 2015 10:31 AM  

Do not fret because of evildoers,
Nor be envious of the workers of iniquity.
For they shall soon be cut down like the grass,
And wither as the green herb.

Trust in the L-rd, and do good;
Dwell in the land, and feed on His faithfulness.
Delight yourself also in the L-rd,
And He shall give you the desires of your heart.

Commit your way to the L-rd,
Trust also in Him,
And He shall bring it to pass.
He shall bring forth your righteousness as the light,
And your justice as the noonday.

Rest in the L-rd, and wait patiently for Him;
Do not fret because of him who prospers in his way,
Because of the man who brings wicked schemes to pass.
Cease from anger, and forsake wrath;
Do not fret—it only causes harm.

For evildoers shall be cut off;
But those who wait on the L-rd,
They shall inherit the earth.
For yet a little while and the wicked shall be no more;
Indeed, you will look carefully for his place,
But it shall be no more.
But the meek shall inherit the earth,
And shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.

The wicked plots against the just,
And gnashes at him with his teeth.
The L-rd laughs at him,
For He sees that his day is coming.
The wicked have drawn the sword
And have bent their bow,
To cast down the poor and needy,
To slay those who are of upright conduct.
Their sword shall enter their own heart,
And their bows shall be broken.

A little that a righteous man has
Is better than the riches of many wicked.
For the arms of the wicked shall be broken,
But the Lord upholds the righteous.

The L-rd knows the days of the upright,
And their inheritance shall be forever.
They shall not be ashamed in the evil time,
And in the days of famine they shall be satisfied.
But the wicked shall perish;
And the enemies of the L-rd,
Like the splendor of the meadows, shall vanish.
Into smoke they shall vanish away.

The wicked borrows and does not repay,
But the righteous shows mercy and gives.
For those blessed by Him shall inherit the earth,
But those cursed by Him shall be cut off.

The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord,
And He delights in his way.
Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down;
For the L-rd upholds him with His hand.

I have been young, and now am old;
Yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken,
Nor his descendants begging bread.
He is ever merciful, and lends;
And his descendants are blessed.

Depart from evil, and do good;
And dwell forevermore.
For the L-rd loves justice,
And does not forsake His saints;
They are preserved forever,
But the descendants of the wicked shall be cut off.
The righteous shall inherit the land,
And dwell in it forever.

The mouth of the righteous speaks wisdom,
And his tongue talks of justice.
The law of his G-d is in his heart;
None of his steps shall slide.

The wicked watches the righteous,
And seeks to slay him.
The L-rd will not leave him in his hand,
Nor condemn him when he is judged.

Wait on the L-rd,
And keep His way,
And He shall exalt you to inherit the land;
When the wicked are cut off, you shall see it.
I have seen the wicked in great power,
And spreading himself like a native green tree.
Yet he passed away, and behold, he was no more;
Indeed I sought him, but he could not be found.

Mark the blameless man, and observe the upright;
For the future of that man is peace.
But the transgressors shall be destroyed together;
The future of the wicked shall be cut off.

But the salvation of the righteous is from the L-rd;
He is their strength in the time of trouble.
And the L-rd shall help them and deliver them;
He shall deliver them from the wicked,
And save them,

Because they trust in Him.

(Psalm 37)

Bo Mashiach!

Anonymous RedJack #22 June 26, 2015 10:32 AM  

Aquila Aquilonis Fulminata,

There are flags left, but I stopped flying the US flag on a regular basis some time ago.

My daughter's Christian school has quietly toned down the US flags.

See you in the catacombs.

Anonymous A Visitor June 26, 2015 10:32 AM  

Hell, I'm 28. Per what I just heard on Fox (just grabbed a copy of the opinion, going to read it in full), this goes back to a case from 1990 when I was 4 years old.

@swiftfoxmark2 That's a good way to look at it. Probably my fifth decade, they may overturn all this absurdity. One can only hope and work towards the end.

@Salt I'm not wearing my Gadsden t-shirt on the 4th. No idea what I'm going to do...maybe go practice with my AK or maybe some Eucharistic Adoration. Whoever thought it would get this far this fast...to put it in perspective as a freshman in high school (14 years ago in August) it was still a major scandal to come out of the closet.

Oh well, here's some Tom Mabe to cheer everyone up.

For the moment being, I really don't see any point in voting in 2016.

Anonymous RedJack #22 June 26, 2015 10:33 AM  

One of my favorite Psalms.

Anonymous Samuel Scott June 26, 2015 10:33 AM  

One question: Say a person had not heard on the news or anywhere else that the Supreme Court had ruled same-sex marriage to be legal. Would he notice anything different when he gets out of bed and walks outside tomorrow? Of course not.

It's not the end of the world. There are actually bad things happening today that are more important. This affects only the people in same-sex couples who want a legally-recognized marriage and no one else.

States must recognize all marriages performed by other states. It's illegal for the government to discriminate based on sex (gender). The ruling is logical, and there is no legal or logical reason to rule otherwise.

All of the opposition's arguments stem from the opinion that same-sex relationships are immoral based on theological arguments. But U.S. courts cannot issue rulings based on religious arguments -- the United States is not a theocracy and has no official religion.

Anonymous Quartermaster June 26, 2015 10:34 AM  

"That's an interesting thing to say. "

Especially for Roberts given his personal lawlessness over the last few years. He's simply being a hypocrite.

Blogger Salt June 26, 2015 10:34 AM  

The strained reasonings of the Court in their social engineering schemes are unbelievable.

Anonymous JI June 26, 2015 10:35 AM  

What does this mean? Does it mean states must recognize "marriages" between gays that are performed by churches and JPs? What if churches and JPs don't want to marry gays?

Anonymous Jack Amok June 26, 2015 10:38 AM  

What's so tragic about the abandonment of both traditional morality and the last vestiges of democracy in America is that it was done for such a petty little cause.

This is really the thing that I keep coming back to with gay marriage, how trivial it fundamentally is. Gay people don't want to get married. What they want is attention, and for them, the people all this noise is supposed to benefit, this is just a way to force people to look at them.

For their enablers and supporters, it's a darker thing. Those people want to throw their weight around. For them, it's a way to give their political opponents a middle finger, a chance to use government power to demand obedience.

Otherwise such a silly, trivial thing would never have gotten this much attention.

Anonymous Elijah Rhodes June 26, 2015 10:39 AM  

Every constitutional conservative in America should vote for Hillary in this election, and for liberals in every other office. Perhaps then, the pain of life under leftist rule will finally exceed the fear of actually doing something meaningful about it. Pulling the bandaid off fast is always better in the long run.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 June 26, 2015 10:40 AM  

Now watch as State governments stop issuing marriage licenses. The ruling didn't say they had to issue marriage licenses, just that they couldn't deny same sex couples who were applying for one.

Loophole.

Anonymous Donn #0114 June 26, 2015 10:40 AM  

My life has been difficult of late. In the last month I lost an aunt, son, uncle, mother-in-law, nephew, and my grandmother. I have spent more time at memorials and funerals than out. Now the nation I was born to is officially dead.

I have warned we earned judgement for abortion. Now we are simply sodom and gamora in their early stages. My wife has been wondering if God is not preparing for something. I don't know but I do know I said a prayer for my lost nation and I am still stunned. I knew it would happen I just wasn't prepared for how I feel.

Blogger David-093 June 26, 2015 10:40 AM  

A hundred million shout NO, while five shout YES. Can there be a Republican anywhere in the universe that still believes they can win at the ballot box?

Blogger dc.sunsets June 26, 2015 10:41 AM  

Societies, like fish, rot from the head down.

We have the society we have, and the political government we have, because our fellow citizens no longer know any better, or aspire to any better. The cyclical rise and fall of societies is no less a law of nature than is gravity.

Anonymous Jack Amok June 26, 2015 10:42 AM  

but I stopped flying the US flag on a regular basis some time ago.

I fly a Betsy Ross on occasion. But also a Jolly Roger.

Blogger David-093 June 26, 2015 10:43 AM  

"I fly a Betsy Ross on occasion. But also a Jolly Roger."

I've got a crusader flag hanging on my wall. You know, just in case.

Blogger dc.sunsets June 26, 2015 10:45 AM  

Reform and renewal cannot come until after essentially everyone has suffered the consequences of rejecting robust social norms, and suffered them for so long that every faux amelioration has failed...twice.

In the meantime, I expect a doubling-down of every folly now in play. I do not expect to live long enough to see the necessary change of hearts and minds.

Anonymous ODG June 26, 2015 10:45 AM  

@Samuel Scott: "It's not the end of the world. There are actually bad things happening today that are more important. "

You must be a blast at funerals.

Blogger Edd Jobs June 26, 2015 10:46 AM  

"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie." - Scalia

Anonymous zen0 June 26, 2015 10:46 AM  

Get ready for the big screen proposals featuring homosexuals at sporting events.

Blogger VD June 26, 2015 10:46 AM  

One question: Say a person had not heard on the news or anywhere else that the Supreme Court had ruled same-sex marriage to be legal. Would he notice anything different when he gets out of bed and walks outside tomorrow? Of course not.

And the Jews didn't notice anything different when the Nazis were elected either, Sam. You have literally no idea what you are talking about here. Representative democracy is dead. Hundreds of millions of people just learned that their votes and religious beliefs make absolutely no difference.

And you think that doesn't matter? You think that won't have repercussions?

Anonymous Porky June 26, 2015 10:47 AM  

Next step - goodbye 501c status!

Anonymous Elijah Rhodes June 26, 2015 10:47 AM  

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Anonymous Donn #0114 June 26, 2015 10:48 AM  

Rabbi B - Thank you. Although I do not fret that the wicked prosper. How not when their Prince rules this world? I am mourning the America my forefathers left to me and now we are living in a rotten house filled with vermin.

For the sake of how many righteous will he withhold his judgement this time?

Anonymous LES June 26, 2015 10:49 AM  

Keep the Faith

Blogger dc.sunsets June 26, 2015 10:50 AM  

As for the Roberts court, I would be willing to bet real $ that the NSA has him dead to rights (or one of his kids, if he has any) on a crime or crimes so disgusting that they have a working voodoo doll of his testicles in a vise at all times.

Every high politician and bureaucrat is undoubtedly in the same vise. When all your correspondence and phone calls are captured, only the purest angels are not trapped, and even then, access to those tech streams makes dummying up false evidence trivially easy.

TBTS. (Too big to survive.) That condition saturates our current institutions.

Blogger Rabbi B June 26, 2015 10:52 AM  

"Would he notice anything different when he gets out of bed and walks outside tomorrow?"

I believe the spiritually sensitive do and we recognize that this ruling has nothing to do with marriage but everything to do with sending a message. Nations are judged in this world, and this nation will be no exception.

Anonymous Donn #0114 June 26, 2015 10:53 AM  

Vox - Not only do our votes and religious beliefs not matter, we have no rule of law to restrain those God has set over us. They are like the Caesars returned. No rule of law, but the rule of tyrants and perverts. How long before one of them tries to get a horse elected to the senate?

Anonymous Jon Bromfield June 26, 2015 10:54 AM  

Best summation of the past two days:

"Yesterday’s Obamacare decision told us that we do not live under the rule of law.

Today’s gay marriage decision tells us we do not live in a democracy."

Blogger Joshua Dyal June 26, 2015 10:55 AM  

Especially for Roberts given his personal lawlessness over the last few years. He's simply being a hypocrite.

Or he's openly admitting that the actions of his court have no bearing on the purpose of his court, and they have completely given way to judicial activism. I mean, why not? Both of the other two branches of the federal government have been able to completely rewrite their purpose in naked power grabs. Why not the judiciary too? Why can't they have the same fun that the executive and legislative have been having for decades?

Anonymous Donn #0114 June 26, 2015 10:56 AM  

So many politicians have gone to Epstein's Island that I doubt many are free from serious blackmail. The fact that so many willingly keep going knowing their presence and activities will be noted and recorded is telling all by itself.

Blogger Cataline Sergius June 26, 2015 10:57 AM  

@ Vox

You were right to leave the country.

That was hard, hard thing for me to say.

Although the country has in fact left us.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus June 26, 2015 10:58 AM  

ATTENTION - If you are interested in trying to organise a genuine nullification effort (and not just for gay "marriage") through the States, and you are on facebook, go to:

Nullification NOW

And join.

Anonymous Samuel Scott June 26, 2015 10:59 AM  

Vox,

And the Jews didn't notice anything different when the Nazis were elected either, Sam. You have literally no idea what you are talking about here. Representative democracy is dead. Hundreds of millions of people just learned that their votes and religious beliefs make absolutely no difference.

And you think that doesn't matter? You think that won't have repercussions?


Two different things, and the comparison is not relevant. Of course, the election of the Nazis had material consequences.

But no one here can name any specifically way that he or she will be physically, monetarily, or otherwise materially affected negatively by gay marriage.

I was born and raised in the US and lived there until I moved to Israel in my twenties. I know the country. The will of the people is not 100% sovereign and never has been. There is a balance between the will of the people and the judiciary. If that were not the case, there would be a tyranny of the majority.

Rabbi B,

I believe the spiritually sensitive do

I'm sorry, but that's ludicrous and nothing material. "Sensing something spiritually" is just a projection of your beliefs.

Anonymous Tom Joad June 26, 2015 11:01 AM  

So much hysteria over so simple and rational a decision.

"Were their intent to demean the revered idea and reality of marriage, the petitioners’ claims would be of a different order. But that is neither their purpose nor their submission. To the contrary, it is the enduring importance of marriage that underlies the petitioners’ contentions. This, they say, is their whole point. Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex mar- riage is their only real path to this profound commitment."

You know, the Supreme Court recognition of the rights of gays to marry doesn't mean everyone has to gay marry.

Blogger Edd Jobs June 26, 2015 11:01 AM  

"Yesterday’s Obamacare decision told us that we do not live under the rule of law. Today’s gay marriage decision tells us we do not live in a democracy."

I hope these things don't come in threes.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 26, 2015 11:02 AM  

it was done for such a petty little cause.

That's for sure. For every person cheering today because he or someone he knows really wants to get gay-married, there are about a thousand people cheering because "Ha! Suck on that, conservatives!" Spite, pure and simple, except for the handful who know it's just a small step in the tear-down.

Blogger bob k. mando June 26, 2015 11:03 AM  

6. David-093 June 26, 2015 10:19 AM
That's an interesting thing to say.



even more interesting that Roberts was dissenting.

even more hilarious, because Roberts shit on the whole 'rule of law' concept just yesterday when he was busy re-writing Obamacare.

does anyone here doubt that Roberts would have voted FOR queer marriage had there otherwise only been four votes?


in other news, the military hasn't just been giving armored vehicles to police departments. no. they've also been giving them bayonets.

BAYONETS.

what the FUCK do police need with BAYONETS?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mPq4Tuk-yE#t=237

Anonymous FriarBob June 26, 2015 11:03 AM  

In some ways the corpse has been rotting since the 1870s and the establishment of the corporate democracy. The republic died that day. It just took us awhile to notice.

Blogger VD June 26, 2015 11:03 AM  

But no one here can name any specifically way that he or she will be physically, monetarily, or otherwise materially affected negatively by gay marriage.

Don't be an ass, Sam. You live in Israel. You wouldn't be affected in any specific way by the mass slaughter of every Jew in America. Does that mean you have no reason to oppose the Supreme Court dictating such a policy?

Blogger Bateful Higot June 26, 2015 11:03 AM  

All braced for civil rights lawsuits to strip non-compliant churches of tax exempt status.

Anonymous Hoppes #9 June 26, 2015 11:03 AM  

Betsy Ross is the only US flag I'll fly.
OT: Any plans for an Ilk Job Board for openings in Galt's Gulch?

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 June 26, 2015 11:07 AM  

By the way, I was serious when I said the Supreme Court ruled a tomato to be a vegetable and not a fruit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden

It is an institution of flute players, playing their instruments to soothe the chaos of the blind idiot god.

Anonymous # 34 June 26, 2015 11:07 AM  

We received our warning letters yesterday:

1. The 501(c)3 will be gone. We don't care. God will provide.

2. Expect the senior pastor and the elders to be arrested, as we will not perform their weddings in our sanctuary. The next wave will be applying the wedding cake maker treatment to the church officiating officers.

3. If asked, we will answer, which means - expect picketers and harassment at the church.

Anonymous Donn #0114 June 26, 2015 11:07 AM  

Samuel Scott - You do realize that there are criminal not just civil penalties for refusing to facilitate perversion and celebrate it? That means you can go to jail, be fined, or if the police get over enthusiastic or you object they can shoot you.

So besides losing your job, home, money, corrupting your children, and of course having force up to and including deadly force used against you if you disagree of course there's no effects.

Nope nothing wrong here. And since you don't believe in the spiritual world how can you know when the devil is prowling like a lion for your soul? You can't and obviously since you believe this is okay you're fine with that.

Anonymous Samuel Scott June 26, 2015 11:07 AM  

Vox, I'm not being an ass. With all due respect, I will repeat my question because I have yet to hear anyone opposed to gay marriage give a good answer to this:

How will you be physically, monetarily, or otherwise materially affected negatively by the existence of gay marriage?

Anonymous Anonymous June 26, 2015 11:07 AM  

>>One question: Say a person had not heard on the news or anywhere else that the Supreme Court had ruled same-sex marriage to be legal. Would he notice anything different when he gets out of bed and walks outside tomorrow? Of course not.

I myself don't want the state involved in marriage at all-- so this decision means nothing to me at all.

But, what is going to happen next means something, because what's going to happen next is prosecution for not celebrating gay marriage. And for those who say it's not going to happen, pop in your time machines, because it started months ago.

Blogger bob k. mando June 26, 2015 11:08 AM  

51. Samuel Scott June 26, 2015 10:59 AM
There is a balance between the will of the people and the judiciary. If that were not the case, there would be a tyranny of the majority.


liar.

this country was never conceptualized to balance the Judiciary against the People.

and, as currently administered, the People have no recourse against a clearly lawless Judiciary.

therefore, there not only IS NOT but CANNOT be 'balance' between the two.

Anonymous Northern Observer June 26, 2015 11:08 AM  

I can't help but think that a lot of the effort/money/time of the opposing side over the last decade would have been better spent on solidifying as much legal support for churches to refuse to perform the ceremonies.

The Church thrives under adversity, and the Baptists have indicated a willingness to participate in civil disobedience, but legally, they aren't much better off than the non-segregated high schools.

Blogger Russell (106) June 26, 2015 11:08 AM  

How long before one of them tries to get a horse elected to the senate?

They already did. Hillary! was elected as a Senator.

I'm voting for her as President. The USA is dead, might as well go big at this point.

Blogger Owen June 26, 2015 11:08 AM  

Presidents can now fight wars without consulting Congress, let alone obtaining authorization or declarations of war.

Congress can pass clearly worded un-Constitutional laws and have them upheld by the Court.

The Court has allowed long-standing rights to be stripped away with the stroke of a pen (eminent domain, search and seizure, name your amendment).

I wager the next right we lose will be privacy within our homes. It will likely start with a leak that, although the NSA has the capability to turn all devices inside your house or your neighbor's house to listen and record activity, it would never do it.

Then, there will be "anti-terrorism" legislation allowing it...in closely watched circumstances for non-US citizens. Then, it will expand to cover times when those non-citizens enter a citizens house. Of course, that citizen will now be on the list of "likely supporters" and the net increases with each degree of interaction.

Someone said, "See you in the catacombs." I don't think it's that far of an exaggeration.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 June 26, 2015 11:08 AM  

does anyone here doubt that Roberts would have voted FOR queer marriage had there otherwise only been four votes?

He probably didn't get enough money from all those divorce lawyers where as he probably got a ton from medical insurance companies.

Anonymous Jack Amok June 26, 2015 11:09 AM  

I hope these things don't come in threes.

Based on what I see from history, they're like ants. If the first one isn't killed and makes it back to the nest, they come in legions.

Blogger Cataline Sergius June 26, 2015 11:10 AM  

...all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"...

and I will look down and whisper "No.”

Anonymous Lee Stohr June 26, 2015 11:10 AM  

Could someone summarize what is wrong with this decision, provide short talking points to use in personal discussions? Thanks.

Anonymous Samuel Scott June 26, 2015 11:10 AM  

You do realize that there are criminal not just civil penalties for refusing to facilitate perversion and celebrate it?

No one in the US will be legally forced to perform gay marriages or will be given legal penalties if they do not do so. If that changes, then I will join you in opposition to that specific use of unconstitutional force. But it won't happen.

Blogger Rabbi B June 26, 2015 11:12 AM  

"How not when their Prince rules this world? I am mourning the America my forefathers left to me and now we are living in a rotten house filled with vermin."

His rule is short-lived and we are in it for the long game. We will only answer one question at the end of the day: Were you faithful? We only want to hear one thing at the end of it all: Well done, good and faithful servant.

We should also take heart that we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses who all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland. And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore G-d is not ashamed to be called their G-d, for He has prepared a city for them.

And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets: who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. Women received their dead raised to life again.

Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. Still others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted, were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented— of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, in dens and caves of the earth.

And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, G-d having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.

We must make it our objective in this world, where the Prince rules for now, to obtain a good testimony. We may live in perilous and disheartening times but His redemption draws nigh. It is heartbreaking to watch the country we love fall apart and we do not deny the reality of what is happening, but may the present reality never causes us to forsake or deny the greater Reality that is going to strengthen us and get us through to that glorious day when very knee will bow and every tongue confess that He is L-rd and rules in heaven and on earth.

May He help us all to remain faithful and keep our eyes on the prize, the Author and Finisher of our faith.

Blogger David-093 June 26, 2015 11:12 AM  

"I'm sorry, but that's ludicrous and nothing material. "Sensing something spiritually" is just a projection of your beliefs."

Sam, you've come to the wrong place if you think that argument holds any water here.

Anonymous Donn #0114 June 26, 2015 11:12 AM  

Owen, probably through a third party at first like Microsoft or Google using their listening and scanning devices they've got in our homes right now. Since they bend over every time the secret court asks for a secret warrant how long before they simply hand it over without warrants.

Anonymous Anonymous June 26, 2015 11:13 AM  

>> If that changes, then I will join you in opposition to that specific use of unconstitutional force. But it won't happen.

Wecome aboard: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/21/christian-bakery-guilty-violating-civil-rights-lesbian-couple.html

Anonymous Porky June 26, 2015 11:13 AM  

Hello polygamy!

Anonymous Samuel Scott June 26, 2015 11:14 AM  

Sam, you've come to the wrong place if you think that argument holds any water here.

Gee, and I've been coming here for years because people debate issues logically, rationally, and civilly with evidence and proof.

Anonymous Donn #0114 June 26, 2015 11:15 AM  

Samuel Scott - So they have a law in Coeur d'Alene mandating criminal penalties but they won't use it. Right.

Anonymous Brother Thomas June 26, 2015 11:15 AM  

You're wrong Porky.

Polygamy is procreative. The establishment will not promote it.

Anonymous A Visitor June 26, 2015 11:15 AM  

"I wager the next right we lose will be privacy within our homes. It will likely start with a leak that, although the NSA has the capability to turn all devices inside your house or your neighbor's house to listen and record activity, it would never do it."

There was a news article at some point between 2004 and 2012 that said the FBI has that capability with cell phones. One would be a fool not to think they can not do that with web cams. Furthermore, with some of the recent revelations of what the NSA has been doing, they did snatch up people's video chats when their cameras were active.

As a friend said, "It's not that we weren't expecting that the government was putting us under surveillance, it's that we finally have proof."

How will you be physically, monetarily, or otherwise materially affected negatively by the existence of gay marriage?

Given that homo unions are now legal per SCOUTS' reasoning with the 14th Amendment, what if a church refuses to perform said marriage? What will happen to that church? Just like the ex-CEO of Mozilla, what happens to your job when your supervisor finds out you attend that church? THINK MAN!

Blogger Chris Ritchie June 26, 2015 11:15 AM  

Interesting to see the duplicitous Roberts claim the moral high ground here when he rolled over on supporting the Affordable Care Act. It makes me wonder what "They" have on him. His naked hypocrisy on this issue is nothing more than a desperate attempt to salvage his reputation for the history books.

He's like the Manchurian Candidate of the Supreme Court!

Anonymous Samuel Scott June 26, 2015 11:16 AM  

and, as currently administered, the People have no recourse against a clearly lawless Judiciary.

Last time I checked, there are state and federal constitutional amendments that one can pursue. That's checks and balances.

Anonymous Thuvia June 26, 2015 11:16 AM  

This is a wonderful decision. I'm going to marry my sister. She takes care of our mother and I can put her on my insurance and, finally, get some deductions. The downside is that I'll be excommunicated and have to face the wrath of the Lord, not to mention the ewwww factor.

Blogger Bateful Higot June 26, 2015 11:17 AM  

@Samuel Scott

They've already started trying.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/20/idaho-citys-ordinance-tells-pastors-to-marry-gays-/

Anonymous Book_Girl June 26, 2015 11:17 AM  

But no one here can name any specifically way that he or she will be physically, monetarily, or otherwise materially affected negatively by gay marriage.

Try refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual "marriage" service.

Blogger David-093 June 26, 2015 11:17 AM  

#DRUGABUSEWINS #PROLAPSEDRECTUMSWIN #STDSWINS #SHORTERLIFESPANSWIN

Anonymous Porky June 26, 2015 11:17 AM  

Polygamy is procreative. The establishment will not promote it.

What if I only want to marry a chimpanzee and a robot?

Blogger Cataline Sergius June 26, 2015 11:18 AM  

If you like your church. You can keep your church.

Blogger wrf3 June 26, 2015 11:18 AM  

Samuel Scott wrote: States must recognize all marriages performed by other states.

Good. Then must they also recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states?

Anonymous SJB June 26, 2015 11:18 AM  

@51

“But no one here can name any specifically way that he or she will be physically, monetarily, or otherwise materially affected negatively by gay marriage.”
.
Pension survivor benefits are directly descended from the call to care for widows and orphans: statistically men die before women; statistically women have reduced means when their providers pass on.
.
If you think I’ll generously pay tax so that a man, as equally capable as me, can collect a transfer payment because his “husband” died, I’d suggest you think again.

Anonymous # 34 June 26, 2015 11:18 AM  

@Samuel Scott

"Last time I checked, there are state and federal constitutional amendments that one can pursue."

You are aware that they chucked the Michigan state constitutional amendment that passed by a super majority in this ruling? State constitutions have no power to stand against the central government.

Blogger jmarinara June 26, 2015 11:19 AM  

It has been an honor to live at your side, men; and it will be an honor to die by it.

https://youtu.be/R-6M5FukAoE

Blogger ICG June 26, 2015 11:20 AM  

Scalia: "This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ 'reasoned judgment.' A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy."

Anonymous Tom Joad June 26, 2015 11:21 AM  

They've already started trying.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/20/idaho-citys-ordinance-tells-pastors-to-marry-gays-/


Wrong. That ordinance applies only to for-profit wedding chapels, not churches.

Anonymous Samuel Scott June 26, 2015 11:21 AM  

Try refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual "marriage" service.

I believe that private businesses and religious organizations have the right to deny service to anyone they choose. The court's ruling should affect only civil marriage authorities.

Yes, I acknowledge the right of a business not to serve me because, say, I'm Jewish and Israeli. But then I have the right to use my marketing and PR skills to start a boycott that will drive them into bankruptcy. That's the free market.

Blogger cavalier973 June 26, 2015 11:21 AM  

Put the US flag at half staff, or upside down

Blogger wrf3 June 26, 2015 11:22 AM  

# 34 wrote: State constitutions have no power to stand against the central government.

Which ties in quite nicely with the banning of the Confederate flag. I, for one, have never understood how forced political union is any less evil than forced economic union.

Blogger jaericho (#107) June 26, 2015 11:22 AM  

No one in the US will be legally forced to perform gay marriages or will be given legal penalties if they do not do so. If that changes, then I will join you in opposition to that specific use of unconstitutional force. But it won't happen.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Thanks for the laugh. We should take odds as to the number of months before that happens. I'm in for 4 months.

Blogger Bateful Higot June 26, 2015 11:23 AM  

@Tom Joad
"No one in the US will be legally forced to perform gay marriages or will be given legal penalties if they do not do so."

You embarrass yourself.

Anonymous BigGaySteve June 26, 2015 11:23 AM  

Bruce Jenner will be the star of "Gay Divorce Court". If you really want to poke gays in the eye, start a twitter campaign to respond to this saying that domestic partner benefits must go away in the name of fairness now that gays can get married. That it is the fiduciary responsibility of companies to not give DPB when marriage is on the table. Many gays think would be too mean spirited to happen. Right not DPB are like free money, no point in not getting it especially since it carries no risk like divorce/alimony.

So when does the first lawsuit against a church refusing to "marry" a homosexuals couple come?

Several months ago.

Gay people don't want to get married. Productive gay people don't want to get married but there are plenty of gay gold diggers. A guy I know got married last year with just his boyfriend and the judge. Not even his gay brother was invited most likely because someone would have asked if his husband knew about his debts and collection agency calls.

I hope these things don't come in threes. The supremes also ruled yesterday that all white areas need their fair share of the nigapocolypse http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/06/25/wow-supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-disparate-impact-application-for-housing-tracts-loans-grants-and-subsidies/

Blogger Rabbi B June 26, 2015 11:23 AM  

"I believe the spiritually sensitive do"

I'm sorry, but that's ludicrous and nothing material. "Sensing something spiritually" is just a projection of your beliefs.

@Samuel Scott

The Torah and Torah observance is not projection, and the Torah makes us sensitive to how Hashem feels about these issues. The Torah is crystal clear about the conditions of our physical survival and prosperity in Israel: 100% dependent upon Torah observance or lack thereof. There is a direct correlation, whether you acknowledge it or not.

The previous occupiers were wiped out when their sin reached full measure and so were we for a time. Projecting my beliefs? The only thing I am trying to project is the truth.

Anonymous rienzi June 26, 2015 11:23 AM  

Its been a busy week for me tying to buy flags. First the Stars and Bars. Now, in light of the homo-marriage decision, I believe I'll get a Ugandan flag to fly on the fourth.

Anonymous Samuel Scott June 26, 2015 11:23 AM  

You are aware that they chucked the Michigan state constitutional amendment that passed by a super majority in this ruling? State constitutions have no power to stand against the central government.

And? What's the problem? The federal government has the final say over state governments. If need be, then pursue a federal constitutional amendment.

Blogger David-093 June 26, 2015 11:25 AM  

@jmarinara

"It has been an honor to live at your side, men; and it will be an honor to die by it.

https://youtu.be/R-6M5FukAoE"


"No the honor is still mine."

Blogger JaimeInTexas June 26, 2015 11:25 AM  

Oh, the irony coming out of Roberts' long dissent:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Page 41:

But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex
marriage is a good idea should
be of no concern to us.
Under the Constitution, judges
have power to say what
the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified
the Constitution authorized co
urts to exercise “neither
force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No.
78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitaliza
-
tion altered).
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage
to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal argu
-
ments for requiring such an extension are not. The fun
-
damental right to marry does
not include a right to make
a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s
decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has
persisted in every culture throughout human history can
hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does
not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a
State are free to expand ma
rriage to include same-sex
couples, or to retain the historic definition.



Blogger Iowahine June 26, 2015 11:25 AM  

@ 9) AAF

How 'bout flying the flag upside down, "dire distress?"

Blogger Student in Blue June 26, 2015 11:25 AM  

@Samuel Scott
How will you be physically, monetarily, or otherwise materially affected negatively by the existence of gay marriage?

1) There are more things in life than the physical and material.
2) You're side-stepping the point where they over-rode the will of the majority. Hence this is not democracy anymore.

You could take this same case and make it something like... making it legal to give your rifle a name, if it were illegal before. If you hypothetically believed personification of your rifles was immoral and you and the majority of the citizenry voted against it... yet it was forced through anyway at the top, how is that not tyranny, despite being only a simple thing?

If you give politicians an inch, they'll take a mile. Why in the world would you give them this kind of precedence?

Anonymous BGS June 26, 2015 11:27 AM  

@Tom Joad
"No one in the US will be legally forced to perform gay marriages or will be given legal penalties if they do not do so."

Here is Oct 201, shotgun wedding with the shot gun pointed at the preacher. http://www.gaypatriot.net/2014/10/18/gay-marriage-and-the-subjugation-of-church-to-state/

The captcha shouldn't put up edible plants and not count it as food.

Anonymous Tallen June 26, 2015 11:27 AM  

It's easy to demonstrate that the people celebrating do not care for rule of law. If, hypothetically speaking, almost all 330-odd million US citizens voted in favor of gay "marriage," and SCOTUS shot it down would they still celebrate the ruling as lawful? Of course not.

Anonymous Seneca June 26, 2015 11:28 AM  

Samuel: here to demonstrate that SJWs always lie.

Churches and religious schools will be sued to remove tax exempt status and to force them to hire people who oppose their beliefs by their lifestyle. Pastors who preach what the bible says about homosexuality will threatened and arrested. People who support or attend those churches will be fired from their jobs. If those things do not happen, it will only be either because Christians fight hard to secure their rights or Muslims take over and start executing gays.

"No you won't," says Sam. Nothing will happen to you personally. Liar. It is already happening. A wedding chapel in Cour'de'aleine was already sued and threatened with criminal charges for refusing to perform a gay wedding. That was before the ruling. In oral arguments in the case, the government lawyers indicated that they contemplate trying to remove tax exempt status from any school that isn't on board with the gay marriage program. Brendan Eich was already forced from his job because he donated to proposition 8. All of this BEFORE the ruling.

It was the same way before Lawrence V. Texas and the defense of marriage act. The cards were already on the table and some op-eds already filed for same sex marriage. Yet the SJWs insisted that the idea was ridiculous.

SJWs always lie.

Anonymous Jourdan June 26, 2015 11:28 AM  

Did CJ "Words Mean What I Say They Mean, and Nothing More" Roberts really dissent? Good Lord, what a crap weasel that man is.

Anonymous Jack Amok June 26, 2015 11:28 AM  

Last time I checked, there are state and federal constitutional amendments that one can pursue.

Huh. I guess you checked yesterday. Clear your cache and try again. The answer's different now.

Blogger bob k. mando June 26, 2015 11:29 AM  

72. Samuel Scott June 26, 2015 11:10 AM
No one in the US will be legally forced to perform gay marriages or will be given legal penalties if they do not do so.



liar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmGBtTZUna0

Anonymous clk June 26, 2015 11:29 AM  

"Representative democracy is dead. Hundreds of millions of people just learned that their votes and religious beliefs make absolutely no difference."

Representative democracy is not direct democracy and thus there is always an element of protecting the rights of the minority and in this case there was no middle ground possible between the two positions -- but I would question what this really means ?

Your are not being forced to marry anyone.. so you can continue on it your lives without much change. You are not cuplable to any sins that might be committed - you are judged only on the content of your soul.

Of this world but not in this world... how is this different today ...

Anonymous Samuel Scott June 26, 2015 11:29 AM  

1) There are more things in life than the physical and material.

OK. How will the existence of gay marriage affect you negatively at all?

2) You're side-stepping the point where they over-rode the will of the majority. Hence this is not democracy anymore.

I've already explained that civil rights are not up for majority votes and are the purview of the judiciary.

Blogger Zach June 26, 2015 11:30 AM  

Rabbi B,

Thank you. That is one of my favorite Psalms.

peace,
Zach

Anonymous Hugh June 26, 2015 11:31 AM  

So everyone can get married? Isn't that more freedom?

Anyway, how many homosexuals are even going to bother getting married?

What's the big deal?

Anonymous Jerome Horowitz June 26, 2015 11:31 AM  

Since Christianity is literally, under attack. Perhaps I will start flying the Templar Knights Battle Flag.....http://www.amazon.com/Templar-Knights-Battle-Flag-Feet/dp/B00FRSHSZU

Blogger Joshua Dyal June 26, 2015 11:31 AM  

@71 Lee Stohr. Read the dissenting opinions yourself. Starting on page 40 of the pds from the SCOTUS. It's not short talking points, but you can pull your own, depending on which ones are relevant to you and your audience.

Blogger Cataline Sergius June 26, 2015 11:32 AM  

Wrong. That ordinance applies only to for-profit wedding chapels, not churches.

@ Tom Joad. You are either stupid or just a liar.

Solicitor General Verrilli also candidly acknowledged the possibility that the Internal Revenue Service would take away tax-exempt status from religious non-profits opposed to same-sex marriage, saying “it’s certainly going to be an issue.

Blogger David-093 June 26, 2015 11:32 AM  

"OK. How will the existence of gay marriage affect you negatively at all?"

Don't be disingenuous, Sam, you know damn well this isn't about the existence of homogamy. Try again.

Anonymous Stilicho June 26, 2015 11:32 AM  

@sam Scott: employers will be forced to pay for benefits for gay "spouses" on the same terms as real spouses are provided benefits. Ditto for taxpayers where gays are govt employees or recipients of other transfer payments (the dole in its many forms).

Anonymous Donn #0114 June 26, 2015 11:33 AM  

Why are we still speaking to the lying Sam? He has no shame in lying. He is a compulsive liar as has been shown in several postings.

Time to shake the dust off our sandals and walk away from this one.

Anonymous Brother Thomas June 26, 2015 11:34 AM  

86. Porky June 26, 2015 11:17 AM
"What if I only want to marry a chimpanzee and a robot?"


Since such a "union" wouldn't result in offspring, I suppose that would be allowed and probably even promoted at some point in the future.

Anonymous SS June 26, 2015 11:34 AM  

102. Samuel Scott June 26, 2015 11:23 AM

And? What's the problem? The federal government has the final say over state governments. If need be, then pursue a federal constitutional amendment.


Your ignorance is just bleeding all over the page now. Please leave before you mess up my screen. What kind of inner city hellhole government school did you attend growing up that you think this is how the US is supposed to work? It may be how the tyrranical government is throwing its weight around now, but this is the antithesis of how the US was established. The federal government is supposed to exist at the whim of the states.

Anonymous Thobby (#58) June 26, 2015 11:37 AM  

Samuel Scott wrote:

I believe that private businesses and religious organizations have the right to deny service to anyone they choose. The court's ruling should affect only civil marriage authorities.

Sam, you haven't been following U.S. news lately, have you?

That was an actual case. IIRC the baker was heavily fined.

aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

and then there's the case of Baronelle Stutzman:

alliancedefendingfreedom.org/arlene-flowers

and you might also want to Google "Memories Pizza".

Anonymous Roundtine June 26, 2015 11:39 AM  

If you're for secession/self-determination, this week was a gift. USG happily shot itself in the foot with Obamacare subsidies and fueled cultural division that is the most important component for forming new nations.

Anonymous LES June 26, 2015 11:40 AM  

Rod Dreher's Law of Merited Impossibility “It will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it”.

Anonymous Samuel Scott June 26, 2015 11:40 AM  

The federal government is supposed to exist at the whim of the states.

Look up the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Blogger Zaklog the Great June 26, 2015 11:40 AM  

This affects only the people in same-sex couples who want a legally-recognized marriage and no one else.

Do you genuinely think we're stupid enough to buy this? Obviously coming down the pike soon: Legal attacks on churches that do not want to participate. Here already: Vicious assaults on freedom of speech, freedom of association and private property rights. Stop your damned lies before you become a damned liar.

Blogger JaimeInTexas June 26, 2015 11:40 AM  

"OK. How will the existence of gay marriage affect you negatively at all?"

For one thing, the dictionary definition of marriage has been changed, for the first time in centuries, if not millenniums.

Are male gays required to use husband-husband in the description of their relationship? If not, a gay "husband" referencing its "wife" is the introduction of an ambiguity that did not exist before. Same with a wife-wife. Husband now can be ambiguous.

Anonymous clk June 26, 2015 11:41 AM  

The real battle to fight is the seperation of church and state ... gay marriage is a minor fight and trying to make the seperation arguement on that one little issue doesn't work.

Those of us that beleive in evolution know that its main feature is allowing those traits which support and enhance reproduction chances so we dont understand the viability long term same sex marriage anyway ... it would seem to be a self regulating characteritic ...

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus June 26, 2015 11:41 AM  

Look up the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

I did. It doesn't say what you seem to think it does.

Anonymous BGS June 26, 2015 11:42 AM  

The next stage http://www.gaypatriot.net/2015/06/26/well-now-what/
•Banning disagreement or criticisms of gay behavior through “anti-bullying” and “hate speech” legislation
•Mandating school curricula to include “gay history” as well as museums and monuments to be demanded to gay heroes like Harry Hay, Larry Bruckner, and Harvey Milk
•Forcing religious institutions to recognize gay marriages
•Churches must be forced to perform gay marriages or lose tax exempt status. (Mosques, probably not)

Shouldn't Hugh go back to Tommy Hass.

Blogger Student in Blue June 26, 2015 11:42 AM  

OK. How will the existence of gay marriage affect you negatively at all?

How will murders in Hawaii affect me negatively at all? Are they still a good thing? Should they be allowed?

Laws are not written as if I think it'll ever happen to *me* personally and how to stop it, but rather what incentives do they serve.

If laws were only about how stuff affects me negatively at all, it'd be against the law to tax or charge me for anything.

Regardless, the existence of gay marriage (and in big part to how it was forced in) will affect me negatively because the US will decay even faster into a bigger, chaotic mess eventually from this ridiculous power grab. Less personal freedoms, more tyranny.

I've already explained that civil rights are not up for majority votes and are the purview of the judiciary.

That post was the first time you mentioned "civil rights". Either you're lying or you're being unclear with your words.

Anonymous Soga June 26, 2015 11:42 AM  

Some of you here are also failing to point out that this move by the SCOTUS does more to entrench the SJW culture in this country. Which has monumental costs, both actual and in terms of potential growth degradation.

SJWs create terrible products nobody really wants. They fire highly talented people because highly talented people tend to be sane and have sane beliefs, which is forbidden in SJW cuckoo land. They introduce chilling effects on speech, which influences commerce.

In addition, there is now the problem of any logical barrier to further redefining marriage or other terms in law now being removed. Now, if any branch of the government decrees that people may now marry their dogs, there is no logical argument those who favored gay marriage can make against that. Sam Scott, it is disingenuous to claim this has no material effect on us. Loosening social standards is an unidirectional mechanism; this will manifest itself in the character and hardiness of members of society.

Children, after all, shouldn't be running businesses, much less government.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus June 26, 2015 11:43 AM  

This affects only the people in same-sex couples who want a legally-recognized marriage and no one else.

And the people who will be forced to provide services to gay "weddings" against their will. And the churches who will be forced to perform gay "marriages" against their wills. And the children who will be screwed up for a lifetime as a result of being exposed to gay pedophilia once gay adoption is streamlined in. And all Americans who will lose what remained of their 1st amendment rights as a result of the manic drive to legalise gay "marriage."

Blogger Rabbi B June 26, 2015 11:44 AM  

"How will you be physically, monetarily, or otherwise materially affected negatively by the existence of gay marriage?"

By what other criteria would you suggest that a nation be judged when it deliberately departs from the basic fundamental and universal precepts of morality?

How was Israel judged when she failed to defend and protect the weakest elements in the nation? Did nor Israel suffer physically, monetarily, and materially? The final straw for Israel before we were exiled to Babylon was failing to release our indentured servants in the shemittah year (well, we released them and then we changed our minds and took them back again).

“Therefore thus says the L-rd: ‘You have not obeyed Me in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother and every one to his neighbor. Behold, I proclaim liberty to you,’ says the L-rd—‘to the sword, to pestilence, and to famine! And I will deliver you to trouble among all the kingdoms of the earth.

And I will give the men who have transgressed My covenant, who have not performed the words of the covenant which they made before Me, when they cut the calf in two and passed between the parts of it— the princes of Judah, the princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, the priests, and all the people of the land who passed between the parts of the calf— I will give them into the hand of their enemies and into the hand of those who seek their life. Their dead bodies shall be for meat for the birds of the heaven and the beasts of the earth. (Jeremiah 34)

Our nation has a history of mistreating the most innocent among us (e.g. Roe vs. Wade). At least with a slave, it is in your interests to, at a minimum, sustain his life since he is no good to you dead; can you imagine the judgment that has been stored up for the murder of the most innocent in our society?

The court ruling is simply one more watermark and barometer of where we are at as a society, whether you recognize or feel any adverse effects or not. Hashem is not asleep, and neither is His justice.

I don't assume that your worldview necessarily embraces a Torah perspective, but I am simply highlighting time-honored principles that have been borne out in history.

Blogger frigger611 June 26, 2015 11:44 AM  

I've been saying something similar all my adult life: you can put a duck on your head, but that doesn't make it a hat.

Most of the culture wants to tell me that it is correct and proper to refer to Bruce Jenner as "she." Won't do it. I won't be drawn into insanity and play make-believe because somebody says it's worth protecting the tender feelings of someone who's clearly mentally ill.

I wonder how long before they edit out that one scene in Shawshank Redemption - you know, the one where the warden threatens Andy with sending him "back to the Sodomites." As if that's a bad thing. Pretty soon we won't be able to say or to imply anything of the sort.

I mean, George Lucas changed his own Star Wars so that Han DIDN'T shoot first.

These liberals and SJWs don't just always lie, they make living life a constant lie!

Blogger The Remnant June 26, 2015 11:44 AM  

The good news is that with a ridiculous decision such as this, middle America has received a swift kick in the groin that will force it to make a choice. There is no pretending anymore; the federal government is outlaw, so the only options are to fall in line like sheep or stand up like Americans.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 26, 2015 11:45 AM  

What if churches and JPs don't want to marry gays?

They'll be forced to. Not right away, of course. I'm sure there's some comforting language in there that can be interpreted to mean no one can be forced to perform a same-sex marriage. But give it a few years, and we'll start to see sob stories about how two people are devout X's and there isn't a single X pastor in the country who will marry them; or how a gay couple lives in a conservative area and can't afford to drive hundreds of miles to the nearest gay-marriage-willing pastor or JP. The same logic which was used here to say a child shouldn't be punished by having unmarried "parents" will be used to say a child shouldn't be punished by having "parents" married the wrong way. Cue the violins.

The the SCOTUS will take another look at it and realize that the precedent set here actually did say all along that you have a right not just to marry the person you want, but to have the wedding you want, and that this right trumps anyone's right to dissent. There's no reason a pastor's rights should outrank a cake decorator's or a photographer's.

Hard-core SJWs, flush with victory, will want to push for this tomorrow, but more level-headed liberals will realize the frog needs to simmer lightly for a while before the next boil. I'd guess it'll be at least 5 years before we see a pastor arrested for refusing to do a wedding. Whether things collapse before we see one shot for it, who knows.

Anonymous Porky June 26, 2015 11:45 AM  

Since such a "union" wouldn't result in offspring, I suppose that would be allowed and probably even promoted at some point in the future.

I'd bet on it.

Blogger JaimeInTexas June 26, 2015 11:45 AM  

Maybe the silver lining is in forcing churches out of their stupor, regarding their love for their god-fedgov.

Anonymous Samuel Scott June 26, 2015 11:46 AM  

For one thing, the dictionary definition of marriage has been changed, for the first time in centuries, if not millenniums.

Are male gays required to use husband-husband in the description of their relationship? If not, a gay "husband" referencing its "wife" is the introduction of an ambiguity that did not exist before. Same with a wife-wife. Husband now can be ambiguous.


Again, how will this affect you in any material way?

Blogger David-093 June 26, 2015 11:47 AM  

Could we be lucky enough that an earthquake hits DC today? My God, wouldn't that send a message.

Blogger Student in Blue June 26, 2015 11:47 AM  

@Hugh
What's the big deal?
It was forced in from the top "for our own good".

Water's good for you. Even though you're not thirsty, the government has come in and forced in water from the top "for your own good".

You might literally die from water poisoning, not to mention the egregious overstepping the government did right there.

Anonymous D June 26, 2015 11:47 AM  

Number of gay marriages that have occurred so far in any jurisdiction: 0

Gay marriage is not something that actually exists. Needless to say, not lying got a little more precarious today.

Here is John Roberts' dissent:
"This universal definition of marriage as the union of aman and a woman is no historical coincidence. Marriage did not come about as a result of a political movement,discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any othermoving force of world history—and certainly not as a result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbians. It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need:ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship. See G. Quale, A History of Marriage Systems 2 (1988); cf. M. Cicero, De Officiis 57
(W. Miller transl. 1913) (“For since the reproductive in¬stinct is by nature’s gift the common possession of all living creatures, the first bond of union is that between husband and wife; the next, that between parents and children; then we find one home, with everything in common.”).
The premises supporting this concept of marriage are sofundamental that they rarely require articulation. The human race must procreate to survive. Procreation occurs through sexual relations between a man and a woman.When sexual relations result in the conception of a child,that child’s prospects are generally better if the motherand father stay together rather than going their separate ways. Therefore, for the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occuronly between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond.
Society has recognized that bond as marriage."

He added that this ruling has nothing to do with the Constitution. I'm glad he at least mentioned natural law, although everyone studiously avoided pointed out that homosexuality is extremely unhealthy.

This ruling demonstrates that Vox is right. Playing nice will not help. The pro-marriage side bent over backwards to be civil and not say negative things, and this did not work. The truth is that homosexuality is highly destructive, having directly caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in America alone due to AIDs. The truth is that homosexuality is not strictly innate, as celebs and regular folks constantly bounce from one side to the other and back again.

Anonymous Samuel Scott June 26, 2015 11:49 AM  

Don't be disingenuous, Sam, you know damn well this isn't about the existence of homogamy. Try again.

I'm not being disingenuous. Under the longstanding rules of the blog, I am asking a direct question and I want precise responses:

How will you be physically, monetarily, or otherwise materially affected negatively by the existence of gay marriage?

But this question happens to be the one question that opponents of gay marriage cannot answer. So people are attacking me personally -- again, in violation of the rules of this blog.

Anonymous BGS June 26, 2015 11:50 AM  

More bad news Pope CommiNoIllegalsInMyHomelandButShitThemOverUSEU of the high temperature global warming church has recognized State of Palestine http://www.weaselzippers.us/227513-bad-news-friday-continues-the-vatican-signs-a-treaty-with-the-state-of-palestine/

Blogger Student in Blue June 26, 2015 11:51 AM  

But this question happens to be the one question that opponents of gay marriage cannot answer.

Bullshit, I answered it.

Anonymous MPC June 26, 2015 11:52 AM  

"I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist." - Journalist and LGBT activist Masha Gessen

She has also said, "We have three kids and five parents…more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally." Her own brother is the father of her second wife’s daughter. How progressive!

Anonymous Samuel Scott June 26, 2015 11:52 AM  

the existence of gay marriage (and in big part to how it was forced in) will affect me negatively because the US will decay even faster into a bigger, chaotic mess eventually from this ridiculous power grab.

How precisely and specifically will the existence of gay marriage cause the US to decay?

Blogger VD June 26, 2015 11:54 AM  

No one in the US will be legally forced to perform gay marriages or will be given legal penalties if they do not do so. If that changes, then I will join you in opposition to that specific use of unconstitutional force. But it won't happen.

Yes, it will.

But this question happens to be the one question that opponents of gay marriage cannot answer.

Bullshit they can't. The violence that is going to come about as a result of this abrogation of representative democracy is going to negatively affect everyone in the USA.

You seriously think the tyranny of five people is worse than the tyranny of the majority? Or that it is going to stand?

Blogger VD June 26, 2015 11:55 AM  

How precisely and specifically will the existence of gay marriage cause the US to decay?

Civil war.

Blogger JaimeInTexas June 26, 2015 11:55 AM  

Samuel Scott, are being obtuse deliberately?

All of the assumptions in our culture regarding discussions of marriage have been destroyed. This is why I told my wife that divorce, etc. does damage to the institution of marriage but it does not seek to destroy the standard. Gay pairings does seek, scratch that, sought to destroy the standard.

Anonymous Soga June 26, 2015 11:55 AM  

Not to mention that additional laws mean additional dangers of lawsuits, which can disrupt economic activity. Including hiring practices.

These are deep ramifications for this decision by the SCOTUS that I dare say, every and each citizen of the US will eventually experience. In the Fedgov, nothing happens in a vacuum. Observe that there is a process this is a part of and the output of that process.

The error so many people make is viewing gay marriage in a vacuum.

Blogger JaimeInTexas June 26, 2015 11:56 AM  

BGS. The pope has plenty to be criticized over, Palestine ain't not one of them.

Blogger VD June 26, 2015 11:57 AM  

Again, how will this affect you in any material way?

Very well, answer these questions, Sam.

1. How will the mass slaughter of every Jew living in America affect you in any material way?
2. Do you support or oppose the mass slaughter of every Jew living in America?

Blogger Student in Blue June 26, 2015 11:57 AM  

How precisely and specifically will the existence of gay marriage cause the US to decay?

How about you answer my question first before changing your question?

If you give politicians an inch, they'll take a mile. Why in the world would you give them this kind of precedence?

Also, do you have any response to:

That post was the first time you mentioned "civil rights". Either you're lying or you're being unclear with your words.?

Blogger rcocean June 26, 2015 11:57 AM  

Once we get enough Muslims in the USA, polygamy will be proposed and it will be approved. This may happen 10 years from now but the course has been set. Further, the next step is persecute the churches for not supporting Gay marriage. Already whispering a word against Gays is grounds for dismissal, shunning, and exclusion

Blogger automatthew June 26, 2015 11:58 AM  

"Samuel Scott, are being obtuse deliberately?"

He can't help it. It's in his nature.

Anonymous Monkey Boy June 26, 2015 11:58 AM  

Sam Scott: How would anyone be physically, monetarily, or otherwise materially affected negatively if incest was legalised? Or if marriage between siblings was legalised? Do you consider this to be an adequate defence of incest?

Blogger bob k. mando June 26, 2015 11:58 AM  

Rabbi B - a question concerning Lot.

what is the rabbinical opinion on what Lot had to do in order to take up residence in Sodom?

Blogger VD June 26, 2015 11:59 AM  

And? What's the problem? The federal government has the final say over state governments.

No, it does not.

Anonymous Soga June 26, 2015 11:59 AM  

Keep in mind too, that Sam Scott has in the past expressed approval for the concept of the "melting pot".

He doesn't understand what happens when you push people of opposing cultures together. He does understand it well enough when it applies to Israel though, curiously.

Blogger JaimeInTexas June 26, 2015 12:00 PM  

What did Lot had to do?

Blogger rcocean June 26, 2015 12:01 PM  

What will the Right do? Absolutely nothing. The conservatives have already surrendered on Gay Marriage and social issues in general. The Left is in the driver seat and how far Left we go is up to them.

The Battle on social issues was lost when conservatives decided that instead of reining in the power the Judiciary they were going to trust Republican presidents to appoint "The right kind of judge". Of course, Eisenhower appointed Warren and Nixon appointed Blackmun and Ford appointed Stevens, so this strategy was always a loser from the word go.

Blogger Elocutioner0226 June 26, 2015 12:02 PM  

"I've already explained that civil rights are not up for majority votes and are the purview of the judiciary."

Really? Which enumerated power is that? Is that a special case for the US or does that apply in, say, Saudi Arabia, or do they have a different method?

You seem awfully bent on the material aspect of this, are you obsessed with the material world? As for how it directly affects me, Student In Blue already answered that.

This is an activist court imposing it's morality on us. It is clearly outside the constitutional purview of the Court. The Court has illegally usurped and overridden my vote.

Anonymous D June 26, 2015 12:02 PM  

Samuel Scott wrote:

"All of the opposition's arguments stem from the opinion that same-sex relationships are immoral based on theological arguments."

And Samuel Scott wrote this because he an SJW and a liar. Samuel Scott would have only had to go as far as the beginning of the very first dissent by Roberts to know this. But Samuel Scott did not read any dissents.

"The premises supporting this concept of marriage are so fundamental that they rarely require articulation. The human race must procreate to survive. Procreation occurs through sexual relations between a man and a woman."

Samuel Scott, the lying liar, does not even look at the arguments of the other side before making stuff up. He says he has been a regular on this site for years. I very much doubt that.

Anonymous Godscalc June 26, 2015 12:03 PM  

How will you be physically, monetarily, or otherwise materially affected negatively by the existence of gay marriage?

1. "The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment."

2. Western civilization, what used to be called Christendom, has its very foundation in Christ the Lord. Whether you believe in Him or not, what very little is left of that civilization is worn, chipped, trampled on, and brushed away every time we as a society embrace what is hateful to him. "Gay" marriage is one step in the descent to savagery and barbarism from which it may take centuries or millenia to emerge. If we are not "physically, monetarily, or otherwise materially affected," posterity certainly will be.

3. In a democratic republic, founded on the rule of law, each citizen is materially affected each time the government arrogates rights to itself which it was never specifically given, and which it could in fact never be given. In these conditions no one can be reasonably confident that their personal freedoms and self-determination will not be violently contested by the State. How could one, where the laws of God, nature, and human government are ignored?

4. Basic cultural institutions such as marriage emerge organically within cultures, over centuries, on the basis of far more than simple governmental fiat. Top down changes enforced by the State, backed by the power of the sword, are bound to have material affects that we can't even predict. Playing with the meaning of marriage to satisfy carnal lusts and the general zeitgeist would be grossly irresponsible even if the above three points were not true (which of course they are).

Anonymous Tom Joad June 26, 2015 12:04 PM  

@Tom Joad
"No one in the US will be legally forced to perform gay marriages or will be given legal penalties if they do not do so."

Here is Oct 201, shotgun wedding with the shot gun pointed at the preacher. http://www.gaypatriot.net/2014/10/18/gay-marriage-and-the-subjugation-of-church-to-state/


Again, wrong. This was not a church, but a wedding chapel. Once the city realized it was a nonprofit chapel and that those performing wedding ceremonies were pastors, it informed them the ordinance did not apply to them. The pastors then sued the city, even though the point was moot. Look it up. You won't get the actual facts here.

And, for what it's worth, I did not write the quote attributed above. That was Samuel, and it is not entirely correct, because that city ordinance does apply to for-profit wedding chapels.

Blogger VD June 26, 2015 12:05 PM  

"All of the opposition's arguments stem from the opinion that same-sex relationships are immoral based on theological arguments."

Did you lie, Sam, or were you mistaken? Do you now wish to recant that statement in light of the actual dissents?

Anonymous Stryker June 26, 2015 12:05 PM  

I work in an industry that is legal in several states but is illegal in every aspect according to Federal law. This has been a crash course in quasi legal business entities, black/grey markets and government/law enforcement tactics on local and national levels. Churches should shed the whole non-profit corporate model, pastors should be 1099'd as consultants or some other suitable vocation and we start private, members only worship services in homes or on private property. The 'tax deductible' model of giving is dead as far as the church is concerned. Give offerings in cash, create shell companies and dba's to hold any property and keep some 'legit' money on the books or in a bank account to carry out missions work. Pay a token amount in taxes. Minimal participation in the system is way to go. No organizations or entities of a 'religious' nature to sue. Keep slush funds for legal expenses in case Pastors get outed and charged with 'hate speech, HEAVILY SCREEN AND VET CHURCH MEMBERS. All worship and Bible studies are private, members only affairs.

Blogger rcocean June 26, 2015 12:05 PM  

To situation is the USA is this: you have leftwing power elite full of dedicated, intelligent, powerful people determined to destroy "old America" and drive Christianity from the public square. On the other side are a few disorganized, half-hearted, so-called conservatives. These conservatives never wish to fight, don't like politics, and when you can rouse them to action always fight in the least intelligent, least effective way. Its impossible to get them to think long-term or the importance of "process", instead they only wish to complain, beat their breasts, or engage in windy abstract discussions of political philosophy.

Blogger luagha June 26, 2015 12:06 PM  

Amusingly enough, the computer program where i entered my information for my gay marriage in Oakland CA allowed husband-husband, husband-bride, and bride-bride in the form. It also allowed adding multiple people after two.

Trust me, they're thinking ahead.

And Samuel, I've been harmed. I didn't want to get married to my husband but we had to to get him insured. My insurance plan would only allow adding him if we were married and if we weren't, he would be made to pay Obamacare penalties.

Anonymous Samuel Scott June 26, 2015 12:07 PM  

The violence that is going to come about as a result of this abrogation of representative democracy is going to negatively affect everyone in the USA.

Civil war.


So, the material negative consequences are not a result of gay marriage itself but of the opposition to gay marriage? OK, I have yet to see any statement on why the existence of gay marriage in and of itself is so bad materially.

You seriously think the tyranny of five people is worse than the tyranny of the majority? Or that it is going to stand?

If I recall correctly, most civil rights issues for blacks were resolved first by the Supreme Court and not by popular votes or laws or referendums. That's not tyranny -- that's the government working as designed with a separation of powers and with the courts having the final say on civil rights issues.

It'll stand. In 50 years -- after a possible period of civil turmoil akin to the 60s and 70s -- no one will even give it a second thought.

Anonymous Jourdan June 26, 2015 12:08 PM  

Boy, there are a lot of misunderstandings about our political and legal system here, on both sides. Please, keep these two key points in mind:

1) The S Ct and constitutional/fundamental rights exist regardless of the view of the majority. The courts exist primarily to protect those rights from the majority. The problem here is not that some rights are not subject to overturn or veto by the majority; that has long been part of our Anglo and Common Law tradition. The problem is that the modern S Ct has removed issues and subjects that properly should be the subject of normal, democratic and legislative decision making by declaring them fundamental and/or Constitutional, thus placing them out of the reach of any majority.

2) The Federal Government is not "superior" to the state governments or "in charge" or "its boss" save for specific areas of Federal supremacy granted by the Const. Through the S Ct's jurisprudence with regard to the 14th Amendment, and its application to the states through that jurisdiction, one can see how people can arrive at this mistaken impression. Nevertheless, it is, save for those areas, not true. This is why, for example, USG often ties funding to adherence to its view: the states can say no and do without the funding. This, too, has been the subject of abuse as the S Ct has enlarged the Federal Govt's ability to coerce adherence to its laws and rules, but the essence still remains for now: the relationship of Kansas to the U.S. Govt. bears no legal resemblance to the relationship between Manitoba and the Canadian Govt, for example.

Anonymous Porky June 26, 2015 12:08 PM  

Just want to point out that once again the Roman Catholic was the swing vote.

Papists ruin everything.

Blogger haus frau June 26, 2015 12:09 PM  

At this point I'd actively campaign for Incitatus. Set the foundered ship on fire to speed it on the way to the bottom.

OpenID rufusdog June 26, 2015 12:11 PM  

The reason today and yesterday hurt me Sam is because the Law is now meaningless. Words and clear language do not matter. Laws mean what judges want them to mean, the Law itself is irrelevant.

That sir is how I have been greatly harmed. I have no protection under the Law, because I have no Law.

Anonymous Donn #0114 June 26, 2015 12:11 PM  

Jourdan - Dual Federalism died long ago. Our current system does allow for some local control but only as far as the Feds allow or want.

Anonymous Tom Joad June 26, 2015 12:13 PM  

Could we be lucky enough that an earthquake hits DC today? My God, wouldn't that send a message.

Nope. No earthquake. Here's what we got instead. Still think God's sending a message?

https://twitter.com/CEABetsey/status/614447951046250497?s=04

Anonymous Jourdan June 26, 2015 12:13 PM  

I suspect this closing by Justice Scalia will be remembered and cited by historians of the future:

Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and
pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the
“least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has
“neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must
ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and
the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.”26 With
each decision of ours that takes from the People a question
properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly
based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a
bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to
being reminded of our impotence.

Blogger VFM bot #188 June 26, 2015 12:13 PM  

OT: Any plans for an Ilk Job Board for openings in Galt's Gulch?

No it's not OT. But query: Where's Galt's Gulch?

Location, please.

Anonymous Samuel Scott June 26, 2015 12:13 PM  

1. How will the mass slaughter of every Jew living in America affect you in any material way?

It would give me a lot of pain based on familial and friendly bonds. But it's an entirely different situation -- the existence of gay people getting married does not cause such direct, personal, and intimate pain because all of the opposition is subjective and theological.

Plus, societies have vested interests in preventing acts of murder because acts of murder materially harm societies. There is no way that the existence of same-sex marriage harms societies materially.

2. Do you support or oppose the mass slaughter of every Jew living in America?

Oppose.

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales June 26, 2015 12:15 PM  

Hey Vox... does this mean you're going to turn Castalia House into an alternative multimedia giant to challenge Hollywood and the other SJWs, because I think the market could be ripe for that given this new development and developments to come.

Blogger Anne Marie E Dickey June 26, 2015 12:15 PM  

I bathe in your sweet, sweet wingnut tears.

Blogger JDC June 26, 2015 12:16 PM  

"No one in the US will be legally forced to perform gay marriages or will be given legal penalties if they do not do so."

One could argue that removing one's tax exempt status is not legally forcing or penalizing, but I would disagree. It would destroy many individual congregations. Maybe that's a good thing and God's will, but there it is.

Of course, when the right wonders if legal sanctions will be taken against priests, pastors, leaders who speak against homosexuality, the left will guffaw and cry we're being paranoid.

Simple statement: God's intention is that marriage is for a man and a woman, and any sexual activity outside of this holy union is a sin against the body and against God.

One could be arrested for that today (see England, Canada...). Why? Because butt-hurt. Because such speech could, "cause people anxiety, distress, alarm or insult."

We've had it pretty good in the U.S. We've experienced religious freedoms most people only dream of. That's coming to an end. But it is an exciting time to be the church...in Christ we say bring it on suck-wads.

Anonymous Samuel Scott June 26, 2015 12:16 PM  

How would anyone be physically, monetarily, or otherwise materially affected negatively if incest was legalised? Or if marriage between siblings was legalised? Do you consider this to be an adequate defence of incest?

Society is materially affected by incest because it increases the level of birth defects and disorders within the general population. Not relevant to gay marriage.

Anonymous Samuel Scott June 26, 2015 12:18 PM  

Keep in mind too, that Sam Scott has in the past expressed approval for the concept of the "melting pot".

He doesn't understand what happens when you push people of opposing cultures together. He does understand it well enough when it applies to Israel though, curiously.


Huh? Citation please. I am a Zionist who moved to Israel years ago because I believe that each people -- the English, the Italians, the Jews, and so on -- should have and live in their own country.

Anonymous BGS June 26, 2015 12:19 PM  

bob k. mando Rabbi B - a question concerning Lot. what is the rabbinical opinion on what Lot had to do in order to take up residence in Sodom?

I think this is the Rabbi you want answers from http://www.queerty.com/gay-rabbi-wants-you-to-join-grindr-then-come-over-to-his-place-for-shabbat-dinner-20150202

Blogger VD June 26, 2015 12:19 PM  

It would give me a lot of pain based on familial and friendly bonds. But it's an entirely different situation -- the existence of gay people getting married does not cause such direct, personal, and intimate pain because all of the opposition is subjective and theological.

It doesn't cause you ANY material harm. And yet you oppose it. Which renders your entire argument nonsense. Which literally everyone here knew right away.

It'll stand. In 50 years -- after a possible period of civil turmoil akin to the 60s and 70s -- no one will even give it a second thought.

No, it won't. In less than 50 years, gays will be killed as openly in the West as they are in the Middle East. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the closet was society's way of PROTECTING homosexuals.

You didn't predict ISIS openly executing gays even five years ago, let alone 50.

Blogger VD June 26, 2015 12:20 PM  

I bathe in your sweet, sweet wingnut tears.

No doubt. Don't expect any mercy when you're the one crying.

Anonymous Samuel Scott June 26, 2015 12:22 PM  

And Samuel Scott wrote this because he an SJW and a liar.

Point of fact. You are only seeing my opinion in this thread on one specific issue. You don't know my political worldview in general -- it varies based on the issue at hand.

"The premises supporting this concept of marriage are so fundamental that they rarely require articulation. The human race must procreate to survive. Procreation occurs through sexual relations between a man and a woman."

The "procreation" argument is not valid. If it were, then senior citizens and infertile people would be legally able to be barred from getting married.

He says he has been a regular on this site for years. I very much doubt that.

Again, point of fact. Vox and others can certainly verify that I have been here, though I usually participate only in threads relating to Israel and Judaism because, hey, that's my obvious interest.

Blogger Rabbi B June 26, 2015 12:22 PM  

" . . .what is the rabbinical opinion on what Lot had to do in order to take up residence in Sodom?"

Interesting question. Sodom and Gomorrah (and the sin thereof) are traditionally and popularly linked to homosexuality, as I am sure you know.

However, the rabbinic perspective focus on hospitality and the treatment of strangers or guests. One of the main 'conditions' for Lot living in Sodom is that he would have been expected to take advantage of the stranger and mistreat them for gain.

Abraham was known for his hospitality and the rabbis teach that, although Lot was perhaps not a spiritual giant, he learned this trait of hospitality from his uncle and practiced it.

Lot had been sitting at the gates of Sodom when he saw two strangers. He greeted them and invited them to his tent, and, according to our Sages, he knew full well that he risked his life by doing so. The strangers at first refused, but after Lot persuaded them, they finally agreed to follow him into his house. The people of Sodom, having learned of the presence of strangers, surrounded Lot’s house. They demanded that Lot give up the two visitors to be dealt with in the usual manner.

A few excerpts from Jewish tradition:

1. The two cities were so wicked that travelers would be given a bed and if they were too short, their feet would be cut off. If they were too tall, they would be stretched on the wrack.

2. Merchants refused to sell bread or goods to the visitors in their land, causing some to starve to death in the town square.

3. There were four judges in Sodom named Shakrai (Liar), Shakurai (Awful Liar), Zayyafi (Forger), and Mazle Dina (Perverter of Justice). The justice system was so corrupt and evil that it documents cases where a pregnant woman was attacked and miscarried so the husband sued to the attacker in court. The judges ordered the attacker to rape the woman in front of the husband to make her pregnant again and restore her to her original condition.

(continued . . .)

Blogger praetorian June 26, 2015 12:22 PM  

All my flags are dead.

http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/aiq/beq/aiqbeqxqT.gif

Blogger Rabbi B June 26, 2015 12:23 PM  

The “cry” that rose up from Sodom to the L-rd and was the final straw came from a hand maiden that was punished for showing compassion and mercy. There are generally two accounts as to the details. According to The Talmud (Ref Sanhedrin 109a):

“A certain maiden gave some bread to a poor man, hiding it in a pitcher. On the matter becoming known, they daubed her with honey and placed her on the parapet of the wall, and the bees came and consumed her. Thus it is written, And the Lord said, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah, because it is great (rabbah): whereupon Rab Judah commented in Rab’s name: on account of the maiden (ribah).”

There are some scholars that believe that in another case, the sin of sodom reached a tipping point when a blood descendant of Abraham was burned for showing compassion and also cried out to G-d for justice, just as the blood of Abel cried out to G-d after his brother Cain struck him down in the field.

Rabbi Jehudah said: They made a proclamation in Sodom saying: Everyone who strengthens the hand of the poor or the needy with a loaf of bread shall be burnt by fire. Peletith, daughter of Lot, was wedded to one of the magnates of Sodom. She saw a certain very poor man in the street of the city, and her soul was grieved on his account… Every day when she went out to draw water she put in her bucket all sorts of provisions from her home, and she fed that poor man. The men of Sodom said: How does this poor man live? When they ascertained the facts, they brought her forth to be burnt by fire. She said: Sovereign of all the worlds! maintain my right and my cause (at the hands of) the men of Sodom. And her cry ascended before the Throne of Glory. In that hour the Holy One, blessed be He, said: I will now descend and I will see whether the men of Sodom have done according to the cry of this young woman, I will turn her foundation upwards, and the surface thereof shall be turned downwards.

Josephus, writing in Antiquities I:194-5 far earlier than almost every modern day text used by Christians, said his research concurred with the Jewish findings that the sin of sodom was as follows:

The Sodomites, overweeningly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the Divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and declined all intercourse with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance…

(continued . . .)

Anonymous D June 26, 2015 12:23 PM  

"Nope. No earthquake. Here's what we got instead. Still think God's sending a message?

https://twitter.com/CEABetsey/status/614447951046250497?s=04"

That rainbow certainly didn't occur today. I live in the area and the weather wasn't right for it.

1 – 200 of 522 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts