Daily Off Topic Forum June 26, 2015

15

15 COMMENTS

    • Bandana…if my note get’s removed, will you please share it with Indiana-Enoch, please.

  1. ……
    INDIANA-ENOCH,
    You are a brave soldier, and I acknowledge you were simply exercising what you felt was your duty and closely and personally held beliefs in arguing against recognition of same-sex marriage.

    Good for you I-E. You deserve admiration for it. Everyone here who has seen your words at work respects you for it.

    I have been saying for some time (when I was allowed by the Editor) that after Windsor, the whole issue of same-sex marriage from that point on was a case of mopping up…and SCOTUS made same-sex marriage as a Constitutional right a matter of settled law now.

    Last I-E, I agree with your belief that States should NOT be in the marriage business, and honestly, yes, it is discriminatory for States to endow married couples with additional benefits not available to unmarried people.

    Time to move on to other more important issues. Good luck. WEINZWESTSIDE

    • What we have seen Don is the undoing of our Constitutional rule. From the beginning I have said that my concern has been more about how we have decided this issue and what it does to the rule of law than homosexual marriage itself.

      With the latest rulings we no longer need a legislator or states. When SCOTUS rules that the secretary of state functions as a state and can it dictate laws to states, then let’s not just do away with marriage, let’s dismiss the the legislative body and dissolve all states.

      In one short week we have already defrocked the sates south of the Mason-Dixie of an obsolete banner of their heritage and turned out ever son of the south as a racist who incited Roof to murder a bible study class. So let’s spread that fire across the land. There’s even a preacher in Texas who has swore he would light the first match and start this refiner’s fire with his own body if SCOTUS ruled for marriage equality.

      Isn’t it great that the federal government will now stand behind the licensing of our love? Unless you love more than one, or one to closely related, or one to young to know what love is. And we will stile tax/fine, those who dare not apply for this love license and choose to cohabitate. Any whose religious convictions are in conflict with SCOTUS will conform and be fined for all they have and be cast into the netherworld But that’s not unconstitutional because congress didn’t write a law prohibiting religious expression, SCOTUS decreed that sexual liberty trumps spritual liberty.

      Funny how those who hold separation of church and state to sacred level no longer value the balance of powers.

      All that’s left now is the rounding up of any baker, minister, or candlestick maker who would dare not pay homage to this new definition of marriage and march them past the great court’s bench holding the remnants of their feet that was held to the righteous fire.

      But you’re right. We need to move on to more important issues. Just remember were you stood this day when they come for you, and they will

    • Don,
      “Last I-E, I agree with your belief that States should NOT be in the marriage business, and honestly, yes, it is discriminatory for States to endow married couples with additional benefits not available to unmarried people.”

      If states should not be in the marriage business, then why do you seem to celebrate that government has just expanded its role in it?

      • I-E….to answer your question, well, the fact is the State IS in the marriage business. I’m not celebrating, but I am glad we’re done wasting time on this, cause there’s more important things to solve. The time has ended when “we are all equal, except some of us are more equal than others on marriage.” (You’ve heard me use that analogy time and again, sorry about that.) We are now in a phase where the old guard is gonna complain about this – albeit a waste of time, but they need “to vent” I guess…and indeed they will try to make it difficult on same-sex couples in spite of the law Constitutionally protecting their access to marriage. Same thing happened before…i.e., George Wallace having to have a Federal presence so little black girls in their school uniforms could go to a previously all-white neighborhood school….the same kind of thing is popping up all over. History will judge those people very harshly. But that behavior will die off over time.

  2. Yesterday, SCOTUS said that words written in laws haven’t any definition and today SCOTUS has defined the meaning of the word “marriage”.

  3. First they came for the flag, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not of the South.

    Then they came for the church, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not of a religious lot.

    Then they came for the guns, and I did not speak out—
    Because I had none in my house.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Comments are closed.