How the Supreme Court just affected the election

How the Supreme Court just affected the election

The Briefing, Vol. III, Issue 19-

To: Our readers
From: David Freddoso

This week:

  • Gay marriage decision
  • Trouble for GOP candidates
  • Confusion over possible Jeff Miller Senate bid

President 2016

Republicans: Last week’s same-sex marriage decision was entirely expected, but it was historic nonetheless. It represents yet another foray by the Supreme Court into the realm of attempting to create social change.

This is the sort of thing that makes conservatives tear their hair out. The court operates under a glaring double-standard. When the Left gets its way at the ballot box, the result stands without question. When the Right does the same, or at least has a chance of victory, the court has a history of setting the democratic process aside altogether, and purportedly settling issues that are indeed political, and what’s more very controversial and hotly debated.

The Roe decision of 1973 and subsequent related cases turned abortion into a sacred cow that the legislative process could no longer touch. This case is similar in that sense, bringing about, as Justice Scalia put it, “social transformation without representation.”

The small consolation here for conservatives is that this case had coherent, well-articulated dissents in which four justices participated. There were four dissents in fact, the concise legal logic of which stood in stark contrast to the court’s mushy majority opinion.

But whatever there is to say about the merits of this case, its political ramifications are more to the point here. There is a 2016 presidential race in full swing, and this decision will affect it dramatically.

Some conservatives and Republicans and others have suggested that this ruling lets the Republican candidates off the hook on the issue. With the decision made and done, they argue, GOP candidates have a huge burden lifted from them. They no longer have to worry about whether a traditional position that has become increasingly unpopular with certain key voting demographics will hurt them.

Ramesh Ponnuru argued persuasively this month that that was not so, and his pessimism is probably well-grounded. This decision is likely to dog Republicans in a way the status quo ante did not.

Think about this in the clear light of day: For many conservative voters, the issue is not settled at all. Many oppose gay marriage, and even more oppose the sort of judicial interventionism that was just used to impose it. They aren’t just going to go away, and of all people, the Republican candidates most certainly cannot ignore them.

Conservative candidates will now be faced with demands to undo what has been done — and that’s harder to promise or do than the mere act of preventing something. For the general electorate, a promise to take something away from someone is more difficult politically. It may not be the enormous downside that social liberals expect, but this will have some kind of downside for any of these candidates, depending on how far they decide to go.

What this ruling does is to throw the primary into mild chaos by introducing a new element. Democratic candidates can simply cheer the Supreme Court’s decision, but Republican candidates who have professed opposition to state-recognized same-sex marriage will have to take a position showing just how much they oppose it. Will they call for a Constitutional change that puts states back in charge of marriage policy — as Scott Walker already has — or will they settle for religious freedom protections, as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio appear to have done?

Of course, all talk of a constitutional change is futile, at least for now. Even the most hardened opponents of same-sex marriage recognize that the 67 votes aren’t there in the Senate to undo gay marriage (which is how it would be framed). Perhaps support for such an amendment is akin to support for a balanced budget amendment — too unlikely for voters to give much credit to those who advocate it. On the other hand, it is becoming a more courageous stance as public opinion turns more sharply against the traditional understanding of marriage.

In short, the decision offers no relief for Republican politicians who want to be president. To the extent that it matters at all, it’s because it makes their lives harder, not easier.

Democrats: We’ve been hinting for some time that there are many reasons already for Democrats to be jittery about Hillary Clinton. It seems they might be getting there. A new UNH poll shows her with a rather modest 8-point lead over Bernie Sanders in the Granite State, which traditionally holds the first presidential primary. The poll could be a bit of a fluke, or a few points off, but it highlights how quickly Clinton’s supposedly inevitability could collapse during primary season. This is is not the sort of number an inevitable candidate posts.

Bobby Jindal: Well, someone obviously picked the wrong week to announce for CIB010615-Jindalpresident. But frankly, the fact that he got lost in events is the least of Jindal’s problems. He’s in a strange position. Most conservatives would be perfectly satisfied with Jindal as the nominee, but they also wouldn’t walk across the street to vote for him in a primary. He checks the right boxes and he is an incredibly smart man, but he’s also immensely unpopular right now in his home state. The governorship is highly likely to go to his nemesis, Sen. David Vitter, R, in this fall’s election, and for more than a year already he has made his desire to be president so plain that it’s a bit jarring.

At the moment, it does not seem like there’s a path to the White House for Jindal — not even one that involves a meteor strike. But things change, and Jindal could still become a contender if one or more of the current frontrunners falters or drops out.

Senate 2016

FloridaRoll Call reported last week that Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., is entering the open-seat Senate race and would make an announcement this week. But then Miller denied that this is the case. The conservative north Florida congressman is still considering a bid, though, and with his Veterans Affairs chairmanship term-limited, his incentive to stay in the House is diminished to some extent. Meanwhile, amid the VA scandal, Miller has succeeded in raising his own profile by handling the investigation well — and mercilessly, from the perspective of culpable bureaucrats.

Based on the Heritage Action scorecard, Miller is the most conservative chairman of any committee in the House, and by quite a long way. In theory, the most likely effect he would have in the race is to split the conservative and northern Florida vote with Rep. Ron DeSantis, R, against the establishment choice, Lt. Gov. Carlos Lopez-Cantera, R, whose base of support is in Miami. Lopez-Cantera will be making his announcement July 15.




  1. Conservatives redefined marriage 50 years ago when, in the south, they made race the determining factor in marriage, not procreation. The right also had no problem when the SCOTUS struck down the VRA, a bill that had passed with majority support of BOTH parties. The right had no problem when the SCOTUS rewrote social policy in the “Greece” decision, gutting the 1st amendment.

    So much for conservative logic

    • 50 years ago,politically, the South was fiercely Democrat, pro union and most supportive of the KKK. Now the Democrat party is the closest thing we have to a communist party, even running a socialist/communist/progressive/ as a candidate for President. The “forward” slogan from the Obama campaign is a well known communist propaganda slogan and the Congressional Progressive Caucus was founded by Michael Harrington and Democrat darlings Bernie Sanders and Barney Frank with the sole purpose of turning the Democrat party into the U.S. Communist party. They succeeded. Control religion, control food, control education, control speech, control guns , control political parties, control administration of law enforcement, control, control, control….. all financed with the printing press all the while hysterically screeching “equality” and “freedom”. So much for Liberal logic.

      • The south was, and is, conservative. The right gets confused with labels.

        Kevin Phillips, the GOP strategist, came up with his ‘southern strategy’ to win white racists over to the GOP, which worked. Ken Mehlman, RNC chair, later apologized for this racist approach on the part of conservatives.

        The GOP has drifted FAR right as conservative Political Scientist Norman Ornstein has found. It’s the most extreme right in US history, while the dems have stayed center right.

        If Obama is a commie, you have a problem. The stock market has doubled. CEO pay is at record highs. Some commie

        So what you’ve shown is you’re ignorant of right wing history. You have distortions about Obama’s record. And your paranoia is typically right wing.

    • democrats redefined marriage 50 years ago in the south is what you really mean to say. if you are going to blame someone fifty years ago at least blame the right party!

      • The right confuses labels with ideology. Southern Democrats used to be conservative until Kevin Phillps southern strategy won the racists to the GOP

        Read your own history. At least learn the difference between labels and ideology

  2. There are lots of issues, States rights vs individual rights, The right of the people of a State to set the standards of morality on which most pornography definitions are based, It is clear a lot of States had ballot measures that clearly showed the people did not want homosexual marriage why because they did not feel it was a moral lifestyle, it did not conform to religious standards or teaching which define morality. Now how does the SC decision affect all other laws based on religious morality? Does this mean all porn laws are now in question? In protecting a small minority from the majority have they opened the flood gates of immorality? What is the standard now to determine morality and what if one State allows something heretofore illegal in another State .Based on the ruling using the 14th Amendment and ignoring the First Amendment every other State must recognize allow their citizens the same rights. Based on the SC ruling there is no such thing as States Rights anymore. This really is not about homosexual or marriage rights it is about the Federal Government Power and Control ignoring the Constitution and the vote of the people. Bottom line if Religious beliefs and teaching no longer define morality then anything goes.

    • Why does the right think that religious laws passed by Xtians are good, but those passed by Muslims are bad?

      And morality is irrelevant when it concerns forcing others to agree with your morality when they don’t share it, and it does not affect you. When it was ‘immoral’ for interracial couples to marry, should the feds have stepped back from THAT?

      •   TheReligionofPeace.comChristianity and Islam: A Side by Side Comparison** It is not the purpose of this site to promote any particular religion, including Christianity.  However, we do enjoy refuting nonsense, such as the claim that Muhammad  and Jesus preached a morally equivalent message or that all religion is the same.”I will cast terror into the hearts of those whodisbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”  “Allah” (Qur’an 8:12)”Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.”  Muhammad (Ibn Ishaq 992)”Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”Jesus (Matthew 5:14)Even though many Muslims regard terrorists who kill in the name of Allah as criminals, they cannot deny that Muhammad also killed in the name of Allah.  What example of Jesus do Christians emulate which has them confused them with terrorists and criminals?Each year, thousands of Christian homes and churches are torched or bombed by Muslim mobs, and hundreds of Christians, including dozens of priests, pastors, nuns and otherchurch workers are murdered at the hands of Islamic extremists.  The so-called justification varies, from charges of apostasy or evangelism, to purported “blasphemy” or “insulting” Islam.  Innocent people have even been hacked to death by devout Muslims over cartoons.Yet, there is little if any violent retaliation from religious Christians to the discrimination,kidnapping, rape, torture, mutilation and murder that is routinely reported from nations with Muslim majorities.  Neither is there is any significant deadly terrorism in the name of Jesus, as there is in the stated cause of Allah each and every day.  Muslim clerics in the West do not fear for their safety as do their Christian counterparts. The “Christian world” and the Islamic world contrast sharply in other ways as well, from the disparate condition of human rights and civil liberties to economic status.  An astonishing 70% of the world’s refugees are Muslims –  usually seeking to live in Christian-based countries. While Western societies take seriously “scandals” such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo (where no one has actually been killed), Muslims routinely turn a blind eye to their own horrible atrocities, even those committed explicitly in the name of Allah.  The Muslim world has yet to offer a single apology for the tens of millions of lives consumed by centuries of relentless Jihad and slavery.These sharp differences are almost certainly rooted in the underlying religions, which begin with the disparate teachings and examples set by Jesus and Muhammad… Differences Between Muhammad and JesusMuhammad…Jesus…Said Allah does not love those who reject Islam.(Qur’an 30:45, 3:32, 22:38)Said God loves everyone.  (John 3:16)”I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah”(Muslim 1:33)”He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.”(Matthew 26:52)Stoned women for adultery.(Muslim 4206)”Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”(John 8:7)Permitted stealing from unbelievers.(Bukhari 44:668, Ibn Ishaq 764)”Thou shalt not steal.”(Matthew 19:18)Permitted lying.(Sahih Muslim 6303, Bukhari 49:857)”Thou shalt not bear false witness.”(Matthew 19:18)Owned and traded slaves.(Sahih Muslim 3901)Neither owned nor traded slaves.Beheaded 800 Jewish men and boys.(Abu Dawud 4390)Beheaded no one.Murdered those who insulted him.(Bukhari 56:369, 4:241)Preached forgiveness.(Matthew 18:21-22, 5:38)”If then anyone transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him”(Qur’an 2:194)”If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”(Matthew 5:39)Jihad in the way of Allah elevates one’s position in Paradise by a hundred fold.(Muslim 4645)”Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called Sons of God”(Matthew 5:9)Married 13 wives and kept sex slaves.(Bukhari 5:268, Qur’an 33:50)Was celibate.Slept with a 9-year-old child.(Sahih Muslim 3309, Bukhari 58:236)Did not have sex with children.Ordered the murder of women.(Ibn Ishaq 819, 995)Never harmed a woman. “O you who believe!  Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”(Qur’an 9:123)”Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”(Matthew 5:5)Ordered 65 military campaigns and raids in his last 10 years. (Ibn Ishaq )Ordered no military campaigns, nor offered any approval of war or violence.   Killed captives taken in battle.(Ibn Ishaq 451)Never took captives.Never killed anyone.Encouraged his men to rape enslaved women.(Abu Dawood 2150, Qur’an 4:24)Never encouraged rape.Never enslaved women. Demanded captured slaves anda fifth of all other loot taken in war.(Qur’an 8:41)”The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve.”(Matthew 20:28)Was never tortured, but tortured others.(Muslim 4131, Ibn Ishaq 436, 595, 734, 764)Suffered torture, but never tortured anyone.”And fight them until there is no more persecution and religion is only for Allah”(Qur’an 8:39)”Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”(Matthew 5:44)Blessed the brutal murder of a half-blind man(al-Tabari 1440)Healed a blind man(Mark 8:28)Ordered a slave to build the very pulpit from which he preached Islam.(Bukhari 47:743)Washed his disciples feet.(John 13:5)What are the Greatest Commandments?”Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause” (Muslim 1:149)What are the Greatest Commandments? “Love God and love thy neighbor as thyself.”(Matthew 22:34-40)Demanded the protection of armed bodyguards, even in a house of worship(Qur’an 4:102)Chastised anyone attempting to defend him with force.(John 18:10-12)Died fat and wealthy from what was taken from others in war or demanded from others in tribute.Demanded nothing for himself.  Died without possessions.Advocated crucifying others.(Qur’an 5:33, Muslim 16:4131)Was crucified himself.According to his followers: Had others give their lives for him.(Sahih Muslim 4413)According to his followers: Gave his life for others.(John 18:11 and elsewhere) Differences Between Early Muslims and Early ChristiansMuhammad’s Companions…Jesus’ Disciples…Lived as warriors.Lived like harmless hippies.Slew and persecuted religious minorities.Were slain and persecuted as a religious minority.Emphasis on Jihad (the way of Muhammad)”He who fights that Allah’s word should be superior fights in Allah’s cause”(Bukhari 53:355)Emphasis on Evangelism (the way of Jesus)”Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature”(Matthew 15:16)Attacked and conquered the populations inparts of 28 modern countries in just the firstthree decades following Muhammad’s death.Did not resort to violence of any sort, despite tremendous persecution.Declared holy war on the people of five major world religions in just the first 100 years following Muhammad’s death.Went centuries without declaring ‘holy war’.Plundered and lived off the wealth of others.Gave away their possessions to those in need.(Acts 2:44-45)Captured and enslaved non-Muslim people.Considered themselves to be slaves of others.Waged war to keep members from leaving the religion.  Put apostates to death.No record of aggression toward apostates.Muhammad’s own family members quickly fell into armed warfare against each other.Jesus’ disciples never resorted to violenceagainst one another (or anyone else).First 240 Years: 11 of the first 32 caliphs weremurdered by fellow Muslims.First 240 Years: 14 of the first 25 popes were martyred by pagans (none by fellow Christians).Caliphs were polygamous and maintained  harems of hundreds of captured sex slaves.Popes were expected to be celibate.Islamic mosques sustained by taxes forced from subjugated non-Muslims (the jizya).Christian churches sustainedby voluntary tithes from Christians. Differences Between Islamic Teaching and ChristianityThe Qur’anThe BibleExternal sources (the Hadith and Sira) necessary for translating the Qur’anHistorical context contained within the text of the BibleMust know Arabic in order to “fully understand” the Qur’an (according to Muslim apologists)Universal.  Can be translated into other languages without excessive commentary.Chronological progression of the Quran is from peace to violence.Chronological progression of the Bible is from violence to peace.The words ‘torture’ and ‘punishment’ appear sixtimes more often in the Quran than in the New Testament.The word ‘love’ appears five times more often in the New Testament than than in the Qur’an,Contains not a single original moral value.The ‘Sermon on the Mount’ and others.Suffering is an excuse for violent revenge and establishment of Islam by force”And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.” (Qur’an 2:191)Suffering builds character”We also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope”(Romans 5:4)Emphasis on this World”And Allah has made you heirs to their land and their dwellings and their property”(Qur’an 33:27)Emphasis on the Next”Mine is not a kingdom of this world”(John 18:36, see also Luke 14:33)Kill, convert or subjugate Christians and Jews.(Qur’an 9:29)Share one’s faith with gentleness and respect.(1 Peter 3:15)Martyrs as Killers”Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain” (Qur’an 9:111)Martyrs as Martyrs”As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter”(Romans 8:36)Killing Apostates”They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them”(Qur’an 4:89, also Bukhari 52:260, 83:37…)Letting God Judge Apostates”For we know Him that has said, ‘Vengeance belongs unto me, I will recompense,’ says the Lord.  And again,’The Lord shall judge his people'” (Hebrews 10:25-30)Punishment”Let not compassion move you from carrying out God’s law…”(Qur’an 24:2)Mercy”Love is patient.  Love is kind… It keeps no record of wrongs”(1 Corinthians 13:4-5)Charity and Non-BelieversMercy toward fellow Muslims – ruthlessness toward unbelievers.  Muslims are warned not to befriend those outside the faith.  They must even ensure that their charity tithe (zakat) stays within their own identity group.(Qur’an 48:29, 3:28, Sharia)Charity and Non-BelieversChristians are specifically told that even those who hate them are entitled to kindness and charity.  They should be lovedand cared for as surely as any fellow believer.(Mark 10:25-37)The Qur’an explicitly instructs men to beat disobedient wives.(Qur’an 4:34, Sahih Muslim 2127)”Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.”(No permission to beat women)(Colossians 3:19)Explicitly allows Muslim men to rape their female slaves, even those already married.(Qur’an 4:24, 70:29-30, 23:5-6…)Tells masters and slaves to serve each other as if serving God.(Ephesians 6:7-9)Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those who are with him are ruthless to the unbelievers”(Qur’an 48:29)”Do good to them that hate you”(Luke 6:27)Allah wills those that stray and are lost(Qur’an 16:93)God wants all people saved(1 Timothy 2:4)Warns Against Questioning Faith.  (Qur’an 5:101-102)Welcomes Intellectual Challenge.  (1 Peter 3:15)Violence as Virtue”Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it.  But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, andthat ye love a thing which is bad for you.  But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”(Qur’an 2:216)Violence as Sin”Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord. On the contrary: ‘If your enemy is hungry,  feed him… ‘”(Romans 12:19-20)Hell for unbelief.  Good deeds count for naught(Qur’an 18:102-107)Hell for bad deeds and thefailure to do what is right(Romans 2:6-8, Matthew 16:27, Matthew 25:41-45)Judging”Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites!  Be harsh with them…”(Qur’an 9:73)Judge Not”For when you pass judgment on another person, you condemn yourself…”(Romans 2:1)Taking wealth from others”Allah promiseth you much booty that ye will capture…”(Qur’an 48:20)Working for and giving wealth to others”The thief must no longer steal but must work hard and do what is good with his own hands, so that he might have something to give to the needy.”(Ephesians 4:28)Calls down Allah’s curse on Christians and those of other religions. (Qur’an 9:30)Calls down God’s blessing on those who curse Christians.(Matthew 5:44)Arrogance & Privilege”Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind”(Qur’an 3:110)Humility & Servitude”If anyone wants to be first, he must make himself last of all and servant of all.”(Mark 9:35)”O you who believe! do not take My enemy and your enemy for friends: Would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of the truth?(Qur’an 60:1)”Love your enemies…”(Luke 6:27) Differences Between the Islamic and Christian-Based WorldsMuslim LegacyChristian LegacyCountries that Muslims want to escape from.Countries that Muslims want to escape to.Madrassahs that indoctrinate Muslim children with bigotry and terror.Mission schools that teach reading and writing to Christians and Muslims alike.Suicide bombings for AllahNo suicide bombings for JesusInternational terror organizations.International charities.No formal charities for non-Muslims.Leading provider of disaster relief to Muslims.Murder of aid workers.Supply of aid workers.Christians in jail for apostasy or blasphemy.Religious freedom.Modern-day slavery in the name of Islam.Abolition in the name of Christianity.Muslim clerics who engagein or condone terrorism.Christian clerics murdered each year by terror groups rife with Muslim clerics.Daily religious violence against Hindus.None.Daily religious violence against Jews.None.Daily religious violence against Buddhists.None.Daily religious violence against Muslims.None.Ritual slitting of animals’ throatsEnding of animal sacrificeReligionTechnology & MedicineCensorshipFreedom of speechIntolerance for criticism of Islam.Tolerance for religious dissent.Restricting other religions from preaching faith.Allowing all religions the same right to evangelize.Conversions allowed to Islam only.Freedom of conscience.Converts to Christianity beheaded.No dead converts to Islam.Most famous Muslim: Osama bin Laden.Most famous Christian: The Pope. Whether true or not, everything that secular critics say they don’t like about Christianity, from women’s issues to slavery, is not only a tangible part of Islam, but usually magnified.While the Catholic church is demonized for not allowing female priests, the fundamentalists of Islam force women into burqas and blow up schools that educate girls.  Even activists known for championing women’s rights in the Muslim world still rationalize keeping captured women as sex slaves, since it is explicitly permitted in the Qur’an.  And, while Christians might object to extra-marital sex, only Islamic purists plant consenting adults in the ground and stone them to death. Theocracy (in the form of Sharia) really is the the explicit goal of Islamic teaching, whereas Christianity leaves room for the separation of religion and government (Mark 12:17, John 18:36).  Terrorism really is an expression of devotion to Allah (here’s an example) – and not just criminal activity or warfare by disinterested parties with a nominal religious identification (ie. “born a Catholic”). If threatening people with eternal damnation is considered distasteful, then Christianity has far less to be ashamed of than Islam, which not only mentions the terrible fate awaiting unbelievers in nearly every other chapter of the Quran, but also includes vivid descriptions of torture at the hands of a sociopath known as Allah.The two religions contrast sharply even in their positive aspects.  The morality of the Qur’an is amateurish and frustratingly obscure for those who try to compare it to what is contained in the Bible.  Most of Islam’s holiest book is devoted toward distinguishing and heaping abuse on unbelievers.  There are no verses that promote universal love and brotherhood.  The few verses that are sometimes held up as examples of tolerance and peace generally require separation from textual and historical context.The difference between Christianity and Islam starts at the top:Muslims are told that their prophet Muhammad – a slave-owner, sexual glutton, thief and killer – is the most “beautiful pattern of conduct” and “example” for mankind to follow (Qur’an 33:21), as well as the “exalted standard of character”(Qur’an 68:4). Christians are told to emulate Jesus – a pacifist and servant – and “walk, even as he walked” (1 John 2:6).  Unlike Muhammad, who ordered military assaults against Christians, for example, Jesus told his followers not to resort to violence and to pray for one’s enemies.These two men could hardly have been more different in how they lived or in what they taught others.  Why should we not then expect starkly contrasting legacies – from the conduct of their closest companions to the livability of modern-day countries influenced by the predominance of one founder’s teachings over the other?As Wafa Sultan (who describes herself as a Muslim who does not adhere to Islam) puts it: “The problem with Christians is they aren’t as good as Jesus.  But thank God most Muslims are better than Muhammad.

        • I didn’t say xtians and muslims preached a similar message. I said they hate the same people. Both are religions of hate.

          Sobibor. Auschwitz. Bergen Belsen..all happened in xtian countries. The greatest wars happened in xtian countries.

          • That is true that wars happen in predominantly Christian nations, but not started by Christians; they are started by non-Christians in nearly every case and generally by trying to force Christians to believe their way or die. You are wrong again.

          • Started by non xtians. Funny this overwhelmingly majority xtian culture can’t stop them…almost as if they share the same values.

            The fact xtians were killing Jews for a thousand years was irrelevant, I suppose.

          • What a perversion and revision of truth. Christians do not preach hate or engage in gratuitous violence and murder.
            The death camps were not wars but they were inventions of the anti semite anti christian insane Hitler. WWII happened in countries that had significant christian believers/practitioners, but were not theocracies. Christians did not start the wars, Nazis, insanity and atheism started wwii. Islam created wars in Europe from islam’s inception and ravaged and raped Europe east and west.
            You are the single most obtuse, uneducated, irrational, illogical, ignorant, hateful distorter on this thread.

    • Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes… The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

  3. SCOTUS just redefined the term “Letter of the Law”.
    which is no longer the strict and exact force of the language used in a statute.
    It now means the spirit, general purpose, and policy of the statute.
    SCOTUS agrees with Gruber that American voters ARE STUPID!
    but, SCOTUSCARE will still implode!!
    SCOTUS is also immoral, passing gay marriage as law.
    SCOTUS will next accept obama’s sharia law that worships a prophet for raping a 9 year old girl, making pedophilia legal
    SCOTUS will next repeal the 2nd Amendment.
    The GOP primary doesn’t matter, ALL of your votes have been nullified!

    clinton will be president

    thru massive voter fraud from asylees, refugees, visa recipients, and
    10 states, like NY, issuing driver’s licenses and ID cards to ILLEGALS, in violation of the Real ID Act!

    • And yet Forbes says that getting rid of Obamacare will INCREASE the defcit by 137 to 350 billion over the next decade.

      Gay marriage may be ‘immoral’ under your view. It’s NOT unconstitutional. Smoking kills 450,000 people each year. Shall we ban that too?

      And it’s the right, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that allows Muslims to attack children.

      Voter ID fraud? The right thinks black people voting is voter fraud

      • liberal scum, like you, support the destruction of clinton’s emails that support clinton’s/obama’s terrorist connections

      • Baseless allegation. Blacks voting is not fraud. Blacks being conned into thinking Dems saved them, when it is clear history that Dems are still keeping blacks victims is fraud.
        SSM is not constitutional. Marriage has nothing to do with the Constitution. Social mores cannot be established as constitutional at the whim of the judiciary. It is and always have been a matter of the voters in each state to decide for themselves.
        You have bocare backwards. It is a failure and has already increased the deficit and will increase the deficit by trillions if allowed to continue.
        RFRA is responsible for muslim excesses? No, islam is not a religion but libs ignore the clear discrimination by muslims against homosexuality and Christians and the RFRA does not allow Sharia law and attacks on Children, some courts have supported the political/cultural/legal nature of islam and disallowed Christian morals and practices. Immigrant muslims are a clear and present danger to liberty and the Constitution as they refuse to be guided or obedient to our laws and want not to assimilate but to force conformity with their legal views.

    • “SCOTUS just redefined the term “Letter of the Law”.
      which is no longer the strict and exact force of the language used in a statute. ”

      Sorry to disappoint you but courts including the Supreme Court have never done this ‘strict and exact force of the language used in a statute’ for all things. So get over it.

      The Supreme Court basically said that LGBT folks who want to marry can and will have the same protection and rights as any other marriage. Why is that immoral. Why do you think that discriminating against a group of people is moral?

      Sharia law? What in the world are you ranting about

      Sure the Supreme Court will repeal the 2nd amendment. Wish they would but it is not going to happen.

      And how have all of your votes been ‘nullified’? And give up the ‘massive voter fraud’ meme. This is just a RW scare tactic used to pass voter restriction laws.

      By the way, in light of the decision of marriage equality, what have you lost? What can’t you do today that you could do a month ago? I don’t think you lost anything, I just think some people gained something.

      • liberal scum, like you, support the destruction of clinton’s emails that support clinton’s/obama’s terrorist connections

        • So you can’t answer questions but you can sling vitriol. Clinton did nothing more than what every Sec. of State did except that she turned her’s over. Powell didn’t. And GWB along with VP Cheney lost thousands of email and Cheney wouldn’t allow us access to any of his doings. Just remember the Energy Policy Committee. Reagan armed Iran, GWB created more terrorists than any President. Oh, and did you forget that 9/11 happened under Bush and the Republicans?

          And just what are those Clinton/Obama terrorist connections

          • I dunno. It’s a thrill when the right surrenders and spews Santorum like froth at their computer screens.

          • Hi Bhuharic, please know that God loves you and wants a relationship with you. Would you like to repent of your sins and be forgiven? It doesn’t matter what sins you have committed: porn, prostitution, lying, gluttony, adultery, sodomy, gossip, hate, greed, list. They are all forgiven by Jesus when we repent. I hope you will consider being born again. You will get a new life and a new start. God’s love is better than anything the world offers and believers would love to welcome you into the Kingdom.

          • Plus…God guarantees safety to all those who accept Him when the going gets tough. It might not be until we get to the other side, but better that than being consigned to Hell for all eternity.

          • Obama/Oblowhard, is arming the muslime brotherhood, that might be a terrorist connection. BUT it is George Bush too blame, always is with Oblunderer. He don’t know what is going on, too much golf to mind this Country. When Obama is ask a question about anything, his answer is always I heard about it in the news/ media, same place everyone else did.
            Cant lead from behind and get anything done.

          • They aren’t arming the Muslim Brotherhood, this is just another RW conspiracy. And I guess the three years of vacation Bush took was OK, right?

          • And you know this HOW?? I say he is, what say you.
            When did Bush take 3 years of vacation?
            How many rounds of golf has Odumbo plays per day.

          • Don’t matter how much golf he or anyone else plays.
            I would like to know why Oblowhard takes air-force one on vacation, and Mouchell takes another 747 going to the same place? That is our money they are spending, jet setting all around the world, a waste of millions of dollars, just what makes them so special?
            I have to live from pay day to pay day, and this bunch of worthless idiots waste millions.
            That gives me GAS.

          • What makes them so special? They are the President and First Lady of the United States.

            And how do you think Bush, Reagan, GWB got to their ranches on the many many many trips they made?

            And review this about the First Lady’s trips:


            I would put the Obama’s expenses against any President and it would show that they spend less.

            Also remember that Bush, Bush, Reagan all had very large estates to go to. The Obama’s do not have these. So when they go on vacation, they rent places that the Secret Service approves. They just can’t check into the nearest Motel 6 which is where you would probably send them.

          • Remember this, they LIE all the time.
            What I want to know is why do they take (2) TWO 747 air planes going to the same place?
            You always have to browbeat the Bush’s and now Reagan, they are no longer in office. Oblunderer want-a-b president/ king, and can’t be either one. He don’t know about anything, just ask him and he will say I didn’t know about that until I heard it in the news(media).
            If he is a President I am an air plane pilot. He is president in name only, and she is first lady in name only.
            Have a great day.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Who is ‘they’? I don’t know why, why don’t you ask them.

            And he is President and Michele is First Lady.

            And I know that nothing I say will make any difference in your beliefs.

          • Who are they, WHO were we talking about I think you figured it out, you named them, wrong his name isn’t president and her name is michele.
            I just like to get you all fired up.
            Also I don’t think he is President material, I believe I could do a better job
            at it.(My Opinion)

          • Because you have nothing valuable or true or logical to say. You have an unreasoning belief that bo is god or king or always right and any problem he may have had was caused by Bush. Not true , but if it was, he has done NOTHING to correct and has compounded what he claimed was error. He and Biden got the Patriot act extended that restricts liberty and tyrannizes the people, not to mention bocare that denies liberty in personal choices of private health matters and violates the Constitution with every pronouncement and EO. He is an ignorant puppet at best.
            And now for the food nazi 1st dumbell mo. I am with Putin creep that he is on her food nazi laws- Never take diet advice or rules from a woman whose ass is that huge.
            Respect is earned. BO/MO do not have my respect or the respect of most of US citizens right now. They are proud to use the position for personal gain and to stomp on the flag and Constitution. They brag about it.
            I dissent from your hero worship. Your emperor has no clothes and you have no rationality or logic or fact.

          • Already have-you fail and refuse to acknowledge anything but insignificant, misunderstood by you and your ilk, isolated phrases from out of context misquotations.

          • True but I believe Bush and Bush, Reagan had those very large estates before they were President. So what is the problem?
            Sure I would send them to motel 6, they will leave the light on for them.

          • I say they are arming the muslim brotherhood, Oblowhard went over and gave a speach,
            and when he ended it he told them in thier language I AM ONE OF YOU.!!!! I herd that
            on the telle. I watched that idiot until the end, enough to make one sick.
            Can’t talk without his teleprompter he is NOT President material, still on the job training
            the J V Squad.
            What proof do you have that says he isn’t arming them, (the muslimes brotherhood)?

          • BO holds the record for vacations and costs. Course if the actual time billyboy spent with his trousers around his ankles fondling the interns is counted, he spent far less time running the country than even BO and could explain why Bush inherited the crash recession and 9/11

          • Only by lib/dem false stats. BO has always taken advantage of perks to the exclusion of actually trying to do the job he was fraudulently elected to do. He was gone so much on junkets to Kenya, mostly that he failed to vote on much of anything. The main vote he managed to make was to vote for the extension and expansion of the Patriot Act.

          • Clinton set the stage for 9/11 or do you contradict BO’s claim that he inherited all Bush’s mistakes. If you actually support all the economic problems of the Dem pres were caused by Bush, then you have to use the same logic that 9/11 occurring so soon after Bush took office is the fault of Clinton not opposing the clear rise of terroism and ME hatred of the US. After all, he was aware of the previous attack on the towers and did nothing but fire off a single scud to deflect attention from his sexual indiscretions (the nicest way to put his vile sexuality) that had become more public.
            Clinton terrorist connections? How about Huma Abedin who was raised in Saudi Arabia all her life by radical muslims with direct membership in the muslim brotherhood among others? and she gets to become the actual Sec of State as deputy-she spoke for Clinton many times and ME policy changed to pro muslim and anti Israel our only ally and democratic defender in the ME?

      • “Sorry to disappoint you but courts including the Supreme Court have never done this ‘strict and exact force of the language used in a statute’ for all things. So get over it.”

        “Never” is such an unsupportable claim that it shouts your stupidity.

          • There is nothing logical or rational or “strict” about your incoherent rant. You are clearly not a critical thinker, if you think at all.
            Legal scholars disagree with your unsupported statements. The 5 did not even make a pretense of being anything other than poor moral philosophers imposing their illogical, irrational values on 320 mill people.

          • And the minority showed no reason why people in the privacy of their own bedrooms should not enjoy the same privacy of straights

            The right, it seems, wants a cop in every bedroom

          • There was absolutely NO reason to redefine the meaning of the word to achieve those ends.

          • False premise, straw dog etc. The right to privacy does NOT grant marriage as a constitutional right.
            It is public sex/sodomy that is at issue. “Straights” don’t get a pass on public sex-why should homosexuals? If you call hetero sexuals “straights” that implies homosexuals are “Not Straight” “maybe bent or twisted” Sounds correct to me…….

          • I do not take advice on analysis from clearly ignorant illogical irrational uneducated frauds. Just like I won’t take diet orders from a woman assuming unelected power whose ass is as big as mo’s.

          • I clearly am more educated and knowledgable than you. You have implied worse. It is not an insult to call you ignorant, illogical, irrational, uneducated-your posts prove that .

      • So tell me, WHY should there not be voter registration laws? I guess your intent is to allow any foreign muslim, communist, or socialist vote. Nothing like being naive in thinking that they have America’s best interest at heart. It is clear that liberalism is communism. Except to the uneducated.

        • Because it’s much ado about nothing. There is virtually NO voter ID fraud. AND it costs the poor…especially blacks…money to get these cards.

          The right seeks to destroy the right to vote. Voting, they say, is communism.

          • “No voter fraud”. SOOO that means you believe your liberal buddies when the last 2 elections clearly proved otherwise. Allen West, Broward County, Fl. (I live near). Was winning by a large margin up until 98% of counted vote. Until 148% of registered voters was counted. Are you smart enough to realize that very seldom does more than 65% of registered voters ever vote, let alone an IMPOSSIBILITY to go over 100%. Cuyahoga Falls, OH., Romney received only 2% of the votes. A STATISTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY! Black Panther attempts at scaring away the white vote. Disenfranchising of the military vote which typically votes conservative. YOU are the typical uneducated liberal that spouts ONLY what his puppet masters tell him. FYI, I AM NOT a devout republican, nor am I a Bush fan. It is what it is. But with a liberal, it is whatever they want it to be, in their own little limited minds.

          • Ah. GOP voter fraud. Well, yes, there is that, I suppose. In TX in the last 10 years they’ve had 2 cases

            It’s not an efficient way to steal elections. But it DOES keep blacks from voting.

            And COUNTED votes? Vote COUNTING leads to fraud. Voter ID does not.

            Black panthers? Then why did Bush refuse to prosecute and why did he drop criminal charges?

          • Ignorance is bliss. You are evidence of that. Allen West, a repub, lost after 148% of registered voters voted but was ahead at 98%. Go back to first grade math. Black Panther incident was during Obama, not Bush. Obama did not run against Bush. “Counted votes leave room for fraud”. LOL! So electronic voting machines that were shown to election officials to change votes in favor of Obama are OK. TYPICAL two faced uneducated liberal. LOL! America is doomed under such ignorance! Watch for your subsidies to be cut. Coming soon to America! LOL! And there won’t be any Walmart jobs for you since the illegals will be taking those jobs.

          • Again Oto can’ do math. Proof that this was related to voter ID vs vote COUNTING fraud?


            And the black panther incident happened while Bush was pres. It could NOT have happened under Obama because it happened in 2008.

            You yourself admit voting MACHINES changed votes. See those words? NOT VOTER ID. Voting MACHINE fraud. So you just admitted voter ID fraud is NOT the problem

            I’m glad, however, you’ve learned to spell LOL. That seems to provide you great comfort.

          • Dreamer are you not? All the dead people and illegal aliens that voted to acquire a 148% voter turn out must be reality. What else? I simply added another avenue that proves vote fraud. I should have known that liberals are incapable of reading between the lines since all they know is what is told to them by their puppet masters. Re black panther: Who ran in 2008?


            Let’s go to 2010.

            Let’s go to 2012.

            As said, YOU are a typical uneducated liberal that ONLY knows what his liberal puppet masters tell him. Either you are not old enough to know who ran in 08 or you are losing your memory as an old man.

          • They didn’t commit voter ID fraud. If you’re dead you can’t do this. The fact their votes were counted means someone falsified the count

            Again and again you keep disproving your own contention.

            Your own reference shows it was under BUSH that the black panther case happened.YOUR OWN REFERENCE says this, QUOTE:

            Under the Bush administration, a criminal investigation into the incident was started, but later dropped.


          • “the Black Panther Case, is a political controversy in the United States concerning an incident that occurred during the 2008 election”


            IT HAS BEEN PROVEN that illegal aliens are stealing the identities of American citizens and identities of deceased people. what planet ARE YOU FROM????

          • You keep blaming Obama. But there’s a problem…Obama took office on Jan 20, 2009. He had NOTHING to do with the prosecution of ANYTHING that happened in 2008 since he had no power.

            And ‘it has been proven’ is an assertion, not a proof. I lived in Texas, one of America’s largest states. In a DECADE of elections they had


            cases of voter ID fraud. 2.

          • THE INCIDENT OF VOTER INTIMIDATION TOOK PLACE IN 2008, when Obama was running for president. WHERE did I blame ANYTHING directly on Obama??? It is the LIBERAL way. PERIOD! CHEAT, CHEAT, CHEAT! WHY do you think liberals want amnesty for illegal aliens? They have admitted, that through amnesty, they will be “broadening their voter base”! GET A LIFE and learn reality. STOP being a puppet.

          • Above you said, and I quote:

            Black Panther incident was during Obama, not Bush.

            So you lied about what YOU said

            By the way, Reagan issued amnesty for aliens in 1987. Oops.

          • The black panther issue happened under Bush since he was pres in 2008.

            Not too swift on the uptake are you?

          • I have come to the conclusion that I am chatting with someone no older 10. Since my grandson is 12, and has much more of an ability to grasp than you. The issue is, “what election” did the black panther incidents take place. Obama’s. Therefore, whites were intimidated to not vote for anyone other than Obama. The issue is voter fraud, and manipulation. One in the same. Now, please get back to your milk and cookies and do yourself a favor. Learn to think for yourself, and see facts as they are. NOT how you want them to be.

          • Otoman thinks Obama was pres in 2008. Such is the right wing attempt to rewrite history. And BUSH dropped the criminal charges as his OWN reference stated

            So Obama wasn’t pres. Bush dropped the charges. Who does he blame?


          • Have another cookie with your warm milk. You need it. Maybe the sugar will help you to see better!

          • The best response you could possibly give, in the absence of facts to support your contention

          • Yes, but voter intimidation was never proven. No complaints were made by any voter. Please see the following for a good perspective:

            Also, I think that the ‘poll watchers’ sent out by the Republican party and groups like True The Vote intimidated many more voters than these ‘New Black Panthers”.

          • “voter intimidation was never proven.” Please tell me, WHY else would the Black Panther’s be hanging around voting polls? Would you make a complaint? Has it literally ever been proven that the sun is made up of the gases they say? Ever been there?

          • Dead people’s absentee ballots were submitted in Chicago. A Dem election official admitted it. (1000’s of votes cast by “her”) that is not counting fraud it is voting fraud.

          • It is not voter ID fraud since no voters presented ID’s. Kinda hard to present an ID when you’re dead.

          • Don’t have to on absentee ballots of dead people. It most certainly is voter fraud on the part of those who voted the absentee ballots. It was an election “official” in Chicago one of them that got caught and admitted to 1000’s of votes of dead people going to dems….

          • Sorry, but everyone of you talking points have been debunkied. They are just RW propoganda. And yes voter disenfranchisement has occurred and the biggest one was the Supreme Court giving Bush the Presidency.

          • Snopes is not credible. I have done my research, not in lib/dem/prog pc sites, but in original documents and studying the sources and research standards of any source.

          • Back at you. Everything you read or cite is only credible to you because it backs up your beliefs.

          • “They chose behaviors that were illegal.” To handsoff 1944 and 5elmllc from a centrist Republican, what I’m sure you’d call a “RINO”: So sorry that you evidently faced a “choice” sometime in adolescence — whether to be “gay” or “straight.” That is the only logical reason that you could have to say that gays choose their “behaviors.” I never had to make that choice; I just WAS straight. I think the large majority of gays just KNEW they were Gay, just as I knew I was straight. If you think you can choose your sexuality, then you must fall in the ambiguous middle, and so sorry you had to wrestle with that decision. But if you “chose” to be straight just for religious or political reasons when your tendency was otherwise — then perhaps the greater sin is the fraud perpetuated on your opposite-sex spouses. We do not know the divine or evolutionary reason why Gays exist. Makes no sense really, I suppose. But if you think the majority of Gays are not born that way — then you weren’t paying attention to the pre-K behaviors of your relatives who eventually came out as Gay. My cousin acted just as Gay as you could imagine beginning at around 4 years of age.

          • Sexual behavior is a choice. Acting on your “attractions” is a choice. Homosexuals “identify” themselves by a choice of attraction/sexuality, the LEAST important part of being human. Assert your sexual choices as rights equivalent to race is reprehensible, irrational.

          • Kids role play. Most grow out of “gender confusion” because they are not confused, they are assexual. There is no evidence that homosexuals are born that way but there is significant evidence that molestation, rape, pressure, and bad parenting have a lot to do with homosexuality.

            Behavior is always a choice. Just because you may be attracted to someone does not mean you ever have to engage in any particular sexual behavior.

            Everyone makes choices, to engage in sexual behavior or not.
            Some people feel no sexual desire for whatever reason, but it is always a choice to engage in or submit to that desire.

            Most of us try to control our selfish desires, regardless of whether they are sexual or other. Some people have desires for sex with children-they either control them or not. Rapists do not control their desires. Just because psychologists change their stance and definitions of once aberrant behaviors does not validate homosexuality. Calling it same sex attraction to take away the onus does not change or validate the behavior/actions. Calling pedophilia “attraction to minors” which was the recent vote to change the DSM to take away the onus of pedophilia, does not validate it or make it right or moral.
            Your definition of behavior is wrong. Actions/behaviors are choices, not “tendencies” or “predelictions”.

          • Two brothers — born 8 years apart. One played with trucks and rode his bicycle through the neighborhood with the other boys. The other boy, at around age 4, was dressing up in his mother’s heels and a feather boa and parading through the living room. These are my cousins, who are more like my little brothers. If you don’t think that this demonstrates a major discrepancy in orientation at an age that YOU call “asexual,” I think you have your own issues. And yes, behaviors are choices, but the urges behind our sexuality are, for whatever reason, hardwired in most cases. Ergo — huge failure rates with “conversion therapy.” And why would anyone voluntarily choose the tougher path if they had any other choice? Especially in the 20th century, when there was so much ostracism of homosexuals? Your online name says a lot — 71 years old, I presume, and want to tell the world “Hands Off.” You are right that “some people feel no sexual desire for whatever reason,” and that makes about as much sense from a divine OR evolutionary viewpoint as does homosexuality, But if your own sexual desire is one of those weak or nonexistent ones, explaining why everyone should be “handsoff” — perhaps you lack the empathy to understand a person with a normal sexual urge who happens to be attracted only to the same sex. I am sure that there are gays — especially lesbians — who were affected by “molestation, rape or pressure,” but the vast majority grew into adolescence with no clue as to why they didn’t feel attracted to the opposite sex. Even in 2015, their lives would be easier if they “could” be “straight.” I don’t know why you think that there is no evidence that homosexuals are born that way and that “rape…etc.” explains it all. (Oh — I guess you think SOME of them simply choose to be homosexual and to act on it just to be evil, corrupt or to make a political statement.) Autopsies on AIDS victims during the ’80s found evidence of some brain differences in some of the homosexuals. The social-issue litmus tests of the Republicans are dumbing-down the party, and putting the country at risk of having a liberal Democrat president for another 8 years.

          • Anecdotal. Not proof of anything. There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is biological. If it is, it is a terminal mutation, a defect.Not a mutation that has value for the species. Not something to constitute a race, or gender. Maybe disability, but that does not qualify homosexuality as a race or gender or special protections or a new right to government entitlements. Rights are inalienable. There is no right to marriage. If a right, it cannot be licensed or confered by SCOTUS.
            BTW pedophiles claim they were born that way also and psychology is busy trying to rename pedophilia as they did homosexuality to take away the onus. (They voted on this and passed it at one of their DSM conventions) Now they propose calling pedophilia “attraction to minors” and homosexuality “same sex attraction”
            There is no “deep roots” for SSM. The mere existence in history of all manner of sexual practice, not accepted or condoned as beneficial to stable or moral societies, does not justify the ruling of SCOTUS overriding the democratic process and the Constitutional right of States to make their own rules about marriage and family. A definition of marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman is solidly in evidence in millenia of history. There is no discrimination or violation of the 14th amendment. Homosexuality is not a race, or gender. They have equal protection of the laws.

          • Actually they’re not. Most of the poor have to take time off from work. Arrange for day care. Arrange for transportation

            To the right wing, used to screwing the poor, this is irrelevant because the real goal is a new poll tax.

          • A whole damn day from work!?! Take the kids with you!! I am the last person that wants a tax but with so much going on in this country and in the world right now I think it is extremely important that only legal registered voters be allowed to vote. I don’t think that is asking too much at all!!!

          • And voter ID laws are a solution looking for a problem. What they DO do is enforce a new poll tax…something the right has favored for year.

            And yes, ever go to the DMV? How much time does it take?

          • AHHH, the old “poll tax” argument! LOL! So, tell me, if voter ID cards were free, are you then in favor of them, to protect America from non-citizens that would love to see her destroyed?

          • They aren’t free. They are a govt imposed cost on people to restrict access to certain classes. The very DEFINITION of the age old effort of the right to impose poll taxes

            especially on ‘those’ people.

          • I have not registered in 25 yrs. I vote 1 absentee ballot, no id card required. I would support having to include a notarized statement that I am alive and of sound mind and proof of residence, which is sort of what I do anyway because it comes to my place of residence and is returned with my signature. Anybody already registered at a stable address can do this.
            I have friends who have had absentee ballots in 2 states simultaneously, who own property in 2 states and logically should be able to vote in the local elections that impact their property, but they are responsible and only vote one of them.
            I want to be sure that only responsible, sane, educated, US citizens vote. I am “poor” by federal definitions. I am not disenfranchised because of voter id or registration but I am by dem practices of gerrymandering to make Dem safe seats so I am “represented” by a low IQ corrupt technically female lib/prog/socialist that lies and cannot understand a dissenting viewpoint or even acknowledge one.

          • Motor voter in several states. What poll tax? How many “poor” are on welfare?-no problem getting to register to vote….

        • Every state has voter registration laws and that is ok and voter registration should be automatic for all citizens unless you opt out. For example, when you turn 18. But voter restriction laws are much different. Examples include, requiring something that you didn’t used to have to have in order to vote. Something that requires you to ‘buy’ or spend time and money on which works like a poll tax. Reducing the number of voting days and eliminating days that the other party seems to take more advantage of. Reducing the number of voting stations so lines are longer, etc. Voter suppression is a fundamental goal of the current day Republican party. Just google Paul Weyrich, a founding father of the conservative movement, and read about his thoughts on voting.

          And yes we do allow communist and socialist and RWinger’s to vote. It is not clear that liberalism is communism.

          Just ask youself, why is it that the Republican party doesn’t want people to vote?

          • There is absolutely nothing in the voter registration process that determines whether a voter is a legal American citizen or not. The state voter registration offices only ask for a driver’s license or another form of simple ID in order to be registered. Only an American Birth Certificate, American Passport, or Certified Naturalization Papers, prove that you are an American citizen and are thus allowed to vote in this country. A legal Voter Registration ID would have you provide a copy of your Birth Certificate, Passport, or Naturalization Papers to the Voter Registration Office and your photo would be taken for your ID. These are the exact things that are required in order to obtain an American Passport. At present there is absolutely no verifiable registration process and thus no voting is worth anything. The citizens of this country have been conned for years into believing that only citizens can vote. One big bunch of hogwash. How ignorant we are through years of brainwashing, lies, and deceit.

          • Are you saying that in order to vote you must have Birth Certificate? How would you know it was legit since the RW doesn’t think Obama’s is? As for a picture id, do you have to a new picture id every election year? You know you appearance changes; how would they know if it was you with a picture of you at 18. By the way, the evidence points to absentee ballots as where the potential for voter fraud is highest. Do Republicans ever support bills that would prevent this type of fraud. Not to my knowledge, Republicans just want to limit the number of votes from people who tend to vote for Democrats.

            But let’s get away from this and ask the question, name a national election that was determine by voter id fraud. Then ask yourself, if you needed 20,000 votes to turn a governor’s race, how would you go about getting 10 to 20,000 people to commit voter id fraud and do it without one person talking about it.

          • You do it by skewing the computers; by busing people from one polling place to another so they can vote numerous times; you do it be telling people who cannot speak English who to vote for, just to name a few. Didn’t you hear about all that stuff going on during the last two national elections? BHO’s birth certificate was deemed fraudulent by over 600 different computer experts. Why do you think he has locked up all his documentation? On one point I agree with you; that absentee ballots are the ones that need to be eliminated because they are so easy to forge. No one is trying to limit the number of votes from anyone, no matter which party they belong to. Come on….get real!!!

          • Gosh you have taken all this conspiracy theory stuff to heart. Do you really think that you can bus people from one polling place to another to vote multiply times without somebody catching on?

            But when you bring up the President’s birth certificate, you lose all credibility.

            But if all this ‘voter fraud’ stuff is going on, do you think it is only Democrats that are doing it?

            You know that the only reason the RW wants voter id’s and other restrictions is not to prevent voter fraud but to reduce the number of voters in areas that generally vote for Democrats. Remember Mike Turazi?

            “Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R) said that the voter ID law passed by the legislature would help deliver the state forMitt Romney in November.Jun 25, 2012”

          • I’ve seen it. Don’t care what a state legis says. Does not make it true. false nor a conspiracy theory.

          • While I wish the BC issue was definitive and there was some way to invalidate bo’s pres by it, there are better explanations for why the BC has errors/problems and even those dont prove he did it or that he was not born here.
            1. The alleged father’s name is not as listed. Barak was the spelling on the ins papers and his last name is not Obama-kenya useage had his last name as Odednaya (sp-I don’t care, it was just not Obama) and putting Sr requires a jr-our prez was listed as the II which usually means that the name is that of a beloved uncle not father. But proves nothing but stupidity.
            2. The date of the alleged father’s birth is wrong.
            3. The hospital is wrong, did not exist.
            4. # sequence is wrong by date.
            However, these errors do not mean he was not born in the US. He was adopted by Lolo Sotero when he was around 2. Usually, that means a new birth certificate is issued as though the original never existed. When his anti american mother got the adoption reversed when he was around ten, another birth certificate would have to be issued or the original “corrected” or created which would have accounted for the apparent “forgery”. Hawaii is not and was not known for its attention to detail and accurate record keeping. Anybody born anywhere can or at least used to be able to get an Hawaiian BC. Any case, there is no proof that he was born outside of the US and it is highly unlikely that a pregnant 17 yr old without her husband would have gone to or been allowed to go to Kenya (he the alleged husband-not a legal marriage) was back east and never lived with her nor saw or acknowledged his “son” until he was 10 yrs old. The laws of the time of bo’s birth give him natural born status anyway. The laws at the time of McCain’s birth did not make him a natural born citizen, but he was given retroactive status and yes it is suspicious that BO was the instrument as Senator of that proclamation. Tit for tat doncha know

          • I know if Florida, voter fraud was going on. Some counties had over 100%
            results from one county was 124% that number may not be exact, but close. regestered voters. How can you have over 100% in a precinct? that is just one don’t know how many more. and dead Republicans voting Democrat. Been told by some they voted 6 times at different precincts, if 10,000 voted 6 times I would call that fraud, what do you think?
            And they all voted for Obama because the free stuff, that is fraud give free stuff for votes.

          • Please not again. This ‘over 100%’ has been thoroughly debunked many times. Example:

            Claim: In St. Lucie County, FL, there were 175,574 registered eligible voters but 247,713 votes were cast.
            The National SEAL Museum, a polling location in St. Lucie County, FL had a 158% voter turnout.

            Explanation: “It’s simply not true that there were tens of thousands more votes cast than voters available in St. Lucie County. Whoever first started this falsehood misread a St. Lucie election board document showing that 249,095 “cards” were cast, and registered voters totaled 175,554.

            But the supervisor of elections website explains that a “card” is one page, and the full “ballot” contained two pages. Total cards are not double the number of voters, as not every voter cast both pages (or “cards”).”

            “…same mistake with “cards” versus “ballots” in claiming that one St. Lucie County polling location, the National SEAL Museum, had a “158% voter turnout.” Not true. Of the jurisdiction’s 2,756 registered voters, 2,243 votes were cast, according to theSupervisor of Elections’ official results. A total of 4,469 “cards” were cast of the two-page ballot. Obama, by the way, got 33.62 percent of the vote at that polling location.”


          • Well I stand corrected, if that is for sure, I was watching and it was over 100% of regestered voters. Haven’t done any factcheck, excuse me.

          • Chicago election official finally admitted that she voted the absentee ballots of 1000’s of dead people and commited voter fraud. Chicago is infamous for voter fraud-it is how JFK got elected and provided substantial votes for BO.
            They did talk about it, dems just got away with it they always do. How many people were intimidated into voting for BO or prevented from voting by the New black Panthers illegal activities? But of course Dems and Soros money prevented conviction.

          • Loretta Sanchez in OC CA. I saw it. JFK, open secret. Illegals don’t talk. frauds don’t talk.
            Dems just want illegals to vote because they can con them into voting Dem.

          • You just stated above, regerstration process to detrmine whether a voter is a legal American CITIZEN. Now at the end with one big bunch of hogwash, brainwashing, lies and deceit citzens have been conned into believing only CITIZENS can VOTE”. What a bunch of double talk and hogwash.

          • I have witnessed registration and voter fraud. It is how Sanchez got elected (she changed her name to Sanchez to appeal to illegals). JFK got elected by dead voters (Chicago politics has thrived on voter fraud).
            Illegals have been allowed to vote with false ID (driver’s licenses that did not belong to them) . That is just what I know for a fact, having seen illegals “registered” at addresses that did not exist.
            What you state as fact, is not and not a Repub policy. Paul Weyrich does not have the authority to speak for all conservatives even if your allegations are true, which I am sure are not, though I, well informed have never heard of him. I know however from 1st hand knowledge, that Acorn, a Soros funded “project” used paid felons and non productive questionable maybe non citizens to “register” voters in CO with false names, false addresses, no evidence of any citizenship.
            What is clear about liberal/prog/dems is that they do not support the Constitution’s clear attempt to limit government to prevent bad philosophies like lib/prog/socialist/communist from usurping liberty FROM governmental tyranny.
            Just ask yourself, why is it the Dem party needs to lie and vilify anyone who acknowledges problems with dead and illegals voting?

          • Liberals go on evidence. the right goes on anecdotes and fairy tales.

            The data shows there’s virtually no voter ID fraud. In TX in 10 years they had 2 cases. Here in PA we had 0.

            So the right says we should disenfranchise blacks…as W F Buckley said in 1957…under the guise of solving a problem that doesn’t exist

            WHere’s the data? Why is the right pushing to make it HARDER to vote?

            And the right panics calling anything they don’t like ‘communist’. It’s a form of Godwin’s law

          • Libs go on “evidence?” Hardly. You are prime example -no evidence that right wants to disenfranchise blacks.
            Nobody on the right wants to disenfranchise Blacks. I want illegals not to be able to vote, or felons who have been stripped of their rights or prisoners, or mental patients or dead people. The data exists. I am an eyewitness to some of it and there is at least 1 convicted election official that voted all by herself for dems 1000’s of absentee ballots that got counted.
            It should not be easy for non citizens, felons, to vote and more than once. Requiring 3 wks pre registration and valid id proving citizeneship that can be checked for eligibility to vote (no felony convictions that disenfranchised) is not unreasonable, nor is showing valid id even though that is not checked adequately for belonging to the person submitting the id. Lots of illegals have valid id in CA and the motor voter law automatically registers them to vote.
            3 wks prior registration and background checks would be MY minimum for voting in Federal elections. Incarcerated felons should not be able to vote or register, mental patients should not, dead people should not, nor alzheimer’s victims or comatose nor illegals.
            I would also recommend all new registrants to pass background checks and basic civics tests. But , id checks and prior registration is the minimum

          • You do know that ACORN doesn’t exist now and that they didn’t register anyone. They collected registration applications and turned them over to the Board of Elections or the official office that does register voters. ACORN and other groups that did take applications were by law required to hand in all applications. It was not up the worker to determine it the application was legitimate. If did conspire to make up applications and turn them in it was probably to make money not voter fraud. How many fraudulent applications were registered and then how many voted was probably very low. For a better take on it:

            And finding Paul Weyrich who co-founded the Heritage Foundation see:



            Even if there were 100,000 of illegally register voters ‘false names, id, addresses, etc” how are you going to actually cast their ballots?

          • No, we don’t know that the did not register anyone. We do know that ACORN employees just moved. The workers are still doing the same things they did while with ACORN.

          • They couldn’t register anyone, they don’t have the authority to do that. And they moved? To where?

          • Acorn Facilitated the registration of Democrat voters. Many former Acorn workers including their leader, now belong to Action United.

          • Whats wrong with registering voters? What’s wrong with people finding jobs or creating them when the organization they were working for had to fold because of the lies the RW told about them?

          • Acorn does, in fact, still exist…they simply went underground, broke into smaller groups, changed their name to many other names, and continue to operate out of the public eye.

          • No ACORN does not exist. There are other organizations that were established after ACORN was unjustly broken up but they are doing there own thing. And they are not ‘underground’.

            A bigger question is what is wrong about an organization getting voters to fill out voter registration forms? Don’t we want people to participate in our political process?

            And why did the RW go after after an organization that was working to advance poor people’s participation? It is interesting that RW had no qualms using lies, innuendos and falsified videos to accomplish this end. In the end, even the truth couldn’t bring justice to ACORN. In fact “Four different independent investigations by various state and city Attorneys General and the GAO released in 2009 and 2010 cleared ACORN, finding its employees had not engaged in the alleged criminal activities and that the organization had managed its federal funding appropriately. Their reports described the videos as deceptively edited to present the workers in the worst possible light.”

          • All the ones I saw operating as Acorn were felons, illiterates, on parole or probation, on drugs, any or all of the above. How many of the alleged independent investigations were by dem political hacks or Soros paid.

          • I saw it. Acorn registered lots of people. They had a chapter office next to mine some years ago and they were closed for illegal activities. Just because they got caught and that they were funded by Soros and encouraged to make stuff up, how do you know how many apps got rejected? Whether or not, I saw illegals with illegal registrations vote in my CA precinct. It is how that name changing to gain hispanic votes Sanchez got to be in a gerrymandered safe Dem district in conservative OC.

          • Acorn never registered anyone. They turn in applications and the state (usually) officials in charge of entering these applications are the ones that register people.

            And gosh how many Republicans are in gerrymandered safe republican districts? Especially after 2010.

          • In my state, the gerrymandering made safe districts for Dems. Can’t change it, not even after 2010, because congress repres. cannot gerrymander state boundaries. State legislatures do.

          • It has been done by “election officials” and individuals who use the absentee ballots of others. And illegals vote with their stolen ids and false registrations. Dems are famous for trucking illegals to polling places to vote the false registrations or even good registrations. I have seen stolen ids used to vote.

          • Answer the question of how ACORN registered anyone since it is the up to the ‘election officials’. Have any proof that these ‘election officials’ registered people for ACORN who shouldn’t have been registered? If so, how many of them voted?

            If you saw stolen ids used to vote, did you stop them from voting, have them arrested for voter fraud? I bet not.

            And you know the “Dems are famous for trucking illegals to polling places to vote the false registrations or even good registrations.” is only a RW talking point.

            But you never have responded to the actual voter suppression tactics that the RW uses because the RW doesn’t want everyone who is eligible to vote.

          • Not my job. I was not an election official because the dems controlled the precinct. I protested, pointed out the problems-I was told, shut up, you cannot look at the register, which was stupid because I had to sign the register and just the open page had at least 40 spanish names with false addresses. I knew my neighborhood well.
            Your “questions” prove nothing-

          • Don’t know where you got the idia Republicans don’t want people to vote?
            Oblowhard and Eric Holder says everyone should vote and don’t need an
            I D, or even a voter registration card. Just go vote as many times as you want/can as long as you vote for a Democrate.
            That stuff you listed as an example, is nothing but HOG WASH. No need to buy something no one is restricted unless they have a criminal record or no I D, You have to have an I D to get your fod stamps, s I suppose that is a restriction as wll??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Please see the following from a co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and many other Conservative groups:


            And –

            Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R) said that the voter ID law passed by the legislature would help deliver the state forMitt Romney in November.Jun 25, 2012

            Voter ID laws for Republicans are just to reduce the number of voters who usually vote Democratic.

      • As Christians, we recognize that the Bible clearly condemns sodomy. That’s probably because it involves human fecal matter coming into contact with as skin, which is always unsanitary. Plus, the human rectum is not properly suited to be pumped with a male protrusion. So when our Christian children ask us, “What’s gay marriage?”, we don’t like having to explain that certain parts of our society ignore common sense and instead engage in the dangerous practice of sodomy. Why do we not like having to explain this? Because we don’t like talking about our neighbors and co workers in a way that makes them appear stupid. I mean every 5-year old kid has been taught not to touch feces. To them, its like, “duh, how could people be so dumb?” So then, the PC force says we should talk about it as “love”, which is crazy since love and feces don’t ever go together. Imagine aa loving husband rubbing his feces on his wife’s chest: we would say he was crazy. So what have we lost? A clean, sane society, where only fringe elements engage in wicked behavior. Now, more and more people do wicked things, and are trying to normalize them. But as believers, we will have to call a spaid a spaid: wicked people do wicked things, but let’s tell them, in love, to repent of their sins and be saved. Sodomy is sin and always will be. BTW, Hoganda, would you like to repent and be born again and dedicate your life to Jesus? He accepts all who repent and call on his name. Please consider this.

        • How do you know I haven’t repented of whatever you are accusing me of without knowing me. Actually, since God make all of us and that Jesus never felt the need to ‘cure’ any gay people, I think I’m on the right side of what I consider being Christian.

          And I guess no true blue Christian heterosexual male every tried the back door with his wife, right?

          And what is this obsession with fecal matter.

          Love between two people is much more than what they do with their private parts. And when you explain marriage to your kids is sex the only thing you tell them about?

          • Homosexuality was a practice among pagans (Romans were) Christ came to the Jews, who did not practice homosexuality. He did however, emphasize the man/woman marriage relationship and its symbolism for the relationship between God and His people (those who believed in Him) Homosexuality was not specifically called out by Him, but it was understood by His followers that they were to cast off the practices of the gentiles (pagans) which were characterized by sexual licentiousness.
            Homosexuals emphasize the sexual and identify themselves as SS attraction. There is NO such sexual identity for anyone else. Non homosexuals don’t push their sexuality or practices as lifestyles.
            Anyone who engages in sodomy is risking their health and the health of their partner. Nothing to brag about or assert as natural. Consenting adults-whatever, but does not make it right or for public display, nor is anyone required to approve just because people publicly announce and demand such approval as a constitutional “right”.
            What you consider Christian is of no matter. Christianity stands or falls on the belief in the birth, death and ressurection of Christ for the remission and payment for the sins of the world, that whoever believes in Christ, shall have everlasting life and the forgiveness of sins, whoever rests in the Lord will be saved.
            You are not “on the right side” in your self serving, irrational, illogical narcissistic defense of sin.

          • I’m just not on you side of what you think Christianity is. And wasn’t Jesus a Jew? I don’t think he ‘came’ to the Jews. Sorry, but all groups of people have members who ‘practice’ homosexuality, even Jews.

          • You obviously do not know what Christianity is. Jesus said he came as the Messiah of the Jews, that He came to fulfill Jewish prophecy and bring salvation. When the Jewish leadership rejected Him, He said that salvation/eternal life was extended to the Gentiles. Homosexuality was not a practice at that time of the Jews. It was the major sexual practice of pagans (Gentiles/non jews and esp the Romans). When Jesus was speaking to the Jews about His Gift, He spoke of the marriage relationship between 1 man 1 woman and as a symbol of God’s relationship with HIS people. When Gentiles believed in Him, they had not the cultural traditions of knowledge of sin and righteousness and needed to be “educated” in the dangers of sexual promiscuity as commonly practiced via homosexuality and why it was an abomination to God, because the base lusts prevented a relationship with God, narcissism prevents a relationship with or undertanding of God’s purposes for our lives. It is not the only sin but the major one as practiced by non jews. It was a sin then and still a sin, no matter the licentious promiscuous practice of homosexuality in any group.

        • And yet the bible never told people to build toilets away from water supplies. A fact that took another 22 centuries to discover. God was concerned about rear ends more than clean drinking water, it seems. A fact that killed tens of millions over the centuries.

          And 20% of we straights do ‘sodomy’ as well.

          But tell us again how god is worried about the bedroom. Drinking water not so much

          • LOL! Bring all the people in the world together and they would fit inside the panhandle of Florida without touching one another. DO THE MATH! Now with humans covering such a small portion of the earths water supply, I don’t think 5000 years of poop filling the water supply will cause any damage. Considering the earth is a natural septic tank that rapidly degrades such matter! Back to science 101!

          • I didn’t say the earth’s supply. I said drinking water. If you think contaminated drinking water didn’t kill people, you have alot to learn about history

            No surprise for a right winger.

          • Don’t quite think poop is the issue. Man chose to dump his garbage in the water supply, rather than bury it. To much work. It is man that has failed God, not God man. Now again, have yet another cookie!

          • God kinda forgot, in his obsession with buns, to tell folks about water. That killed millions. Ever hear of typhoid fever?

            No, I suppose not. You right wingers probably still think disease is caused by demons

          • You continue to blame the chosen ignorance of man, man’s rebellion, on God. What has God ever done to you that has made you so angry with Him?

          • Again, not God’s fault. He gave sound sanitary and scientific guidance to Jews, which was available to all. Not HIS fault. God gave reason. Primitive people knew better than to dump feces in water. Even the Romans knew better. Man’s ignorance and refusal to listen to God if only through the clues contained in nature, cannot be laid on God.

          • You undermine your argument. 10’s of millions dying because of lack of sanitation cannot be laid at the door of God, Jews understood proper sanitation without the modern invention of sewer systems and toilets. They did not need to be told. They had the kosher laws to guide them and keep them safe. Jews historically kept themselves apart because the pagans were not sanitary. Jews historically were exempt from plagues, many diseases and historically did not practice sodomy or homosexuality.
            Clearly you do not understand why Jews were given guide laws to protect their health and set them apart from the disease ridden pagans.

        • I should have also asked, if two men who are gay don’t practice sodomy can they get married? Since women don’t practice sodomy, can they get married?

          • Marriage is not a constitutional right. It is naturally between 1man and 1 woman, always has been. Homosexuality cannot engage in marriage which is not primarily for sexual license. Historically lesbianism was not “practiced” or not acknowledged as prevalent or even possible.

          • Nope, if the comment uses sodomy as the reason against gay marriage then the arguments are not false. You just don’t want to answer the questions.

      • They gained the usurption of the democratic process, they gained the death of liberty against the government. Christians, not muslims, lost their free exercise of religion and their right to dissent. The opinion made that clear, as it did the government now is the giver and denier of rights, instead of rights being inalienable and the protections of the Constitution preventing the tyranny of government against the people.
        Your opinion is not fact. The tone and style of the 5 was not legal and stands in stark contrast to the legal, coherent dissents. Judicial activism is NOT the role of SCOTUS. You clearly ignore the lessons of Dred Scot, Lochner era et al. SCOTUS was supposed to be the last resort to protect individuals from government overreach and tyranny, not the unelected agent of government tyranny via social change.

        • What are you talking about? Christian lost their free exercise of religion and their right to dissent? Judicial activism is what I call the Hobby Lobby, Citizens United, the gutting of the Voting rights acts and today decision on the EPA. As Colbert said ‘It’s hard to believe that gay Americans achieved full constitutional personhood just 5 years after corporations did’.

          By the way, what can’t you do today that you could do a month ago? What have you lost? Some people have gained something that’s all.

          • You miss all the points I made, obviously deliberately in your illogical quest to make this decision something it is not. It is not a constitutional victory. Colbert has not the legal chops or comedic skills to make that false equivalence valid. If decisions on corporations are judicial activism that does not make this decision of judical legislation valid, logical, or constitutional. It negates the argument. Homosexuality and SSM are NOT constitutional by that or any other argument.
            Homosexuals are not a race-choice of sexual behaviors does not deserve or equate to race. Sexual behavior as asserted by homosexuals does not have anything whatever to do with personhood under the Constitution. Marriage is not a right that SCOTUS can grant. If a license is required it is not a right, it is a government entitlement. Marriage has nothing to do with the Constitution by any stretch.
            The clear implication of the decision is that churches and Christians have to be silent in the public square and confine their beliefs to church and home. The free exercise of religion, dissent, and free association is hindered if not yet crushed.

          • What BS. Affording two people the right to marry and to have the same legal standing as two other people who are married is a right. If you don’t like it that is ok.

            And so far I haven’t nor will we see any evidence of Christians having to be silent in the public square. Christians do not have to confine their beliefs to church and home although Christ did say to do you praying in private. And nothing about this hinders Christians from religion, dissent and free association.

          • According to the decision, yes only in church or home can Christians dissent. It will be used to vilify Christians, just not muslims. And you are wrong about prayer. The admonition was against making a show hypocritically of praying in public. “look at me-I’m praying!! I must be better than everybody!! Muslims make a show of prayer 5x a day in public. Christians are/were already forbidden the same public access as atheists and wiccans and muslims in universities and public schools, not to mention the SCOTUS school prayer decision.
            There is no right to marry. If a license is required, there is no right. Government should get out of the marriage business. SCOTUS has confered no right to marriage. They created a right unconstitutionally to government entitlements which is the opposite of the Bill of Rights for the individual-rights FROM government imposition/tyranny.
            Homosexuals don’t get to assert their sexual choices as a right. They have the same legal standing as humans, as citizens. Choice of sexual behavior does not get to be a constitutional right. Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor implied.
            I really don’t care what homosexuals do or claim as long as I am not forced to approve and the Constitution is not twisted to validate their behavior and choices and give them “rights” that undermine liberty. This decision has ramifications that do undermine liberty esp the 1st amendment. It changes the role of government in private lives, as did bocare. Now, instead of being limited, and rights inalienable and not for government to decide, now government is the source of rights and can and will continue to infringe them.

      • Marriage was a rite between man, woman, synagogue, church etc. Then the government stepped in and required a “license” (permit) to control marriage. Now the government in guise of Supreme Court has determined that this rite should also include man/man, woman/woman, whatever…calling a rite a right is not necessarily “right.”

        • Sorry but the church can still define marriage any way they want. The only thing the court has said is that people who marry have the same legal rights regardless of their gender. Remember that for many decades when a man and a woman married, they were afforded certain rights that even single folks didn’t have. This ruling just says that when two people who love each other marry, they have the same rights as anyone regardless of their gender.

          • Then what does the ruling say? Here’s what the Guardian said: “Same-sex marriages are now legal across the entirety of the United States after a historic supreme court ruling that declared attempts by conservative states to ban them unconstitutional.”

            The ruling doesn’t impact Churches, Religions, Priests, Rabbis, etc to do anything they couldn’t do a month ago.

      • I see. Never mind that what “some people gained” is something that is totally against the laws of God; who will have His say about this matter at the appropriate time…and you can take that to the bank.

        • Really, and which God is that? The one that allowed incest? The one that allow so many of the men in the bible to have multiple wives and concubines? The one that required a woman to marry her rapist? The one that allowed folks to go to their neighboring country and kill all the men and all the women who were not virgins and bring back the virgin women for themselves? The one that allowed a father to hire someone to rape his daughter and then marry her? Really, this God?

          • Incest is taboo in the Jewish law and tradition from the beginning of the Law handed down through Moses. Polygamy was not the rule in Jewish religion. A woman was not required to marry her rapist. The rapist was required to make reparations and marriage was encouraged.
            You are attributing facts of history to actual laws, which they are not. You fail to understand either the Jewish laws and their purpose and how and why Christianity cannot be slandered with your misunderstanding.
            Your statement “i’m on the right side of Christianity” is patently false and frivolous and you prove that nothing you say is credible, logical, rational.

          • Incest is taboo in the Bible. I have studied it for 30 yrs in the original languages even. You have bad info.

          • Really, the only way mankind grew was because of incestual relationships between the children of Adam and Eve. And God must have approved.

          • Supposition on your part. It certainly was not a law.
            When the law was handed down to Moses, it contained a clear ban against incest.

          • No, this is the Bible. You just will not admit it. If you believe we came from Adam and Eve, then we came from incestual activities. Sorry if you can’t admit this but it is true, right?

          • No it is not true. You cannot know the mind of God or how He formed man. The truth is when God spoke to man, He handed down laws one of which is do not commit incest.

          • Adam and Eve is not true then? If we can’t know how God formed man then Adam and Eve is unknowable and the Bible is not to be taken literally, right?

          • The Bible is the Word of God. How you define literally or anything else is of no concern to me. You don’t have a clue about meanings, words, logic, reason or anything spiritual especially Christianity. God formed Adam and Eve, He could have revealed that as allegory or symbol. He could have made more pairings. He could have made the initial creation to contain all the necessary genes and/or created a process to prevent any “damage” with close relation pairings. With healthy individuals, even today, 1st generation offspring of 1/2 sister/brother pairings, and/or 1st cousins are not necessarily defective except for some increase in asthma. In any case, “sin, evil” disease did not enter Creation until God was disobeyed and all God’s children were expelled from the Garden of Eden where they lived in perfect health and love. Incest is sin/disobedience to God and results in serious degradation of physical health, size and intelligence as evidenced by Egyptian pharoahs remains and other degradations in “monarchies” who were limited to cousins and serious interbreeding. (hemophilia is one of the so-called incest defects most common)
            Literal means written. Kennedy and the other 4 do not take the Constitution literally-they make stuff up, out of their own personal values. There are 6 Catholics on the current bench. Kennedy and Sotomayor voted for ssm. The other 4 did not.

          • So you are now interperting the Bible, right? But I thougt the Bible was to be taken literaly and strictly just like you wan the Supreme Court to do, right? But if you can interpert the Bible, then I can as well. Why is you interpertation better, more correct than mine?

          • Because you cannot read or understand and I was not interpreting anything but trying to explain that you do not understand. I interpreted nothing. You cannot interpret what you cannot and do not understand.
            The Constitution does not get to be twisted out of the original clear documented meaning by a committee of unelected self proclaimed aristocrats. The Bill of rights was for individual rights protected from the government, not rights conferred by government. The 14th amendment was for the extension of the Bill of Rights to freed slaves and “minority races”. Homosexuality is not a race. Marriage is not a right

          • “The Constitution does not get to be twisted out of the original clear documented meaning by a committee of unelected self proclaimed aristocrats.” Are you making this statement because you don’t agree with the ‘Marriage Equality’ ruling? The Supreme Court has been interpeting the Constitution since it’s first ruling in 1791. Do you disagree with all of them or that is it that when you agree, the Supreme’s interpeted the case by the constitution but when you disagree, they were ‘activtivst judges? What about Hobby Lobby where corporations are given ‘religious rights’. Or Citizens United where Corporations are given ‘individual personal rights’. ‘Corporations are people’ you know. What about Brown v Board of Education or Loving v Virginia? Plessy v Fergusion? Do you agree with the interpetation in these cases?

            And yes you are interpeting the Bible to advance your own beliefs and disregarding those things in the Bible that contridict your beliefs. The Bible which was written by men, translated by men and interpeted by men continues to be so.

          • Who are YOU to tell me what I believe and what the Bible is? You are obviously NOT a scholar of anything and cannot understand plain meaning. The Bible is not at issue here. The Founder’s clear intent to make free exercise of religion a priority and a preeminent right is being undermined. If you knew anything about the Founding, you would recognize this instead of your baseless bias against religion and the values and morals honored by the Founders in the Dec of Ind and the Constitution which was designed to implement the religious, moral values of the Dec and to prevent the government from becoming the tyrant it has become.
            You advance your shallow, uneducated, confused illogical beliefs as fact when plainly they are contradicted by actual evidence.
            This decision and the bocare decisions are not constitutionally based and defy concepts of judicial restraint and plain meanings. Brown vs the Br of ed was a reversal of a previous decision. Neither one was based on legal or constitutional reasoning, but separate but equal clearly was not true nor constitutional. Brown voided that concept. That was not judicial activism. Roe v Wade was.

          • Do you think the US was founded as a Christian Nation?

            What kind of tyrant do you think the Government as become. What can’t you do today that you could do a month ago?

          • I could not dissent without getting sued a month ago. Now they made it “legal” to sue me. SCOTUS ominously left out the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech when they said you can still teach in your churches and at home. I can no longer petition my state government and vote on issues of law and conscience – my right to self governance has been abrogated by SCOTUS going outside the rules in deciding not the case before them but a sweeping preemption of the right of the people of the state to decide.

          • What are talking about? You can’t dissent (hold or express opinions that are at variance with those previously, commonly, or officially expressed.) from what? And how can you be sued for that ‘dissent’. Made it legal to sue you for what? Of course you can petition your state government and vote on issues of law and conscience whatever they are. You’ve never had the right of self governance.

          • The Constitution is founded on the idea of self governance. You are completely ignorant to say otherwise. That right is fundamental to the Constitution. There are enumerated powers maybe 18 of them All the rest are reserved by the Constitution to the People, through the States. Our right to pass laws restricting marriage to 1man, 1 woman has been voided by 5 unelected, lib/dem “aristocrats” who are NOT representative of the pop in general.
            How about the gag order on the Christian bakers from Oregon? Homosexuals now think they are free from dissent and have the legal right to demand no dissent or refusal of whatever they want. Christians cannot refuse to make custom wedding cakes for homosexuals without getting sued. In Denver, a baker refused to contract with a homosexual on religious grounds. The homosexuals sued and won. The baker appealed. The homosexuals and the whiny narcissist illogical “advocate” claimed if the baker won on grounds of religious freedom that hospitals would refuse to treat the child of a homosexual couple and bus drivers will refuse transport for working women on religious grounds of women should not work outside the home among other pathetically illogical patently frivolous what ifs.
            You cannot read or comprehend-you ignored what I said and just reiterated your patently frivolous and illogical irrational non points.

          • First of all, I haven’t ignored anything you’ve said but have replied to most of them point for point.

            And, ‘We the people…’ may have the right of ‘self governance’ but not you individually. This is a group thing not an individual one.

            There is no gag order on the bakers for Oregon. As long as they obey Oregon’s laws affecting businesses, they are ok. They can personally scream and yell anything they want but not in the context of doing business to the public. These are Oregon’s laws by the way.

            You cannot pass laws that discriminated against a group of people just because you don’t like them.

            It is not that Christians cannot refuse to ‘bake a cake’, it is that a business cannot refuse if they serve the public.

            This is what ‘We the people…’ mean. We have decided that businesses cannot discriminate against people just because of the race, creed, religion, etc., etc.

            You don’t have to like it, you can dissent all you want.

            And marriage equality has the support of the majority of Americans. So if the decision was based on the majority of Americans then the Justices got it right.

            You say these five justices don’t represent the population in general, really? Here’s how it breaks down: Three Women and Two Men and since there are more women in the US than men, this looks ok. They are all white except for one Hispanic which is better an all white court which it was for our history until 1967. Two are Catholic and 3 are Jewish or as close to a Judo-Christian Court as I’ve seen. I’ll agree that they are not as representative as perhaps they should be since there are no justices who are Muslim or Atheist or Agnostic or Baptist or Methodist, etc but only Catholics and Jews.

            And the one thing we as Americans should never do is put the rights of people up for a vote.

            But you never ever answer the question – what is it that you (as individual) can’t do today that you could do a month ago?

          • Mincing words and very shallow, specious and spurious. You clearly do not understand what Individual liberty means. It is NOT a “group” thing. It is individuals who have the right to self governance. When a majority of individuals vote on an issue in their states, that is democracy in practice. It is individuals who get to act. It is individuals who consent to be governed. What this decision did is undermine the right of the PEOPLe as individuals to act by their conscience in their daily lives, business or otherwise and to vote individually on the issues that concern them in the States. The Constitution gives the fed gov certain powers, about 18 of them. The rest are reserved for the PEOPLe through the democratic process in the states.
            You have ignored most if not all my points and reverted to your uninformed, irrelevant, illogical confused ideology.

          • Sorry, but if you take a vote the majority of Americans are for marriage equality. Isn’t that ‘We the people’?

            I have not ignored any of your points but have addressed them. And by the way, the Federal Government is ‘We the people..’ And ‘ We the peope…’ think that they are some things that are true across all of the United States. If you don’t agree, then that is ok but you are still bound by them.

            Individuals do not have an absolute right to act by their conscience in their daily lives, business or otherwise. They could and still can vote individually on the issues that concern them in the State. But some things they might vote for are considered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. You can vote to enslave people if you want but even if passed, it will not be constitutional. You cannot do everything you want to do in business either. The Federal Government has the right to regulate commerce.

            And when you say ‘individuals consent to be governed’ is that only for the things you like? I don’t like the fact that in some states it is still ok for a business to fire a gay person just because they are gay. I hope the Supreme Court declares this unconstitutional but until then, I can rally, dissent, etc against it but businesses can still do it.

            You talk about the democratic process but don’t seem to want to abide by decisions within that process.

          • Yes, people are for marriage equality. Problem is, we already had marriage equality. No different than the claim that Americans are for gun control, which they are, but meaning MORE gun control, which they aren’t.

          • Again, don’t like opinions that don’t comport with yours, right? Even though they use facts.

          • Yours are opinions that are not supported by facts, but rather misrepresentations of facts. Figures do not lie, but liars figure.

          • And what misrepresentations of facts have I made? And is a troll someone who doesn’t believe your opinions?

            And what have you added to the conversation other than insults.

          • You maybe want gun control but since there are over 300 mill LEGAL guns in the hands of 1/2 the hseholds in the US, you are wrong that “people” want gun control, a few maybe, but that is a right guaranteed by the Constitution that you cannot infringe.
            There is no such thing as “marriage equality” unless you mean women have or should have equal rights to property, children and laws, when married to a man.

          • “but that is a right guaranteed by the Constitution that you cannot infringe.” Of course we can ‘infringe’. No Constitutional right is absolute and never has been. But people do want gun control. At last count around 50% plus or minus a few percentage point do want stricter gun control. That would be around 160 million people.

            Marriage equality is that we treat all married couples the same under the law. That means gay couples and others.

          • The Bill of Rights was INTENDED to be a guarantee of rights that the Government could not INFRINGE. The 1st and 2nd amendment even say that.
            All Constitutional RIGHTS are absolute and always have been.
            You deny the majority the right to decide in their respective states the def of marriage but your ASSumption that a majority want gun control is supposed to happen?
            You are not just contradicting your own positions and “theories” you are clearly illogical, irrational and someone who does not respect the Founding and lies about it.

          • Oh yes he does. The CRA is not constitutional rights. That is what is not absolute. Our Bill of Rights are inalienable and the government cannot infringe them.

          • No, here are a few area where Scalia thinks that gun ownership could be constrained:

            1) limits the type of weapon;

            2) concealed weapons prohibitions;

            3) prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill;

            4) forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings;

            5) laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms;


          • Daily Koss is not authoritative-and if that is the best you can do, minor quibbles about arms, you have no case. The right of the people to bear arms cannot be infringed. The free exercise of religion is paramount and cannot be abridged or restricted.
            Constitutional rights are natural rights, not subject to government control, interdiction, infringement. Read the Framers. Get an education in the real meanings and intent.

          • No, he doesn’t. On Fox in 2012, “back in July, when he was promoting a new book, Scalia told Fox News that the Second Amendment “undoubtedly” permits some restrictions on firearms.

            In the Heller case, Scalia wrote: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

          • I was talking about 1st amendment primarily . Regardless of what you think Scalia thinks, Constitutional rights are absolute and the government cannot abridge them. Just because felons and lunatics are not allowed to own firearms does not mean that constitutional rights are NOT absolute. They are, for citizens. Felons and lunatics lose some of their constitutional rights. Learn to read.

          • Sure you were talking about the 1st amendment primarily when you said “All Constitutional RIGHTS are absolute and always have been”.

            And by the way, the 1st amendment is not absolute either.

          • Yes it is. The whole Bill of Rights was to double insure that natural INALIENABLE rights could not be infringed in any way by government. The Constitution was designed to insure that. The Bill of Rights was pushed by framers after the signing of the Constitution, because they wanted to make doubly sure that fallible corruptible men in positions to seize unauthorized power would be constrained further.

            You don’t know what your rights and LIBERTIES, are. How can you possibly know when they are being infringed? YOU can’t. You cannot even read and understand that what you seize as “proof” is, in context of history and qualifying clauses, means the opposite of what you want to believe. Every post reveals your complete lack of knowledge, logic, rationality, comprehension and values. The Constitution was designed for the utmost liberty and rights for a FREE, MORAL and RELIGIOUS people. It is suited to no other. It was founded on principles and worldview of Christianity, upon which the people agreed as the only guide to insure maximum freedom of religion (the primary right, the primary property right) liberty and justice for all. Twisting any of that to suit your agenda of crushing all morality and dissent and Christianity (degrading, dismissing and insulting the deeply held faith of Christians in the name of false “rights” for a sexual preference, is revealing of your and all like “minded”(if that is the word to describe the lack of reason evinced) rejection of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the values of the Founders. Whether you will admit it or not, you are attempting to destroy everything that the Founders intended and what made this country not perfect, but more perfect and perfectable than any that had gone before. Christian principles did that-religious freedom did that. The further we get from the values of the Founders, the further we get from the absolute, inalienable rights of the Bill of Rights, the further we get to making 9 unelected our Masters in violation of the clear intent of the role of SCOTUS , the further we get to abdicating our rights and liberties to the unauthorized seizure of power by a POTUS and/or Congress, the closer we come to the mire we were struggling in prior to the Dec of Indep, the revolution, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights.

          • “The Constitution was designed for the utmost liberty and rights for a FREE, MORAL and RELIGIOUS people. ”

            No, it was designed for the utmost liberty and rights for those of us who live here whether we are moral or religious.

            “It was founded on principles and worldview of Christianity, upon which the people agreed as the only guide to insure maximum freedom of religion (the primary right, the primary property right) liberty and justice for all.” This is nonsense that “people agree that Christianity is the only guide…”

            So property is the primary right? As in slaves?

            But you just go on and on and it reminds me of the statement “…full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

          • You get to determine that John Adams, George Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Story, Mason did NOT MEAN WHAT they wrote?
            Shakespeare you are not, and knowledgable you are NOT. Did you even notice that I quoted a seminal founder? Are you really trying to deny the clear evidence of the attitudes, beliefs and written words of the Founders?

          • The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite…. And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and
            which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as
            eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God(“John Adams to…,” n.d., emp. added).

          • Father of American Jurisprudence, Joseph Story, succinctly explained in his comments on the wording of the First Amendment to the Constitution:
            The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution (1833, 3.44.728.1871, emp. added).

          • Joseph Story might be the ‘Father of Conservative Christian American Jurisprudence’ but “Historians agree that Justice Joseph Story reshaped American law—as much or more than Marshall or anyone else—in a conservative direction that protected property rights.”

          • So what? Individual property rights and individuals most important property are their rights to speech, person, conscience, religious liberty. Madison wrote that. What Story wrote was the accurate understanding of the time and attitudes of the citizens and the seminal founders when the Constitution was framed and voted on and when the Bill of Rights was incorporated, to further protect the individual liberty from any government interference.
            You cannot accept that your bias against the truth of the founding and the Christian foundation is clear.y wrong and that you have no basis for your claims to a godless, secular reading of the Constitution. You can only partially understand what atheists claim. You cannot accept that your poor sources are not accurate nor even researchers, that they are liars, biased, and do not know how to do o.bjective historical research.

          • He did not “reshape” law. He confirmed the intentions of the Founders and used their words and logic, esp Madison’s to determine the law, not to distort or change it as happened in the Lochner era, which was reversed by subsequent jurists.

            Which “historians”? The ones that claim that Lincoln was a homosexual and/or a muslim? Tribe and Corwin, constitutional scholars do not necessarily agree with your biased understanding of biased sources who claim to relate accurately what “historians agree” about.

          • Not a scholar in any sense. Read Story himself. Here is another from his commentary
            Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left
            exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own
            sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the
            Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit
            down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into
            their faith, or mode of worship.

            April, 1833.

            Preface:The reader must not expect to find in these pages
            any novel views, and novel constructions of the Constitution. I have not the ambition to be the author of any new plan of interpreting the theory of the Constitution, or of enlarging or narrowing its powers by ingenious subtleties and learned doubts. My object will be sufficiently attained, if I shall have succeeded in bringing before the reader the true view of its powers maintained by its founders and friends, and confirmed and illustrated by the actual practice of the government.
            The expositions to be found in the work are less to be regarded, as my
            own opinions, than as those of the great minds, which framed the Constitution,
            or which have been from time to time called upon to administer it. Upon subjects of government it has always appeared to me, that metaphysical refinements are out of place. A constitution of government is addressed to the common sense of the people; and never was designed for trials of logical skill, or visionary speculation.

          • So your telling me that Steven B Pressler who is:

            The Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History
            Northwestern University School of Law

            Professor of Business Law, Kellogg School of Management

            Member of Faculty, Department of History
            Northwestern University

            Whose education is :

            A.B. Harvard University, 1968 (Cum Laude)
            J.D. Harvard University, 1971 (Magna Cum Laude)

            Is not a scholar in any sense? Is this what you are saying?

          • He is not as much an authority as Joseph Story himself. Just because SP has a resume does not mean he is an authority on anything or that his opinion as interpreted by you is more valuable than the Founders themselves. Most of his work is on corporations. Story’s commentaries speak for themselves. Presser’s opinions as related by you are clearly overshadowed by the evidence in the seminal works of Story, Blackstone and the Federalist papers.
            SP’s opinion of Story’s contribution on property have nothing whatsoever to do with the 1st amendment . Everything Story said about the Constitution and property and the first amendment was built on the works and views of the Founders, as expressed in the Continental Congress, the Federalist papers, the Constitutional convention and John Marshall’s rulings.
            BTW, Story was trained in Harvard, when it was still a great institution of learning. His commentaries formed the basis for many years of college and high school education in the Constitution and its history. Your quote from SP is irrelevant to the issue of inalienability of constitutional rights.
            Even the so called seminal, groundbreaking case Miranda had constitutional rights as inalienable. quote:

            Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there
            can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.

            — Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491

          • Does not prove anything. Some of the least scholarly people graduate cum laude from Harvard. Just because you cherrypicked a quote that was irrelevant in any case to the clear Constitutional history of the 1st amendment, does not mean that your opinion of SP’s “scholarship” overrules the clear evidence of the Founders, Framers intentions and understanding of the 1st amendment.

          • No sp is not the scholar in the sense that Story is, not if he degrades or diminishes the real contribution to Constitutional Law that Story made. Joseph Story, LL. D., Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; with a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States, before the Adoption of the Constitution. Abridged by the Author, for the Use of Colleges and High Schools (Boston: Hilliard, Gray, and
            Company/Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Co., 1833), pp. iii-viii, 693-703.

            “United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) was a famous jurist, and his Commentaries was a very influential treatise on United States
            constitutional law. Story, first a Jeffersonian Republican and then (following his appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States by President James Madison), a Federalist, was one of the United States’ most influential Supreme Court justices. His tenure on the Supreme Court spanned three decades, from 1811 to 1845. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Story was elected to the Hall of Fame. His views on the Constitution of the United States are still widely respected.”
            Note that Story taught at Harvard and was contemporary to Marshall, Madison, Adams, among a few.

          • The quote was “historians agree…” I did not care who wrote the clearly ignorant, biased, unattributed “historians agree…” What historians? The author cannot be one of them….Get a grip ….

          • Individual property rights were to be protected. It is in the Bill of Rights, it was the intention of the Framers and Founders to protect individual property rights . Any reading of the Federalist papers, Madison On Property, and the Bill of rights tells you so. Presser is stating the obvious as though it was a negative change. No, it is a confirmation of the intention of rights to individual property, not something new. Presser is a very poor scholar if your cherry picked quote is a reflection of his ignorance of the Constitution and the law.

          • How are individual property right protected in the Bill of Rights other than “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” To me this just says that the Government can take your property if they pay you and follow the law to do so. So property rights are not ‘absolute’ are they.

            You accuse me of ‘cherry’ picking quotes but you do it all the time. Typical RW tactic of accusing your opponent of what you are doing.

            As for Presser, you now say he is a poor scholar but earlier you said he was ‘Not a scholar in any sense’. Perhaps the next time you’ll say he is a scholar.

          • Not a chance in hell that I will say Presser is a scholar. If your quote is representative of his “scholarship” He fails in all respects of qualifying.
            There are problems with the SCOTUS interpretation of eminent domain rights for the “public benefit”.
            Property in rights(conscience, religion, speech, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) and rights to property(money, home and rights) are inalienable. Your inability to understand this is appalling.
            Nothing Presser has said can be superior to that which the Founders/Framers have to say about the Constitution, rights and society and just government.

          • AT best Presser is a poor scholar, but in fact, is no scholar at all. He is biased, prejudiced and has not conducted any real historical investigation IF your out of context quote is any indication or representative of presser’s lack of real knowledge. I suspect that he only wrote his very limited publications because without being published, he could not claim any tenure or credentials. Degrees are meaningless without real work.
            Who are these “historians” that “agree” about Story? You have NEVER come up with any names, not that it would matter, because there is no historical evidence of what you quoted to back up the specious conclusion drawn.

          • ABsolutely pointless and irrelevant. Proves nothing. bo claims to be a constitutional law “expert” also. He cannot even cite one thing accurately. Lots of people write lots of nonsense. He is no Tribe or Corwin or John Marshall or Joseph Story.
            Still cannot answer my question I see. Which historians are those from the quote “Historians agree…..” Read the Founders themselves. Why take 3rd hand non info as fact?
            Amazon indeed. Many other authors are also listed. SO WHAT?

          • You waste space and time. His pubs are limited, and mostly address corporate issues. Pubs do not guarantee quality or knowledge. Keep on twisting the issue and trying to act like you know something. You never answered the question derived from your out of context quote “historians agree….” Which historians?

          • No, I do not “Cherry pick” quotes. I read everything John Adams, Madison, and others wrote and said and related some of their representative conclusions. Read Adams proclamation on religion, as well as his letters to Jefferson. Read Madison’s Remonstrances, as well as his essay ON PROPERTY, where he explored religion and property and concluded “In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.” (previously, he wrote “…a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them. He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person. He has an equal property in the free us of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.”)
            He also wrote “That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called.”
            He concluded his article “If the US mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights, they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.”
            No post can give full attention or publication to the careful reasoning of the Founders/Framers writings, but the use of out of context and garbled “quotes” by atheists / lib/progs do distort the truth of the Founders. Those like you who rely on the non scholars and atheists and lib/prog/socialists for your info are getting 3rd hand lies. You are guilty of cherry picking and have no valid info with which to criticize. Go to the source. If you can understand, which I doubt, you will change your lying ignorant tune.

          • You know, it must be nice being you, the all knowing, the always right, always quick to let people know how great you are, always quick to insult, always condescending, never wrong, always having a personal experience of all issues (sort of a Forrest Gump type person) to throw into the conversation, never changing your opinion since you know everything. But I always fear such an individual because history is full of examples of a person who had no self doubt of their beliefs inflicting grave harm to people if they gain power at any level. Whether that’s over an individual or a ‘state’.

            And is 1944 of any significance?

          • Your fear is misplaced as is your ad hominems and insults. Just because you cannot accept contradiction and rely on lies and fail to do your own research or even understand that you fail to understand your own borrowed arguments much less the evidence offered by the Founders themselves does not mean you are right nor that I am wrong. I cannot “change my opinion” when the evidence is clear that my opinion is founded on the evidence. You cannot even see that your quotes supported my opinion, not yours.
            SCOTUS has inflicted harm on the Constitution and the people in its arrogance and failure to support the clear meaning of the Constitution. So has the current Pres and administration by expanding gov power in violation of the Constitution’s clear prohibitions against the actions that hinder the most liberty and justice. If you truly believe what you said about “people in power” you will do your own research and open your self blinded eyes to the truth as clearly revealed in the Constitution, and reject the biased, prejudiced lib/dem/prog/soc/atheists with their PC warped ideology that is destroying this nation which was founded on the “enduring Christian principles” of the Founders, such as John Adams. Here is his proclamation.

            While serving in his official capacity as President of the United
            States, John Adams issued a proclamation to the entire nation that sets
            forth his indisputable views regarding Christianity and the nation:
            John Adams’ Presidential Proclamation

            March 6, 1799
            I do hereby recommend accordingly, that Thursday, the 25th day of
            April next, be observed throughout the United States of America as a day
            of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens on that
            day abstain as far as may be from their secular occupations, devote the
            time to the sacred duties of religion in public and in private;
            that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the Most High God,
            confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore His
            pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit
            we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to
            His righteous requisitions in time to come…and that he would extend the
            blessings of knowledge, of true liberty, and of pure and undefiled religion throughout the world (Adams, 1799, emp. added).

            Such admonitions concerning Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Christian
            religion (i.e., Adams’ allusion to James 1:27) did not come from an
            irreligious man who rejected any connection between Christianity and the

          • What significance does 1944 hold for you? My father, uncles and granduncles and grandparents and great grandparents back to colonial times pre- Constitution are soldiers, generals, statesmen. I have ancestors and relatives who fought in every war of this country with distinguished service. I have studied the history of this country’s founding and all the works upon which the Founders based their beliefs. All you have offered is 3rd hand bias and prejudice from borrowed biased and prejudiced atheists/lib/dem/progs who pretend to scholarship when they merely ignored the mountain of evidence that counters their perverse “morality” in favor of social engineering agenda.

          • Still can’t answer a simple question. What does 1944 signify to you? Is it when you were lucky enough to be born into such a distinguished family? Gosh, it is still good to be you, isn’t it. And you really are Forrest Gump aren’t you?

          • You have not ever posed a simple question. You always answer any question you “pose” with an implied I know the real answer. Well, Hog, what is the significance of your handle? Not that I care, Hog.
            Not according to my tested IQ am I classified as developmentally disabled. It is good to be me as opposed to the illogical irrational can’t tell when you are being contradictory or lying, You. Even Forrest Gump, the fictional character is smarter and more logical than you.
            Keep on making ASSumptions and being foolish and trying to misrepresent my posts and even yourself.

          • You mean like BO who has inflicted much harm(bocare, Iran, his lies about islam, his arrogance and ignorance abounds, and he is in power and has no doubts that he is right, but still, much like you, cannot articulate any clear belief system, nor do either of you have a clue what constitutes evidence, much less proof.
            I fear people like you, with no clear belief system, who only want to oppose those who have faith in God, to crush them so as to not have to deal with their nagging doubts about their own position. Your only opinion is not based on fact, or evidence, just opposition to anything that is Christian.

          • Gosh, I can’t think of anything where I wanted to ‘crush’ you or those who have faith in God (but what God? The Christian God?). Nor have I opposed anything that is Christian. I’ve just suggested that maybe Christianity is not the be all, end all. Other faiths, religions, beliefs have just as much validity as Christianity. I fear that you would crush me if I believed anything other than your version of Christianity.

          • You have negated the 1st amendment. You have denigrated any belief in God and/or Christianity. You have dropped some of your most specious anti-Christian anti-Bible non arguments. You have denigrated the clear beliefs of the Founders/Framers with out of context and misunderstood (by you and other atheists) quotes. The preponderance of the evidence proves that you and your only source for opposition, presser, are clearly wrong. You cannot present a logical or rational argument, and all your socalled “evidence” is clearly false.
            You have not even once, presented any such “suggestion”. All religions are tolerated under the 1st amendment. Even Infidels are allowed their rights of conscience, but not any precedence OVER Christianity, or its free expression.
            But the preponderance of the evidence is that almost all the revolutionaries/Founders/Framers were Christians, with a Christian world view, and that the Constitution which is the application of the (Christian) principles set forth in the Dec of Ind, were all founded on the “enduring” Christian principles upon which all the sects and denom agreed. You have by lies and misrepresentations and illogic and irrationality denied this.
            Only homosexuals and atheists/lib/dem/prog/soc are trying to crush the truth of the Founding by denying with lies, the clear influence and ties of Christianity to the US Founding and government. If the truth crushes you, so be it. You cannot even state your own position consistently. It is the stupidity and venality of people like you that try to denigrate Christianity and crush its “enduring principles” and deny its place in the public square and the world of ideas. I don’t fear you or want to crush you-you do that all by yourself.

          • You said “I fear people like you,”
            Now you say “I don’t fear you or want to crush you..” Which is it?

            You can state all your principles you want but just because you do doesn’t make them right. You said “…the Dec of Ind, were all founded on the “enduring” Christian principles upon which all the sects and denom agreed.” But it wasn’t and not all the sects and denom agree as to what these ‘enduring’ Christian principles are. You know that.

            And your ‘truth’ of the Founding is not necessarily the ‘truth’. It is your interpretation just as you have an interpretation of the Bible you believe in. That’s ok except when you demand that yours is the only one.

            But may want all religions to be tolerated under the 1st amendment but you want Christianity to be above all others. And I have not denigrated the belief in God and/or Christianity or negated the 1st Amendment. Unless you think my statement that the 1st Amendment is not an absolute right.

            But your true colors come out with your disrespect of the President and the harm he has done. From my stand point he has had to spend most of his time cleaning up from the mess the Republicans, the Neo-cons and the Evangelicals left him.

          • Changing your position and argument again.
            I fear people like you that seek power, and cannot see their own contradictions. I am appalled by your clear ignorant or deliberate irrationality and illogic and dependence on the 5th hand ideas and false evidence you throw indiscriminately around and contradict frequently and the way you misrepresent what I say and ignore the clear evidence. You I don’t fear, just the many like you who major in minors and never get to the point and have no premise. It is like nailing jello to the wall.
            John Adams, Joseph Story, Madison,Jefferson, Washington all believed in Christian principles and said so. I quoted John Adams about the “enduring principles of Christianity”. Your argument such as it isn’t, is with him and Madison, the “father of the Constitution” and George Mason the Father of the Bill of Rights and T Jefferson, the writer of the Dec of Ind.
            As far as your irrelevant, pointless “view” of politics and bo, my opinion of him is based not on Christianity, though he claims to be one, falsely, but on his obvious ignorance of the Constitution and violations of same and his lack of a coherent ideology. More nailing jello to a wall, trying to get a handle on the jackdonkey’s ideology.
            From my viewpoint, Bush failed to clean up the big mess left to him by the irresponsible, sexually immoral and ethically deficient non pres Clinton. bo advanced and put on steriods the financial policies of bailouts and subsidies of the previous Congress, including the extension and expansion of the 2006 Patriot Act (set to expire), which was 1 of the few things bo did while senator when he was not busy in Kenya on junkets to find his “roots”. He and Biden turned all the dems but 1 to expand the surveillance of US citizens and limit their liberty in 2006. They expanded their power unconstitutionally since being in power. You have no real evidence of your “viewpoint” to which you are entitled, even though your are clearly wrong. The evidence

          • Nope, I haven’t changed my position which is basically to say to you that there are no absolutes when it comes to the Bill of Rights, Religion, Political views, etc. But you don’t agree.

            That’s ok but when you start using statements like “the irresponsible, sexually immoral and ethically deficient non pres Clinton.” or “…when he was not busy in Kenya on junkets to find his “roots”.” or “They expanded their power unconstitutionally since being in power.”(which is not true) or “…bo, my opinion of him is based not on Christianity, though he claims to be one, falsely, but on his obvious ignorance of the Constitution and violations of same and his lack of a coherent ideology” I take it that you are a RW Evangelical ideologue. Uncompromising, dogmatic, willing to use innuendo and unwarranted accusations to attack people.

            Obama has perhaps the most coherent political ideology (and a correct and nuanced one) of any President in decades. It might not be what you think a coherent ideology should be but that’s ok. What is your definition of a coherent ideology?

          • Someone who does not lie or reveal his ignorance with every word, as does bo and you. A coherent political philosophy was expressed by the Dec of Ind and the Constitution and the Founders/Framers, drawing on the principles of Christianity, Locke and others who defined what constitutes good, just government with liberty and equality under the law.
            What do you think bo’s political ideology is? because no one else can find one. He has in writing praised anti-american views, tried to suborn our Constitutional protections to the UN, lied about and praised islam and denigrated Christianity (ignoring that before and after th Constitution got installed, that islam was warring on the US and killed and enslaved our citizens because the Koran told them too. Adams and Jefferson noted the ideology of islam as a clear and present danger to the peace and commerce of the US .
            Nuance? Hardly. Incoherent and unclear what, if anything he actually believes, yes. Hardly surprising, growing up with a mother who hated the US, an adopted father who was muslim and semi socialist, then mentored by the American communist Frank Marshall Davis, then supposedly “converted” by a black nationalist hater of the US, and then surrounded by self described communist/socialists and the adult children of muslims or communists or socialists or anti US types, like Valerie Jarrett, many of his “czars”, Bill Ayers (who ghost wrote the anti-us book Dreams….) Cass Susstein among a very few. Are you even aware of his change of position on SSM and his lies about his votes on Katrina? and the stumping he did to expand and extend the surveillance of citizens in violation of liberty? There is NOTHING coherent or clear about bo in any respect, not his background, his mother, his alleged father.
            And yes, bo has seized executive power not granted by the Constitution. He has selectively enforced or refused to enforce duly passed laws, changed laws by fiat among a very few.
            Your clear ignorance and denial of this is appalling.
            You are not aware that Clinton has a history of sexual irresponsibility and extra marital public sexuality? He even admitted to his sexual activity with Monica half his age and lied to a grand jury and was tried for perjury and obstruction of justice because he tried to suborn the testimony of the witness to his sexual indiscretions with Monica in the White House. Then he publicly tried to blame Monica for not being “raised right”.

            Clinton was so busy dropping trou and groping interns in the halls, hill had to run the country. Apparently you think it is okay for a sitting Pres to be sexually irresponsible and lie about it then mince words “what is, is” what “sexual relations” is and is not. He did lose his law license over his obvious lies to the grand jury.

          • :Apparently you think it is okay for a sitting Pres to be sexually irresponsible…” How about these sitting Pres:

            “In the sexual history of the American Presidency, the list of Chief Executives who have had their bedroom conduct, mores and good judgment questioned, rightly or wrongly, in office or not, includes not just Clinton, Washington, Arthur, Roosevelt and Kennedy but also Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Cleveland, Wilson, Harding, Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson and Bush.

            Purported wrongdoing ranges from having a serious sexual relationship outside of marriage (Washington, Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt) to fathering a child out of wedlock (Jefferson and Cleveland) to having one or more extramarital affairs (Harding, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Bush (HW) and Clinton).”


            And I bet Reagan had his share of dalliances during his Hollywood years and maybe an affair when he dated Jane Wyman while she was married.

            And how many ‘Founding Fathers’ had these little flings you rail against.

          • I was not “railing”. Accusations, and/or questions about sexual conduct, right or wrong are not the same as a sitting pres being subpoenaed by a grand jury in a civil matter of sexual harrassment, and lying about it, then admitting it publicly. clinton “DID IT” in the WH, in a closet in the Oval Office. He was unlike any other Pres, flagrant about it as Pres. He was known to have been flagrant about it while Gov. Vastly different than any accusation without support, but he is excused and gets to blame a young intern less than 1/2 his age?
            JFK’s affairs were covered up, as were Ted Kennedy’s role in thekilling of Mary Jo Kopekne. None of it is right, but clinton did it in the oval office and made it public.
            Pointing out accusations of other Pres foibles does NOT excuse clinton in any way, but you seem, like all lib/dem/prog/ think it does

          • Jefferson is a Founding Father and there is no proof, just campaign allegations against him. Ditto for Lincoln and all the “repubs”. FDR was openly unfaithful, had a longterm mistress that was no secret, but even he did not bring his sexual misbehavior into the WH. You brought up pres behavior. The subject was the SCOTUS misuse of power –

            Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there
            can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
            — Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491

          • You clearly don’t have any understanding of sentence structure or meaning. I don’t fear you, not even a paper tiger, but people like you.

            History and the writings of the Founders/Framers say that the enduring principles of Christianity are the foundation of our republic, Constitution, civil society. You disbelieve them. Your denial reveals your ignorance and lack of ability to think critically

          • I am glad to be me and not the ignorant irrational illogical vague entity with only 5th hand ideas from “sources” that are 3rd hand, that is you.
            You have offered NOTHING of value that could or does questiuon or assail my opinion. I fear the power hungry, corrupt greedy people who do not care about principles, truth or history, just power. Men are fallible and without a strong faith and principles in something outside themselves and superior, will cause harm. People like you, who cannot stick with any point or belief and have at most a “relative” morality based on nothing but self interest.

          • You apparently willfully misrepresent my comment on rights. The primary property of an individual are his RIGHTS, to free exercise of religion, and his conscience and his person and his other property (his home and assets) You are setting up straw dogs bringing slavery into this. You are irrational as well as illogical and wilfully ignorant and biased.

          • No, you said “The Constitution was designed for the utmost liberty and rights for a FREE, MORAL and RELIGIOUS people.” I disagree.

            No, rights are not property in a legal or normal definition. Maybe you should publish a dictionary of how you define the words you use.

          • You can disagree, but you fly in the face of John Adams one of the seminal founders who said it in writing, more than once. You vault your poor understanding and disagreement over John Adams pronouncements?
            Madison wrote a whole treatise on rights to property and the truth that a man’s rights to conscience and free exercise of religion were his most important property. You reveal your complete ignorance of truth, fact evidence as it is contained in the history of the founding of this country.
            You are proof of the failure of education and the lies of the lib/dem/progs to conceal the truth. You demonstrate your ignorance and lack of ability to understand basic english more clearly with every post.

          • You deny that John Adams, James Madison George Mason, Joseph Story said those things, wrote those things, meant what they said?
            Still cherry picking quotes that you don’t understand as though they mean something and now you try to use Shakespeare? You apparently don’t realize that the soliloquy is from the despair and despondency of Macbeth and the “sound and fury” refers to life?
            Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player

            That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

            And then is heard no more. It is a tale

            Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury

            Signifying nothing.

          • You can find just as many quotes from the founders that don’t support your views. Which do you believe and why.

          • There are no “quotes” of the Founders that deny what I have related as their views, in their own words. Only lack of scholarship, real historical investigation, prejudice and bias can come up with a contrary view, but no proof or evidence. Taking an isolated phrase out of context and trying to make it dispositive of the Founder’s actual views is ludicrous and outright lies.

          • “If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
            — George Washington,

            “Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.”– George Washington

            am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country.
            — George WashingtonOf all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.
            — George Washington,

            The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
            — John Adams,

            As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
            — John Adams

            Indeed, Mr. Jefferson, what could be invented to debase the ancient Christianism which Greeks, Romans, Hebrews and Christian factions, above all the Catholics, have not fraudulently imposed upon the public? Miracles after miracles have rolled down in torrents.
            — John Adams

            [Our] principles [are] founded on the immovable basis of equal right and reason. Thomas Jefferson

            The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens. Thomas Jefferson

            To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse.”
            — Thomas Jefferson

            And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions…. error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it…. I deem the essential principles of our government…. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; … freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected.
            — Thomas Jefferson

            Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
            We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.
            — Thomas Jefferson

            The impious presumption of legislators and and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical;…
            — Thomas Jefferson

            … the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or knew that such a character existed.
            — Thomas Jefferson,

            Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.
            — Thomas Jefferson

            For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement of England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law … This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it … That system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians.
            — Thomas Jefferson

          • Most of what you posted is supportive of the views of the Founders as I expressed them and does not contradict in any respect, what Story said in his commentaries on the 1st amendment.
            All of the Founders/Framers objected to the corruption of religion when any “religion” was made authority over all, which is why the 1st amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise….”
            Your final quote does not mean that TJefferson denied all influence of Christianity on the immediate common law. In fact in context, he pointed out that when Christianity WAS extant, the common law, which was based on common concepts of God (from Judaism) Did exert considerable influence on the common law that was/became English common law. None of those quotes denied that Christianity informed the Founders, or that as Adams said, the “enduring” principles of Christianity formed the basis of the Dec of Ind and the Constitution. Most of those were taken out of the context of the essays on the nature of government and did contain the praise of Christianity as essential to the endurance of just government and civil society.

          • Read that 1st quote from G. Washington. It clearly states that liberty of conscience cannot be secure if the government established any religion, because that is horrifying spiritual tyranny and promotes and ensures religious persecution, which is what I said all the Founders were afraid of, not of Christianity. Most of them held the Church of England and Catholicism responsible for religious persecution and spiritual tyranny when the State establishes a national religion.
            Same for all the rest.

          • The preponderance of the evidence, if not beyond a reasonable doubt, informs me of the truth of the Founders’ beliefs.
            You can only find out of context, misunderstood by you, quotes. You cannot even say in what publication those “quotes” occur nor their context. Any you find will only support the Christian world view of the Founders and their determination to prevent any religion from being controlled and made part of government over any other, thus preventing religious persecution and corruption of Christianity.

          • You only cited some not relevant issues on the 2nd amendment. Scholar you are not. Knowledgeable you are not, nor logical or rational.
            All Constitutional rights are absolute and inalienable, regardless of your uninformed ignorant opinion and misunderstanding of other’s OPINIONS.
            You clearly have no understanding of your rights and your liberties, so you cannot know when my rights or anyone’s including yours, are being denied, infringed or undermined or lost.

          • “But the right to free speech is not absolute. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government sometimes may be allowed to limit speech. For example, the government may limit or ban libel (the communication of false statements about a person that may injure his or her reputation), obscenity, fighting words, and words that present a clear and present danger of inciting violence. The government also may regulate speech by limiting the time, place or manner in which it is made. For example the government may require activists to obtain a permit before holding a large protest rally on a public street.”



            and it can go on and on. But there is nothing that will change your opinion that they are all absolute. Just remember yours is an opinion and not fact.

          • Just remember that yours is a false and unsupported opinion. Mine is not just an opinion. It is based in law and 40 yrs of studying law and history and the original documents and the SCOTUS cases pertaining. Government cannot infringe or deny the right to free speech. If you are talking about harm, then the activists that Soros hired to riot, should be prosecuted for causing harm, as should BO for lying about almost everything. The only limitation on free speech is you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater. The federal gov’t cannot limit free speech based on theories of libel. I have read every 1st amendment case on libel that reached the SCOTUS and many of the Federal court decisions that preceded. Free speech was upheld in all cases, despite state laws. It is not libel when an individual holds and expresses an opinion about a public figure (including teachers) whether it is true or not. I won a libel case as a defendant against a “constitutional lawyer” on this very issue. State laws on libel are in the main opinion is not libel and unrestricted when held and expressed about a public figure, and even allowed against a “private” person, in most cases. To prove libel against a public figure is almost impossible. First, you have to prove that the opinion was expressed with malice, knowing the opinion was false and intended to harm, then you have to prove damages. One entertainer, Carol Burnett I believe did win a libel/slander case against a tabloid. That did not go to the SCOTUS. The major pornography case actually was ruled in favor of free speech rights of said pornographer. The crime of pedophilia and child pornography is not decided on free speech issues.

          • That has NOTHING to do with the absolute inalienable RIGHT of the people to bear arms. Restricting lunatics and felons who lost full citizenship by their actions is a reasonable restriction, a restriction on bombs and WMD is reasonable and does not change the absolute inalienable right to bear arms, saying arms are not allowed in gov bldgs is reasonable because of the inherent anger and divisiveness of gov proceedings. Those are his personal values, including schools but events have proven that “gun free zones” Churches, schools, military posts have had the most incidents of deaths by guns, so rethink is necessary. His personal values as you listed have had no effect on his rulings on the 2nd amendment, and the nature of the 2nd amendment as absolute, inalienable right of the people to bear arms.

          • Scalia does NOT think this, but your false uninformed opinion on his opinion is meaningless and not fact. The Framers of the Constitution were clear in their statements that the rights ARE absolute, that they are God-given natural rights that no law of man can deny or alter or suspend.

          • There is no such thing as marriage equality. And, 30 states have not approved SSM, so what majority? We the people get to decide in our states by voting whether or not to redefine marriage. SCOTUS took that away. I say take away licensing from the states, get a flat tax from the feds and then let us see just how many homosexuals want to get married if there are no marriage tax benefits.
            The Fed gov is NOT we the people. We the People are the masters of government per the Constitution, not the servants. OUr rights are individual rights to prohibit the government from becoming our Master. This SSM ruling made SCOTUS our master, without representation-they are unelected and not representive.
            I will not nor will most educated in the history and intent of the Constitution, accept your specious, spurious, uneducated, socialist take.

          • It may not be written law but there most definitely was marriage equality. The problem is gays don’t want to get married since they aren’t insterested in those of the opposite sex.

          • They want the alleged tax benefits and perceived approval of sexual practice/preference that they assert will be theirs if SSM is validated. Wrong on all accounts. Tax benefits and approval are not constitutional rights.

          • SCOTUS decisions are not the “democratic process” They are anti-democratic process, esp this non legal rhetorically valueless “decision” by unelected nonrepresentative autocrats who violate the rules of their judicial process.
            Federal authority enumerated in the Constitution does not allow them to bypass the rights of the people to self governance through the democratic process. All power EXCEPT the enumerated powers belong to the PEOPLE thru the states via democratic process. And yes, the rights listed in the Bill of Rights cannot be abridged, denied or infringed by SCOTUS. Those are constitutional rights esp the right to act on one’s conscience, the free exercise of religion. SCOTUS cannot rule that unconstitutional. It is the essence of constitutionality and the PRIMArY individual constitutional right. No CRA can abridge that. You are missing a KEY element of the CRA-the civil right of religion, listed in the CRA since 1964. Homosexuality did not get listed until 2011. Homosexual demands for approval via marriage or anti discrimination laws CANNOT trump free exercise of religion (conscience).
            You are illogical, irrational and quite incapable of understanding basic facts of the Constitution. You have a very bad philosophy and lack understanding.

          • Marriage equality is just granting rights to one set of people that you grant to another. It doesn’t impact your religious rights. And to think so is illogical, irrational and proves you are incapable of understanding the basic facts about this ruling.

          • Your illogical post reveals that you do not and will not understand what “rights” are nor the powers granted to the nat’l government and the prohibitions placed on the exercise of powers. Right to marriage is not granted by licensing or definition. A license is a permit to do something that is not a right. If it is a right, then SCOTUS cannot grant it. If it is up to the people of a state to decide, SCOTUS cannot overrule that.
            The ruling was only peripherally based on the 14th amendment and that “interpretation” has no basis in any theory of constitutional rights. It was based primarily on emotions, and the personal values of the 5, not on reality or law or the rules of the Court. The rulings in Windsor (DOMA) are clearly contradicted by this SSM ruling and bear NO relationship to judicial rules esp precedent.

          • You really believe that rights are granted by the people of the state and that the Supreme Court cannot override them? How do the people of a state ‘grant’ these rights? Do they have a vote on ‘granting’ these rights? Can the people of a state override the rights granted in the Constitution?

          • You cannot understand, willfully . I said the rights of power and authority granted by enumeration in the Constitution are limited-those not enumerated and granted to the feds are RESERVED and retained by, to the People. The national government cannot grant rights or deny them and cannot exercise power over the democratic process by individual votes in the States if they don’t have the constitutional power to grant or deny any right.
            No the states cannot override individual rights not granted but GUARANTEED by the Constitution which PROHIBITS the fed gov from any action infringing on those rights. That includes fed CRA and state cra’s from abridging and infringing God given rights. That means that the SCOTUS cannot strike down laws defining marriage and denying states powers to license. Marriage is not a constitutional right and SCOTUS cannot make it so, by relying on a new interpretation of a previous decision based on a law that hindered full citizenship due to race. Homosexuality is NOT a race nor a gender. SCOTUS is limited to the case before them and cannot decide or impose a new right that has never existed in history and base it on some vague notion of dignity and compassion-those are not legal or constitutional reasons or evidence.
            No taxation without representation-no social transformation without representation. SCOTUS does NOT get to impose moral personal values. SCOTUS is a servant of the PEOPLE, not their MASTERS

          • You cannot read. Rights cannot be granted by SCOTUS. Powers not granted to the fed government (there are maybe 18 enumerated) are RESERVED and RETAINED by the people thru their states. If marriage is a right, then SCOTUS cannot grant it and void states and peoples rights. If marriage is for the states and their voters to decide, as has been the case for at least 100 yrs, then SCOTUS cannot void the laws because it is not one of the enumerated powers granted to the Feds.
            Just because the Feds gave tax benefits to encourage marriage and family, does not mean that SCOTUS gets to decide on marriage whether an inalienable right or a law or privilege or whatever.

          • If you have to quote the Guardian, which does not explain the BASIC facts about the ruling, proves you do not understand the ruling at all and clearly never read it. To state what you claim is illogical, irrational and proves you incapable of understanding the difference between tax benefits and 1st amendment rights, and what the ruling clearly does to liberty and the democratic process.

          • Individual businesses are not subject to interstate commerce power. You also fail to understand what regulate meant at the time of the framing. It meant to make regular commerce among the states, not to put onerous regulations on businesses.
            Re: firing of homosexuals. I don’t know a single business that fires anyone just because they are homosexual. I have had and hired but never worked for homosexual (because they would not hire anyone “straight”) but I would not hire a homosexual or anyone who pushed their sexuality as a qualification for hiring. I would fire anyone who did so also. Churches have been forced to hire homosexuals because of the EEOC upon complaint by the homosexual. It was not because they were openly and obnoxiously homosexual that they were not hired, but because they did not conform to or accept the theology of the church. It should be the right of each employer, religious or not, to decide if the employee can fit into the business and get along with customers and other employees as well as do the job.

          • I don’t think you are correct when you say that individual businesses are not subject to interstate commerce clause (power, whatever).

            Just because you don’t know one business that fires anyone because they are LGBT folks doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen or is not legal.
            “Thirty-one states don’t ban discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in the workplace, housing, or public accommodations (hotels, restaurants, and other places that serve the general public).”


            What Churches have been forced by the EEOC to hire homosexuals?

            ‘That they were fired because they didn’t conform to the theology of the Church’, what does that mean in regard to the charge you’ve made against the EEOC and forcing Churches to hire gays?

          • I am correct. I know the law by training and experience. You clearly do not.
            I know I got sued under EEOC rules for not hiring a homosexual applicant. Out of the 30 applicants, she got cut in the first round of interviews. Her qualifications on paper did not match her personal presentation, but she sued anyway on the grounds that she was openly lesbian and I refused to hire her because of it.
            I sued under the EEOC because while I had the highest qualifications for the job, through testing, experience and proven ability, I was not hired because I was a single parent. I actually won that case.
            If business owners are allowed to hire people based on qualifications, ability and whether or not they will fit into the company “culture”, some people regardless of sexuality asserted, will not be hired. It is important to business owners that the people in their employ can get along, interact positively with the public, if needed. The lesbians in the case of the Oregon bakery would not be candidates for any job that I know of, just based on their aggressive and demanding attitudes and insistence that their publicly asserted sexual preference has to be approved of and submitted to with no dissent.
            So what you think homosexuals are not hired just because they assert their homosexuality? If I had 2 equally qualified on paper candidates, and the interview showed me that one of them claimed points for being openly homosexual, I would only choose the homosexual if my business was geared solely to homosexuals and their irrational liberal supporters. That is not discrimination, that is my right to free association, speech and free exercise of religion and only good business sense. Depending on the job, and the business, and the individual attitude, no homosexuals would not be my choice of employee when all else is equal or superior. That said, I currently work with, for and under homosexuals. I still do not accept and have the law and history and knowledge, not emotion to justify, that SCOTUS has the power to twist the law and reason and overrule the right of the People of each state to decide the issue. SCOTUS does not, and your stmts have no credibility.

          • The 9th amendment and the enumerated powers specifically state all rights/powers not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights (for individuals) or granted to the Feds, are to the PEOPLE. If We the People was meant to be the fed government, “people” would not have been used . You have no logical or critical thinking skills, just discredited and incredible talking points borrowed from hateful, prejudiced, biased non thinkers like Dawkins.

          • The use of the 9th amendment as a source of rights is highly disputed and “A number of federal courts have found that the Ninth Amendment is a rule of judicial construction, or a guideline forinterpretation, and not an independent source of constitutional rights.” Scholars, Courts, pundits, Lawyers, Judges, etc. have had many different interpretations of this Amendment. Your’s is no better or worse than the others but you believing it does not make it so.

          • Still you cannot employ logic or critical thinking skills. Missing the point AGAIN. The 9th amendment specifies the retention of rights not enumerated and not granted to the government to the PEOPLE. If We the People was the fed govern, the 9th and other places would not have specified the PEOPLE’s individual rights.
            Just because lib/dem/prog “dispute” the meaning of the 9th does not mean that there are not “other rights” not enumerated. You asserted “when new rights are discovered”. Where else in the Constitution supports that assertion?

          • Where did I assert ‘when new rights are discovered’? But throughout history we seem to find ‘new rights’ to protect and I think it is a great thing don’t you? How about the right to be free (not to be a slave). How about the right of interracial marriage, or the right to vote(for women, people of color) or the right to be served in a business establishment or the right to an abortion, the right of marriage equality.

            A little reading:'silent'_ninth_amendment_gives_americans_rights_they_don't_know_they_have

          • Rights are not conferred by SCOTUS. They are inalienable, God given rights. There are no rights to the things you claim, they were not newly discovered and if they are laws, they are not rights.
            All rights exist independent of government and can not be conferred or denied by SCOTUS or Congress or the Prez. All men were created equal and endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights…….Gover is prohibited from exercising any power except as enumerated in the constitution. All other powers and right to power is reserved to the PEOPLE.

          • So a troll is one who states an opinion based on facts that doesn’t jive with your opinion, right?

          • I know the US was founded on Christian principles. God is superior to and independent from the government. The Founders recognized this, applauded this and wrote the 1st amendment to insure that the Federal government could not do to the people who consented to be governed what the British king had done, trying to make religion subservient to government. As John Adams said the republic was made for a free, moral and religious people it is suited to no other. T. Jefferson called himself Christian and made similar statements, as did Ben Franklin, Samuel Adams and many others. The Framers of the Constitution were predominately Christian.

          • Nope, sorry but the US was not founded as a Christian Nation. The Constitution doesn’t mention God. John Adams signed and Congress unanimously approved the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797 which states: “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

            “…that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”” George Washington

            “Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.” Thomas Jefferson

            “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” James Madison

            It is doubtful that Thomas Jefferson was a ‘Christian’ in the sense you are using it but there is no doubt that he advocated for the separation of church and state.

            Perhaps Bill Flax said it best in his opinion piece in Forbes:

            “America wasn’t founded as a Christian nation and many of our beloved Forefathers sadly were not, yet America was largely comprised of Believers. Liberty allows us to worship freely or not at all per conscience. America was never meant to be theocratic or homogenous religiously, but Christianity has always been indelible to our social fabric.”


          • You are wrong. I did NOT say Christian Nation. The truth is founded on Christian principles, by mostly Christian Founders. The treaty does not count because 1. I did not say Christian nation. 2. the Treaty was a fraud and voided almost immediately because it was not signed by the MUSLIMS.

            3. Even your final quote supports what I actually said Christianity has always been indelible to our social fabric.”

          • You completely ignored what I said. The muslims did NOT sign the treaty. You completely misunderstand the reason and provenance for that statement. Even so, the US is not and never was intended to be a theocracy. That does not preclude or disprove the clear statements of all the Founders and the framers of the Constitution and the Dec of Ind that Christian principles, morals, religion were always the foundation of the Constitu.tion and that Christianity is and always will be woven into our social fabric.

          • Muslims did not sign the treaty? Here is who signed the treaty:

            Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Jumad in the year of the Higera 1211-corresponding with the 4th day of Novr 1796 by


            Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Jumad in the year of the Higera 1211-corresponding with the 4th day of Novr 1796 by

            SOLIMAN Kaya
            MAMET Treasurer
            GALIL Genl of the Troops
            AMET Minister of Marine
            MAHOMET Coml of the city
            AMET Chamberlain
            MAMET Secretary
            ALLY-Chief of the Divan

            Signed and sealed at Algiers the 4th day of Argib 1211-corresponding with the 3d day of January 1797 by

            HASSAN BASHAW Dey
            and by the Agent plenipotentiary of the United States of America
            [Seal] Joel BARLOW Kaya
            MAMET Treasurer
            GALIL Genl of the Troops
            AMET Minister of Marine
            MAHOMET Coml of the city
            AMET Chamberlain
            MAMET Secretary
            ALLY-Chief of the Divan

            Signed and sealed at Algiers the 4th day of Argib 1211-corresponding with the 3d day of January 1797 by

            HASSAN BASHAW Dey
            and by the Agent plenipotentiary of the United States of America
            [Seal] Joel BARLOW

            Are you saying that none of the signers were Muslim? But what difference does that make. John Adams signed it and it was approved unanimously by the Senate.

            Yes Christianity is woven into our social fabric just as English Common Law, Roman Common Law, Judaism, Atheism, Deism, etc etc. are. No religion is above any other in the US.

          • Nice try, keep on changing your justifications (they are not) and your baseless arguments, but I never said that one religion is above any other. Most of the Framers of the Constitution were Christians, most of the signers of the Dec of Indep (including Jefferson) were Christian, most of the revolutionaries were Christian. Deism is NOT woven into any fabric-it died before the ink was dry on the Constitution and had nothing to do with it. Judaism is the foundation of Christianity, Christianity is the fulfillment of judaic prophecy. English common law derived from Christianity. Roman law-no, not in consideration.

            What the muslims signed was not the same as what was approved and the arabic insert had NOTHING to do with the treaty. The treaty was never fulfilled by the muslims, the US “drafter” and “translator” probably lied because the arabic text had nothing to do with the treaty.

          • The only known arabic text of the Treaty that they signed did not have the phrase that contained Christian Nation. What you ignore, since you only read the atheists/secularists big lies on the subject, and try to take an isolated out of context phrase and twist the actual meaning, is that both before and after the phrase got into the voided treaty, Christianity was praised lauded approved by all the seminal Founders as the foundation of the Dec of Ind, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the social fabric. The main reason and the meaning even in the context of the treaty was that the US was not a theocracy and had no inherent enmity towards islam (mosselmen). At the time, and always in history, islam justified its warring and hostility on every other nation and its slavery and murder of US sailors on the precepts of islam, that ordered killing of all non muslims.

            Adams,Jefferson met in London in 1786 with the Ambassador from Tripoli and then wrote a letter to John Jay US secretary of Foreign Affairs about what they learned about why the mosselman had seized over a few years 3k sailors, killing or enslaving them.

            American Peace Commissioners’ letter to John Jay
            March 28, 1786
            We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should
            not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise (“American Peace…,” 1786).
            “The Tripoli ambassador clearly reflected the attitude of the Bey and his fellow citizens toward non-Muslim countries, an attitude that must be taken into account as the backdrop of the wording of Article 11 in the treaty a decade later Atheists/secularists are guilty of the very malady they insist Christians suffer from—an irrational, prejudicial, mindless commitment to discredited ideas.”

          • I knew that and the reason for it not being there are obscure. However, the one signed by John Adams and approved unanimously by the Senate did contain that language. So it seems to me that you are ignoring fact and twisting things to support your point.

          • You ignore the clear history and the approbation of Christianity both before and after the qualified phrase (another ignorance on your part) got included to try to make peace with islamists who were killing and enslaving US citizens because of the preeminence of Christianity in the US, which was NOT a theocracy by design, which the phrase not a Christian Nation means-not a theocracy like islam. You clearly lack critical thinking skills and ignore the massive evidence that 1 isolated phrase cannot overcome.
            The only twisting is by you and the prejudiced, malicious, biased liars that you parrot.

          • You ignore history and the facts and massive evidence that decries your use of your misunderstanding of an out of context isolated phrase.

            “the treaties made with the Barbary States are literally
            riddled with religious allusions and transparent indications of the Christian
            orientation of the United States in contradistinction to the Islamic
            orientation of the Barbary States. This fact alone proves that no treaty ever
            ratified by the United States would deny the Christian connections that have
            characterized the nation from its birth. The very idea is absurd—and such a
            declaration would be an outright falsehood. Those who so construe the 1797
            Treaty of Tripoli are guilty of shoddy historical investigation at the very
            least, and outright dishonesty and flagrant bias at the very worst.”

          • John ADams was a devout Christian and before and after the treaty in question, made proclamations about the importance of Christianity in the Founding of this country and its governance by moral and religious people dedicated to freedom of religion and avoidance of the evils that result from the subjugation of any one religion to the state and imposition of it as a national religion.
            You take an isolated phrase which in context means not what you represent it to be and ignore all the massive evidence of the primary and paramount influence and foundation of Christianity on the founding of this country, that all but a few founders, framers, revolutionaries were devout practicing Christians whose faith(religion) informed and framed the nation we have today.

          • No, there are many, many quotes from ‘founding fathers’ refuting the ‘the US was founded as a Christian Nation’ meme. You just don’t want to acknowledge that there is evidence that you are wrong.

          • You don’t want to see the massive amount of evidence that You are completely categorically evidentially wrong.
            The only thing you are clinging to are isolated, misunderstood, out of context statements that have been discredited long since. All you do is parrot the hateful, prejudiced, biased DAwkins et al.

          • I will not admit to a lie concocted by your irrationality and lack of understanding. God gave man free will. All humans fall short of the glory of God. God does not approve of everything man did and does, He gave them free will to choose to follow God’s path or not.

          • You are the most ludicrous, uneducated illogical irrational troll ever.
            God did NOT approve. They were not laws whether He “approves” or not. Free will!!!! Noting someone is stupid does not mean I approve. Neither does God.

          • Then what are the ‘laws’ you are always saying are different from what God does. And am I a ‘troll’ just because I don’t agree with your arguements.

          • You don’t have any argument nor have you advanced any that are logical or relevant. That 1st sentence is nonsense. You asserted laws that God approved of. Noting an historical event is not a law, nor does God have to approve of anything because He gave free will.

    • It’s all part of Obama’s plan to deny the church’s tax-exempt status. When churches refuse to marry homosexuals, then it will come. Obama wants that money. I guess the homosexual lobby hasn’t figured out that they were government pawns, yet.

      • Actually xtians used to jail gays. They’re just afraid, paranoid as they are, that their former victims will return the favor.

          • Really? Jefferson and Washington used to feed xtians to the lions?

            BEcause in THIS country xtians used to jail gays.

            But tell me where in the US this lion thing happened. I’d like to see that.

          • I’m not gay. But gays were jailed in THIS country until the mid 80’s. Xtians were never fed to lions in this country

            Your history is…inventive

          • No homosexual was jailed for being gay. Even homosexuals don’t have the right to break laws. History is real-hysterical allegations that you make aren’t.

          • Really? Again…you don’t know history. Check “Bowers vs Hardwick”

            The right attempts to lie about history..if they’re not pleading ignorance.

            Xtians used to jail gays. But now they panic about the results of their hatred.

          • Homosexuals rewrite history to equate themselves with racial bias. They chose behaviors that were illegal. Bowers was not about being homosexual, it was about sodomy laws forbidding public sodomy (sex in cars and parks and public places) Even non homosexuals engaged in sodomy. It is NOT a healthy sexual practice, and sex in public is abhorrent. Sodomy laws were seldom enforced. Bowers struck down sodomy laws because they were seldom enforced or enforced selectively by a few police/prosecutors. They are still on the books in several states, as are laws against public sex acts and adultery. No homosexual was jailed for being homosexual, just their public sexual acts.

          • Gays didn’t write anything. Their opponents did. They wrote the laws. And they made being gay illegal just like they made being black illegal.

            Bowers was about gay sex since private consensual sodomy between straights had already been ruled legal by the SCOTUS. Justice Byron White in his majority decision, had ruled that sodomy laws applied ONLY to gays. And the plaintiffs in this case were IN THEIR OWN BEDROOM when a cop entered.

            So Handoff lies and rewrites history. Everything he said was a lie. No surprise. that’s what the right does

            They jailed gays for BEING gay NOW they’re paranoid about their own future even though it’s PARANOIA NOT LAW.

          • Being gay has not been illegal everywhere. Sexual act of sodomy was illegal in some jurisdictions.
            Homosexuals did claim equivalence with race in order to get added to the Civil Rights act and the EEOC.
            Blacks were never Illegal. Race has never been “illegal” Race cannot be illegal. Only actions can be illegal.
            Homosexuals and their irrational supporters have tried to make speech that does not approve of or serve their agenda illegal, but that is not constitutional.

          • By the by, “Bowers” itself was overruled by “Lawrence” in 2003, so homosexual acts are no longer illegal.

          • I know you think you’re a genius, but you’re looking quite foolish. Since you seem to have no purpose here, going to shake you off. No panic-you simply have nothing of value to bring to the discussion.

          • Christians did NOT jail gays for being gay. There may have been some arrests for lewd and lascivious acts and/or violations of sodomy laws, but that is not jailing for being gay.
            Ad hominem logical fallacy and very imprecise language and redefinition and PC irrationality and ignorance of facts are your hallmark.

          • Which is not a response. I disproved your claims point by point. You failed to respond. Not surprised. Right wingers generally use failed arguments

          • You disproved nothing point by point. Libs do not use logical arguments at all, at least going by your illogical statements.

          • Jefferson and Washington supported Christianity, regardless of the twisting of history and ignoring the truth of what each said and did. You are illogical, irrational, uneducated and a blatant liar.
            They both believed in marriage between 1man and 1 woman. Homosexuality was not accepted, approved or even acknowledged as anything. Sexual “orientation” was not on the radar. All man(kind) is/was considered created equal. Marriage between man and woman was accepted without question as predating the Constitution by thousands of years. SSM has never been accepted or acknowledged. Sexual behavior of homosexuality has existed in history but not as desireable. Even the Romans, who generally thought man is the proper sexual partner for man, passed laws requiring all men to marry women and raise families. Greeks even esp the philosophers, spoke approvingly of marriage between men and women. There is no history of SSM until the yr 2000.Homosexuality has ALWAYS been licentious outside of marriage sexual behavior, NOT love, and always has been sex between men, pagan behavior. Lesbianism was not a factor or known in history, except maybe Saphos, which may or may not be myth. In any case, there is little historical evidence of lesbianism being historically common.

          • If Jefferson supported xtianity, why did he take a razor to the bible to cut out such things as the resurrection? And Washington quit going to church after being chided by his Anglican pastor for skipping communion.

            The fact they didn’t accept gays…well both were slave owners. One of the most degrading features of human existence was accepted by both. Being gay pales in comparison.

            And marriage was NOT accepted by conservatives since THEY redefined marriage 50 years ago. In southern states, an INFERTILE white couple could marry. A FERTILE interracial couple could not. Conservatives thought race, not procreation, was definitive in marriage. YOU redefined it.

            Most of our long standing views of human nature have been wrong. Slavery was wrong. Our view of women was wrong. Our view of children was wrong. And our view of gays was wrong

            So the right has nothing to offer but failure.

          • They’re wrong on the gay thing. Equal
            Rights has nothing to do with redefining a institution such as marriage.
            Nature teaches us homosexuality isn’t the natural use of man. Procreation of our species also suggest homosexuality is wrong. God set up marriage, not man. Man can redefine rights and wrongs all he wants but it doesn’t change or alter true right and wrong as defined by God. We are all equal under God. We will all be held accountable before our Creator one day for the choices we make. An Atheist says there is no God but that does not change the facts. Marriage is what God states marriage is. Earthly laws are just that and won’t change the truth. It’ll get much worse before it’s all over. This SCOTUS decision was based on equal protection laws and as such it will have far reaching implications outside of the marriage debate. Using their logic, there will be other laws that will change between states as well. I’m afraid the court made a decision based on what they wanted, felt what was right for America and not what the constitution dictated.
            As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

          • Have you ever heard of Sodom and Gomorrah? The reason God utterly destroyed those two towns was because of their homosexual sin. End of Story. There are numerous statements in the Bible that teach us that this activity is an abomination in the sight of God…totally unacceptable. The act of sodomy was named after the city of Sodom. There will be dire consequences for this decision. God will see to that.

          • You are really pathetic in your attempt to rewrite history and conflate and make false equivalences. Never for millenia has there been any other definition of marriage but between a man and a woman. Sure there is polygamy in history, but it was not ideal nor continued for long in the Jewish faith and was not condoned in Christianity but the US government decided that was not desirable and made it illegal some time ago.
            Slavery was always wrong and even Washington and Jefferson said so but were constrained by laws. Both treated their slaves as free (at least Washington did but he could do nothing about his wifes’ inherited slaves that passed to her children not Washington and they thought
            None of our views of human nature have been proven wrong. Human behavior is not necessarily human nature. The nature of marriage has changed socially from arranged, to voluntary based on romantic love. The purpose of marriage emphasis on procreation has diminished in importance but the definition has not. Woman’s role in society has been diminished, elevated, diminished but the definition of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman has not. The view that a father/mother in a married relationship was the best environment to raise healthy children has not changed, even though so many single women have raised children. The results have been mixed.
            Conservatives have never thought race was definitive. That is your allegation based on nothing. Christians for the most part have been prosecuted for marrying interracial couples. Dem/libs were the ones who kept blacks as victims(WW segregated the integrated WH/executive BRanch and FDR doubled down on that) Repub have since before Lincoln wanted slavery to end (esp Christians) and all Civil Rights Acts proposed by REpub were defeated by the Dems who even after the CRA had a KKK plank prominent in their national party platform.
            BTW, women could vote and own property in their own right after the Constitution was installed. We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights…….” Our “changing views” on sexuality do not make you correct or the millenia of history “wrong”

          • ‘Never for millenia has there been any other definition of marriage but between a man and a woman.’ Well at one time in the US it was defined as between a white man and a white women. Also, in the US here are some of the things about marriage:

            Marriage isn’t what it used to be.

            As America has evolved over the centuries, so too has the institution of marriage.

            In colonial times, marriage was largely a matter of property and reproduction.

            When a colonial woman married, she gave up any legal right as an individual. She was legally bound to obey her husband, just as she would obey God.

            Despite this, colonial marriages rarely happened in churches.

            What’s more, few people found fault with pregnant women marrying; in fact, the practice was quite common in early America.

            None of these conditions applied to slaves, however, who were forbidden from marrying at all.

            Free African-Americans were allowed to marry, but not across racial lines. Those laws continued in many states, well into the 20th century.

            As the times changed, so did marriage. Romantic love came into vogue, only with the Victorian era.”


            Or this:

            Or this:

          • Still, 1 man and 1 woman and few states forbade interracial marriage. It NEVER changed ever to SS.

          • Wrong on all counts. Women could vote in many states, women were not the property of their husbands and they could and did own property in their own right. Martha Washington inherited property from her dead husband-when she married George, he could not entail or dispose of any of it.
            Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, no matter the country under after the yr 2000 ad when 1 nation allowed it for legal reasons. Free blacks married, even most slaves were married, and during colonial times, marriages/births/deaths were kept by churches and ministers officiated. That was the practice for a long time. States did not take over completely the keeping of records until long after the Founding.

          • Note: My discussion was not on Women in general but on women when they married which change their status tremendously.

            This is from “The Legal Status of Women from 1776 to 1830”

            “Marriage changed women’s legal status dramatically. When women married, as the vast majority did, they still had legal rights but no longer had autonomy. Instead, they found themselves in positions of almost total dependency on their husbands which the law called coverture. As the English jurist William Blackstone famously put it in his Commentaries on English Law (1765–1769):

            “By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing.”

            Coverture was based on the assumption that a family functioned best if the male head of a household controlled all of its assets. As a result, a married woman could not own property independently of her husband unless they had signed a special contract called a marriage settlement. Such contracts were rare and even illegal in some parts of the country. In the absence of a separate estate, all personalty a woman brought to her marriage or earned during marriage, including wages, became her husband’s. He could manage it or give it away, as he chose, without consulting her.”


          • Men no longer had autonomy either. Your argument is not on point to justify SSM which has not, in millenia of history, ever been MARRIAGE

          • They are not “gays.” They are homosexual perverts who through their selfishness would undermine of the fundamental foundations of society to satisfy their sinful and unnatural lust and expect public support for it. These are the same people who demanded that the “gay” bathhouses in San Francisco be kept open so they could engage in anonymous sex through “glory holes,” thereby spreading AIDS throughout their own community (300,000 died acrtoss the country from such behavior) (then tried to frame it as an equal opportunity disease). If that is not a definition of insnaity, I don’t know what is.
            Now, of course, they behave like fascists, suing owners of bakeries or other businesses that refuse to condone their immoral practices. And instead of just ordering a cake, they let it be known that they are homosexual so they can make it a test case and sue when being denied. These are sick and disgusting people whose behavior will never be accepted as normal.

          • Tell me when the last time a queer was thrown in jail for just being a queer and not something else.

        • You cannot factually say Christians jailed homosexuals. Voters and legislatures may have passed anti-sodomy laws.Few if any were enforced. Sex in cars and/or parks is illegal regardless of “sexual orientation” another madeup meaningless PC “word”.
          Homosexuals have not been victims. They chose their unnatural behavior and lifestyle. The have victimized and vilified anyone who refuses to approve of or accept their demands for superior “rights”. SCOTUS undermined the 1st amendment.
          There is no fear, just righteous anger that 1st amendment rights to disagree are and have been repressed.

          • All those Buddhists voted for this? Strange…dont recall the US having a large Buddhist population. And “Few if any were enforced”…hey let’s pass laws against xtians and enforce few of them!

            So you dance over the FACT, which you FIRST DENIED, that gays were jailed. THEN you accuse Buddhists or Hindus or Shinto worshippers in America of passing these laws. THEN you complain that the victims of xtian hatred are a bit put off by their hatred.

            Golly. Imagine that. You jailed people then said YOU are the victim

            Goebbels would have been proud at your use of language.

          • You are doing the bad tap dancing. Homosexuals were never jailed for being homosexuals. That was never illegal. For acts of sodomy maybe….
            Christians are victims of lib/dem/prog/homosexual bigotry. Dissent is legal under the 1st amendment, but you sue anyway to try to crush Christians who dissent with your behaviors. Try it with Muslims-I dare you.
            Your attempt to redefine everything by PC “values” is tiresome, illogical and irrational.

          • Where do you get Buddhists or Hindus or Shinto? You are very foolish and prove your inability to think rationally with every post.
            You apparently think all voters were Christians and all legislatures Christian and therefore Christians made homosexuals “illegal”. Not the case.
            There is no law that made blacks “illegal” or homosexuals “illegal”. There may be anti sodomy laws still on the books but are homosexuals the only ones who engage in sodomy?
            If there was ever an expression of insane gibberish, it is you doing it.

          • For a long time there has been quite a discussion about the use the X in the word Xmas, as an example. Some people thought it was a derogatory symbol; however, the X in this shape is the Greek cross as opposed to the Christian cross that we are more familiar with. Somewhere along the line, someone decided to use this abbreviation in order to say the same thing in less space. Don’t get too bent out of shape. It’s just another way to say Christian. I don’t care for it, but that’s just me.

  4. If our Republican House and the Republican Senate would recognize that this matter of Obergefell is NOT a done deal as this can be treated by a rider being attached to every allocations bill. Simply stating that No funds will be used for the implementation of the Supreme Court in the Obergefell decision. This is how the war in Vietnam was ended in 1975, and also the funding of abortion by Medicaid plus many other issues over the years. James Madison put this fail-safe in the Constitution for this very purpose, against egomaniacal Supreme Court justices like the weak five. This certainly will not reverse the decision concerning same-sex marriage, but it will however, just not get enforced being left to never be funded. How about Congress limiting the Supreme Court to a single law clerk, this will humble them most certainly as well. We need not hang our heads Christians, for those who choose to redefine Nature are operating far out of their league, as the Great Definer can not and will not be overruled.

  5. I wonder have the justice’s over stepped the law. are they really making laws. and if so isn’t that grounds for impeachment?

    • Don’t think impeachment is valid for SCOTUS, with their lifetime appts. Besides impeachment is like indictment not conviction and as far as I know, only is for elected officials.
      That is the problem with SCOTUS. They are NOT elected, not responsible and cannot legislate but have with bocare, ssm, and a host of others, including abortion. It started with Dred Scott, which took a war and EO to overturn, with the Lochner era decisions, which have been condemned as judicial activism and reversed with the doctrine of judicial restraint, but such restraint was ignored by the SS decision and japanese internment, mostly due to the political pressure/blackmail of FDR (a switch in time saved 9) and in the RvW decision.
      Everybody seems to forget that SCOTUS has no power of enforcement. They can and should be ignored when their decisions void state laws passed democratically with no overriding government interest. This decision can only be enforced by voluntary compliance with the unconstitutional decision. One way is to stop issuing marriage licenses altogether. If it requires a license, it is not a right.

      • From what I have been reading on the net from legal scholars any justice can be impeached can be removed from the bench. the SCOTUS has been making law for many years and it has to be stopped for the sake of the nation. we have people on the court who are to old to control there body functions. so how is it that we believe they can control thought ?

        • Legal scholars have differing opinions. Most of them are lib/dem. I’m not. I’ll double the constitution. Not sure what the reason for impeachment might be. Violation of the doctrine of judicial restraint-stretch. Bad health, old age, bigger stretch. Retirement maybe. I’d not want anything to happen while bo has opportunity to replace 1 more justice with the likes of the corrupt and biased Kagan and incompetent Sotomayor. The drunken always sleeping uber liberal, thoughtless Ginsburg might go soon anyway. Kagan and Sotomayor are relatively young, but corrupt and biased and not worthy of the position. Kennedy is biased, maybe sick, but clearly not a supporter of the Constitution as it was intended, but how his vision of what constitutes “liberty” (gov power to confer rights to gov entitlements, do away with free exercise of religion) might be obtained at the expense of inalienable rights. Roberts is schizo and more interested in WH cocktail parties than sound legal reasoning, though he did in obergefell show he does have the ability. Breyer seems to vote with Kennedy-he may be a puppet and senile. Still, I don’t know that impeaching any would serve a purpose, nor changing the lifetime appts. We do need to elect Pres that support the original intention of the government, not undermine it as has the would be emperor bo.
          Regarding control thought, that is not the authorized power, though with obergefell the 5 have tried to impose their interpretation of rights as coming from government on 320 mill people. Controlling their own thought processes-well the propaganda and socialism philosophical is fixed for the 5. They are in control and seek ever more power to impose their agenda on the country.

  6. After reading some comments below, I know this will not set well with some.

    Sodomy which is an abomination to God. We know what has happen when God destroyed
    the city of Sodom and Gomorrah. This action did not come upon them without warning.

    This abomination has been around for a long time. Their titles have changed several times to make this sin to sound not so harsh. But it is still an abomination in the sight of God.

    Oh! I’ve heard of the feeble excuses that were given. Some say that was a product of nature. If it was, go to any Zoo and ask the keepers to show you an animal that was born that way as a product of nature. They would laugh you for asking such a stupid question.

    I have often wondered why the push upon the society to accept their life style. Is it because
    they live in fear knowing they will stand before God in a day of judgment and
    give account? Is this a way to ease their conscience is to involve the public and change our laws to accept this life style? Is this they think they can give God an answer saying that everyone else is doing it because it is lawful? The Bible from cover to cover reveals to
    mankind how much God loves us and paid the price so all of can have our sins forgiven.

    What really hurts, is a few judges who are in spiritual darkness can make this kind of decision for our nation. Do they not know what they did? How could they make such a decision if they
    knew what God warning to any nation who follows this course.

    • God isn’t in the constitution. When he’s mentioned in the body of our basic law, let me know. You’re free to wonder what you want about gays. You’re NOT free to force your view of god on them

      • If that’s the case, then by your own reasoning, you and others like you, are not free to force YOUR filth on the rest of us either. Just a side note, that part of the 1st Amendment only applies to the government only…not the people. Just another perfect example of the schools or the demonazi’s twisting the Constitution to fit their agenda once again.

        • No one’s forcing you to marry a gay person. And what is the ‘govt’ as opposed to the people? The govt enforces law.

          But if you don’t like gay marriage…don’t have one

          • Your filth is being forced upon the public and taught to kids as normal when any sane person knows you homos are not normal but just perverts of nature..

          • The Tolerant Left is intolerant of anyone who is not The Tolerant Left. Seems hypocritical to me.

            (This should be an indented reply to the bpuharic post directly above it, but the thread is only capable of so many indents…)

          • So, we now have your admission that you’re intolerant. Next we need to work on your understanding of what constitutes hate.

          • No it is not. Where in the dictionary is hate defined as right wing.
            Left has always been associated with wrong. Right is associated with correct.
            Tolerance is NOT approval.
            Dissent is not hate. However leftists hate dissent and disagreement so they project. That makes you the Hater, lefty

          • The left thinks anyone who does not agree with their agenda is hateful, that tolerance requires approval and anything goes is moral

      • God is in the Declaration of independence and our laws are based on Biblical teachings, they have just been perverted by evil such as liberals who have no morals values, integrity or scruples..
        Few will enter the gates of Heaven, no liberal will..

        • The DoI is not the constitution. Our laws are not based on the bible so much as on Roman law. Again, there is no mention of god in the constitution. None. Not a single one. If he’s so important, seems our founders forgot.

          And jesus was a gay liberal

          • Lincoln called the Dec of Ind the apple of gold in the (constitution) frame of silver. The Constitution is the practical application of the moral principles set forth in the Dec of Independence. The framers of the Constitution were mostly Christians of varied denominations seeking religious freedom. Read the Federalist Papers. John Adams wrote in a letter published that our republic (based on and guided by the Dec of in and Constitution) is made for a free, moral and religious (he was a Christian) people, that it was unsuited for any other people.
            Your slander of Jesus has no basis in fact or history and merely reveals your lack of education and knowledge of history as do the rest of your spurious, specious, irrelevant comments.

    • “They chose behaviors that were illegal.” To handsoff 1944 and
      5elmllc and now RL –from a centrist Republican, what I’m sure you’d call a “RINO”:
      So sorry that you evidently faced a “choice” sometime in adolescence
      — whether to be “gay” or “straight.” That is the only logical reason
      that you could have to say that gays choose their “behaviors.” I never
      had to make that choice; I just WAS straight. I think the large
      majority of gays just KNEW they were Gay, just as I knew I was straight.
      If you think you can choose your sexuality, then you must fall in the
      ambiguous middle, and so sorry you had to wrestle with that decision.
      But if you “chose” to be straight just for religious or political
      reasons when your tendency was otherwise — then perhaps the greater sin
      is the fraud perpetuated on your opposite-sex spouses. We do not
      know the divine or evolutionary reason why Gays exist. Makes no sense
      really, I suppose. But if you think the majority of Gays are not born
      that way — then you weren’t paying attention to the pre-K behaviors of
      your relatives who eventually came out as Gay. My cousin acted just
      as Gay as you could imagine beginning at around 4 years of age.

  7. Let’s see, there are now about 20 or so Republicans who either have announced their candidacy for the Presidency and or soon will. And there might be more to come.The vaulting of gay “marriage” to huge prominence will inevitably compel each of these wannabees to articulate some kind of personal position on the issue. The electorate is strongly divided on this issue, and many voters will elevate same sex “marriage” to the status of a deciding issue. The situation is ripe for all kinds of squirming and dissimulation, as candidates seek to preserve their status with the anti-gay “marriage” sector without alienating too many voters on the other side– whose votes they will need if they are to prevail in the general election.

  8. This article is misleading, implying the only way to amend the Constitution is to have a 2/3rds majority of the Senate to approve it. The other way is for 2/3rds of the States to call a constitutional convention for the same purpose.

    Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, 30 states still had laws in force against same sex marriage, and 4 other states only allowed same sex marriage because of judicial interference, not by popular vote. So 34 out of 50 (= 68%) would be enough states to over-rule this judicial farce.

    • And when the “Loving” decision was announced regarding interracial marriage, polls indicated that 70% of people disagreed with that. TODAY 50% of conservatives in MS still think it should be illegal

      Should we leave racism up to the states as well?

    • Actually, prior to the SCOTUS ruling, 37 states had laws or judgments that allowed marriage based on humanity rather than sexual orientation (or race, religion, heritage, etc.). Several more states had pending legal action to redress their (state) constitutional amendments or lower court rulings.

      34 state legislators would be required to call a Constitutional Convention. Whatever is figured out in this process would then be put to a vote and require 38 state legislatures to approve (three fourths for approval) before it became an amendment to the constitution.

      Based on the fact we can’t agree on climate change, balancing the country’s checkbook, or the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. I find it highly doubtful that an item which is supported by a majority of Americans would be able to get through approval process by this method.

      The marrying your puppy argument is old and irrelevant, by the way. Since both parties to a marriage have to sign an affidavit with an official witness. Legally these contracts would not be binding – though I suppose some cultists could claim to be bound by them. Similar to the pet rock fad.

      • You are correct, Sir. I saw the error pointed out in your 1st paragraph in my original post, but only after the time to “edit” it had expired. And you are probably right about getting 38 state legislatures to agree on anything, including the existence of gravity. But might still be a higher probability than finding a 2/3rds majority in the Senate. Those days are over in the fractious country.

        I was being facetious about the poodle; disingenuous, too (I do not own one) — but there is such a thing as a paw print, don’t you know… However, a similar argument could be applied to those who wish to marry more than one spouse, against the legal restrictions on that marital practice. I assume Mormon polygamists would be more than willing and capable of signing their names to an affidavit.

        • Actually THIS is where the homophobe argument falls apart. Why? Because there’s the word ‘discrimination’…banned by the 14th amendment

          If I say I can’t be polygamous, that’s a restriction I place on ME since I CAN be polygamous. BUT I can not be gay. So banning gay marriage bans someone ELSE from a right I already have. That’s discrimination, by definition.

          Not too hard to understand. Unless you j ust dont like gays.

          • The word “discrimination” does not appear in the 14th Amendment, nor in the 26th Amendment which revised it.

            But I suppose you could say those two amendments discriminate against Native Americans, and U.S. Citizens aged 17 and under, since they are not counted for purposes of determining the number of representatives each state receives in the House of Representative.

          • Gays were being equally protected under the existing legal definitions of marriage in the several states. They were not required to be married to a member of the opposite sex, just like anybody else. They rejected that equal protection, because they did not like the legal definition of marriage.

          • Equal protection does not mean protection for the narcissistic desires to a sexual practice.

          • tortured distorted and not what the 14th amendment clearly intended and has meant for 135 yrs to apply to race and gender and national origin, not the narcissistic claims to a sexual practice.

      • Polygamy and polyamory have a good chance. Even child marriage might get covered. The laws are ambiguous on the rights of children. Girls can marry at 14 in some states, can seek abortions without parental consent, are tried as adults for murder or child abuse if they leave a newborn in the garbage or anywhere abandoned and it dies, so even if they cannot contract, a child may be able to get a ssm or any marriage under the non legal decision.

  9. Unless Boehner and McConnell are ousted as leaders, it will not matter what “conservative” is elected to the house and senate. BOEHNER AND MCCONNELL MUST GO.

  10. I wonder what is the going rate for the trolls in Soros foundation? It must be pretty good, as one bpuharic worked diligently falsifying history (“Conservatives redefined marriage”, “Democrats were conservative”), obfuscating the discussion (“the right get confused by labels”), bringing Islam into discussion of American Republic etc.
    Troll, begone!

    • And yet he can’t refute the fact it used to be illegal for interracial FERTILE couples to marry. He can’t refute the historicity of the southern strategy.

      Almost as if he has no response at all from the conservative side…IOW he’s wrong

  11. “Very simply, impeachment is the recourse when judges attempted to disregard public interests, to affront the will of the people, or to introduce arbitrary power by seizing the role of policy-maker.”

    • You are suggesting that the will of the people is in opposition to this ruling.

      Prior to the decision last week, 37 states had legalized marriage for all consenting adults, and many of the remaining states had challenges in process attempting to either repeal or re-submit for referendum those bans. It would seem that popularity is against your quote written above.

        • Here in PA I called my GOP state rep to ask for a bill legalizing gay marriage. She said they were awaiting the outcome of a court case.

          So it wasn’t always judges.

        • The state decisions that were overturned by a judge had, in most cases, a panel of 3 or so. Some were liberal appointees, some were conservative appointees. I should point out that 5 SCOTUS judges are conservative appointees. So you should note that being labeled one or the other does not make their decisions exclusive.

          • Them assuming your right about 5 of the judges being conservatives, are we to wonder why they voting with the liberals on these cases? Could it be they are being blackmailed to vote against their conservative principals?

          • I don’t think we can infer what the judges were thinking or how they were leaning based on one case or another, but rather by taking the whole of their cases and looking at their potential bent. Now it is true that judicial panels offer some explanation, either for or against, after rendering a verdict, but these briefs tend to show thought and logical argument for just the case in question.
            Some cases may have a pre-determined outcome based on previous decisions that the panel oversaw. As an example, it has been noted that SCOTUS had previously shown deference to favoring inclusion in cases where one side showed a bias in the law – thereby utilizing the ‘all men created equal’ clause of the DoI, and extending it to include any human regardless of their specific classification. Those pundits who read into the previous work foresaw the outcome based on those previous merits.

            So to call into question the motives for a judge’s decision based on party is to suggest that the judge is not doing his or her job. I think they work purposely and can be swayed by a well-reasoned, well-thought out argument if presented in a certain manner. We all have peculiarities about our personalities, and lawyers learn these things and use them to their advantage. Perhaps one or two of them are turn-coat, but I believe the vast majority are doing what they feel is best based on the argument and the current state of laws. To believe anything else is to believe that anarchy has descended on upon our judicial system. I’m not ready to suggest that.

            Blackmail is a conspiracy theory. I think they were passing judgement based on their body of knowledge and the scope of their previous work. One side wins one monumental case, next time the other side wins. It all evens out in the wash. And this decision is not the end of the world for anyone strait. Why shouldn’t LGBT folks be just as unhappily married and divorced as the rest of us?

          • Their interpretations of what 535 congressmen had written into

            the Obama care law or what they really meant to say, is not their job. Their job is to the rule of law, this means the constitution must be followed. Personal politics have no place on the courts.

            The Constitution is controlling, as the “supreme Law of the Land.” Article VI makes it supreme over all laws (legislative Acts)–as well as over treaties, as we have seen–and requires all judges and other officials, Federal and State, to be “bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” It automatically makes null and void all governmental Acts (laws), decisions, orders, pronouncements, and actions in conflict with it–null and void from the time each one may occur.

  12. I’m a conservative- a straight republican ticket voter since first first voting in 1957. I believe the SCOTUS decision on redefining marriage will actually benefit the GOP in the 2016 elections.

    Notwithstanding the liberal media, the majority of Americans actually disapprove this change. They have been quite silent in their views, leaving the media to believe that reluctantly accepting the changing social scene- mostly occurring through Court rulings- constitutes approval.

    I predict a blow back in the near future election cycles just as there was in my native State NH when a Democratic State majority adopted a same sex marriage law with no GOP votes. In the next State-wide election most of the Democrats were removed from office.

    The GOP’s views on this subject are well known to all U.S. citizens and the National party need not dwell on this issue, other to note that this change should have come from the States Governments and citizens not the Supreme Court. The GOP must concentrate on the economy, stupid, national security/defense, and foreign affairs where
    the Democratic Party’s shortcomings are so glaring.

    Let the existing silent majority take care of current social issues which they disapprove on their own.

      • Liberals push the jobs overseas with trade deal like NAFTA, GATT, WTO and now we have TPA legislation, also known as fast-track, is expected to speed the completion of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations with 11 other nations from the Pacific Rim to Latin America in the coming weeks. Oh ! American workers get $450 million to retrain workers who lose their jobs because of expanded trade. Guess we now know why the lib’s wanted the $15.00 a hour minimum wage for flipping burgers.

    • Quite contrarily, polls on this subject have found that a greater percentage of Americans support same-sex unions over the past several years than oppose it. The difference, which you may be referring to, is that a very small percentage of Republicans over the age of 50 – a category you obvious fall into, having first voted in 1957 – support the issue. Oddly, seventy percent of the Republican crowd under 35 is (was) in favor of same-sex unions prior to the SCOTUS decision.
      I think you’re right about the silent majority taking care of this decision. However, I don’t believe you will find their deference appealing. It is quite apparent to the nation and the world how well the GOP have concentrated on defense, foreign affairs, and the economy. Hence 9/11, Iraq, and the worst economic collapse since before you were born.

  13. Republicans had better study up on what Constitutional recourse is available. Being in public office and not knowing what to do accomplishes nothing.

  14. Conservative candidates should not get drawn into disagreeing about this or saying they will work to repeal it. Will only harm them like all the effort spent trying to reverse Roe v Wade. Lay the responsibility squarely where it belongs…judicial overreach in general and say, if anything, they will work to correct that. This is a winnable argument and can’t be morphed by liberals as being against their agenda. The best things that have come out of the abortion rights are all the ads showing that a fetus is a baby, an unborn child. Forces those who wanted the right to choose to look this clearly in the face and still choose to kill. This provides God all the evidence he will need to judge them guilty. They cannot say they didn’t know. We should do the same with this issue and not attack over something already done by the Supreme court.

  15. Nowhere in the Constitution is the concept of judicial review mentioned, nor in the writings of the founding fathers. President Andrew Jackson thumbed his nose at the Court in the controversy over the so-called Bank of the United States. When the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Bank, Jackson correctly responded, “Who asked them?“ Nothing in the Constitution has anything to do with a national bank (including the Federal Reserve). As for the views of the founders, most (including Jefferson and Adams) were vehemently against a national bank and predicted all the pitfalls we’ve suffered since. The very idea that a body of people could vote on the constitutionality of laws and concepts would have been anathema! Recent decisions only bear this out. This nation cannot be reformed or restored without striking this concept down. The Supreme Court was not instituted for that purpose.

  16. President George Washington, in his Farewell Address, stated that religious morality was the fundamental fabric of this nation extending to any free government and those standing “laboring to subvert these great pillars of human happiness” were not Patriots. If those working to subvert the fundamental religious fabric of this nation are not patriots, if they are working to subvert “the great pillars of human happiness, these firm(est) props of the duties of man and citizens”, aren’t those working against this nation and its fundaments who are not patriots – traitors?

    “Washington in his famous “Farewell
    Address,” which used to be memorized by high school students in America

    Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion
    and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the
    tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human
    happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere
    politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A
    volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity
    [happiness]. Let it simply be asked, “Where is the security for property,
    for reputation for life, if the sense of religious obligations desert … ?”

    And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained
    without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined
    education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us
    to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious
    principle. ‘Tis substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary
    spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force
    to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it [free
    government] can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of
    the fabric?”

  17. I find the comments more entertaining than the article. I love to read posts from crazy right wing lunatics. It reminds me of one of the many visits I would make to an elderly, insane aunt of mine who lived in Missouri. She would make tea with old, used teabags and serve it luke warm. And her cookies tasted like spit mixed with peanut butter. But she always made me laugh. I hope you right wingers never disappear from the political spectrum. Politics would be very boring without you all.

  18. If SCOTUS has the authority to interpret the intent of the law they should remember that when it was written “that all men are created equal” some of the writers owned slaves. They probably didn’t intend to include the slaves. SCOTUS has become just another assembly of politicians…they are bound only by the restraints they put on themselves.

Leave a Reply