“Does it please Thee, O God, to deliver into the hands of these beasts the defenseless children whom I have nourished with Thy Love?” - St. Clare of Assisi

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

Breaking: Supreme Court to hear challenges to Proposition 8, DOMA

Is the Court Going to "Roe" Gay Marriage?

Hot Air is reporting that the Supreme Court is going to hear cases on gay marriage.

Oh my. This is big. The country has been arguing and battling this issue out state by state and now the Court might just swoop in and decide it all for us? I really hope not.

I wrote in October at The Register:

I'm wondering if the Supreme Court might just "Roe" us on gay marriage? With two recent court rulings going against the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, it's growing increasingly likely that the Supreme Court will take this issue on. It's hard to know which case they might take on Justice Ruth Vader Ginsburg recently said she thought the court would consider same-sex marriage this term.

And that should concern us. In one ruling, nine justice in robes could overrule the will of thirty two states, never mind thousands of years of culture.

I know what some might be thinking. The Supreme Court as currently constituted would never do that. Conservatives have a 5-4 majority. But is there anyone who actually knows how the Court will rule on anything. If Obamacare taught us anything, it's that nobody knows how the Court will rule.

Predicting court decisions is like predicting which direction a tornado will choose. Nobody knows. All we know is that previous ones have ruined a lot of people's lives.
Message to our black robed overlords: Don't do it. Not again. Let the people decide.


Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-archbold/will-the-supreme-court-roe-gay-marriage#ixzz2EPERgzoU


*subhead*Roe.*subhead*

Your Ad Here

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Black robes are so gay.

Lynda said...

A court of law cannot make new law. The common law recognises marriage as being between one man and one woman. Before divorce laws, it recognised it as being "life-long", which of course true marriage continues to be. Quite apart from the jurisdiction of the courts, there is the necessary limits to the power and authority of the man-made state: a state cannot determine what marriage is, marriage exists independently of the state and can only be recognised by it as the good that it is for both the individual and society, which cannot exist without it.

Mary De Voe said...

The post modernist era is an era of judicial immunity. The vices of sodomy, adultery, pornography, pedophilia, and abortion must be confessed to the judiciary by the culprit who immediately, because of turning states’ evidence, gains immunity from prosecution. Thereby, the homosexual practitioner, the abortionist, the pedophile testifying against himself, according to the Fifth Amendment does not have to testify against himself, turns states’ evidence and is immune from prosecution. Same sex unions, (??) abortion came before the court and admitted practicing sodomy and murder of the unborn sovereign person and thereby, gained immunity from prosecution, even immunity from criticism, ostracism and the acknowledgment of wrongdoing, the practice of VICE. The tax payer does not have to support such immunity, only the court is obliged to effect such immunity. This immunity is not to be afforded legitimacy, nor is the VICE practiced, nor the practitioner.
The question the Supreme Court must answer is this: Do the people have a right to the TRUTH and the experience and practice of virtue? The same sex marriage people are free to do as they will, but their choice does not have OR TAKE precedence over the peoples’ right to TRUTH and VIRTUE, INNOCENCE and JUSTICE. A fake husband, a fake wife, a fake mother, a fake father, people created in original innocence, as we all are, have chosen to violate themselves. The only truth about ssm is homosexual practitioners and lesbian practitioners. In the words of George Will, famous columnist: “This is like the murderer of his parents throwing himself on the mercy of the court, because he is an orphan.” Loosely quoted.
With atheism, abortion, pedophilia, ssm, the court says: “we cannot stop you” but the court must hold the line on legitimacy, on making legal the vices of evildoers, to protect and provide for America, for our national security, for doing the work of Divine Providence…and to spare the taxpayer.

Anonymous said...

Atheism compared to pedophilia? Really?

rover.

Sophia's Favorite said...

I assume, rover, that you're offended on pedophiles' behalf, because they certainly didn't murder 120 million people in 72 years.

That was you guys.

Steve said...

We shouldn't leave it to the people either as they have no authority to legislate nature.

Marriage is pre-political. It is what it is.

Anonymous said...

Stop being a dumb fuck, Soph.

Mary De Voe said...

Atheism denies the unalienable human rights endowed by God, so yes, atheism murders people, sovereign persons at will for no other reason but inhumanity. Lenin called them useful idiots. A pedophile criminalizes himself by violating the unalienable human rights of another human being who has not yet reached the age of majoity of informed consent and ability to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our posterity. The atheist may go his own way but the atheist may not impose his act of free will to abrogate the laws of God and nature on another human being by denying the other sovereign person the existence of his rational, immortal soul, wherein is endowed all unalienable rights. So, yes, by denying the human being's immortal soul, the atheist denies the other person his right to LIFE.

Mary De Voe said...

Rover uses an act of free will, endowed by God into his rational, immortal soul, to deny the existence of God WHO is the Supreme Sovereign Being, WHO is existence and WHO exists, WHO created freedom and free will.

Sophia's Favorite said...

@Anonymous, no, plainly, I should restrict myself purely to well-reasoned arguments—the way you do.

Newsflash, dumptruck, you do not get to call a being "dumb" when its intellect is totally beyond your Zinjanthropic powers of comprehension.

Now go back to your mud hut and chip some flint.

gothmog said...

Awww. Anonymous is upset. That's really cute. Obviously, this individual's vast experience and skill in debate have been showcased here.

I think Anonymous should run for public office. After all, people seem to like voting for barely cogent morons.

Mary De Voe said...

The atheist is free to come and go unmolested. The atheist uses his free will to deny “their Creator” WHO endows the atheist’s free will. The atheist is not free to impose his free will on other persons’ free will.
Created and endowed with original innocence, virtue and virginity at conception by God, the human being is also endowed with sovereign personhood which constitutes the sovereignty of the nation. This sovereign nation must protect and defend the legal and moral innocence, virtue and virginity of the people who constitute it as the standard of Justice.
If gay individuals seek to have their fraud as fake husbands and fake wives, fake fathers and fake mothers legitimatized, the Supreme Court cannot, while at the same time doing its duty to protect and provide for the innocent virgins coming into our nation as our posterity. Fake husbands and fake wives cannot become the standard of Justice for our nation. Truth in advertizing, legal contracts, informed consent cannot be employed by pretense. In other words, the gay-marriage community does not have truth in their fraud to negotiate or sign a legal contract within the community of the sovereign people who constitute our sovereign nation, a nation who practices virginity and virtue and self-control. The gay-community does not have the JUSTICE in their fraud required to contract or give informed consent in contract to do business with another citizen who does not believe them. It is this legitimacy the gay-community is seeking in court. How can the court remake their practice of fraud to each and everyone, if the gay community refuses to live as nature’s God intended?

Anonymous said...

Gays will be getting married all over nation soon enough. The court will rule against your ridiculous religion. May Allan fuck you in the ass.

gothmog said...

@Anonymous/Is that really the best you've got? I'm disappointed. I really am. I'm willing to make an educated guess that being a troll is about the only thing you have in life, and there's really no excuse for failing so bad at something when all you need is a working computer and the intellectual capacity of a tapeworm. That's just sad.

Jason Fairfield said...

There is a quote from "Man for all seasons" that I believe is relevant. "Some say the earth is round, other say it is flat. It is a matter capable of question, but if the earth is flat will the King's command make it round and if it is round will the King's command flatten it."

The state can and will do whatever it wants, but regardless how much it tries it won't make a marriage sacramental unless God makes it so. However, the state can make our crosses heavier, hard as that is, that is what we are commanded to do, and our lot will ultimately be much better than those that cast theirs off.

Sophia's Favorite said...

@Anonymous: Allan?

But I must second gothmog's opinion—you're just sad, even as our subliterate trolls here go.

Keep banging the rocks together, Brainiac, in about 40,000 years your descendants might've worked their way up to bronze.

Mary De Voe said...

Anonymous 11:39 " The court will rule against your ridiculous religion." Religion is man's response to the gift of Faith from God. Man responds to God in worship, free speech, press, and peaceable assembly, in the public square and in privacy, but always in TRUTH. The necessary part of JUSTICE is TRUTH. Without TRUTH and JUSTICE, there is the gay community, denying the rational, immortal human soul, redefining the human being as having no soul into whom God endows all unalienable human rights. If man had no sovereignty, no Divine image in his soul, man would still be given respect because respect is what God has requested for every man, and self-respect for every troll.

Mary De Voe said...

Anonymous 11:39
The human being's soul is required to give the necessary consent to a covenant, any covenant. Gay practitioners have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to give them a soul, because the soul God gave them was not good enough for them.

Post a Comment