View Full Version : 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage
Team Sergeant
06-26-2015, 09:19
Only in America does the 1% make the 99% kneel to their demands.
(Yes, the gay, lesbo, and gender confused makes up only 1% of the American population.)
This is what happens when you have 100 year old supremes or name someone to a "government" position for "life".
"For the people and by the people"...... yeah that's dead, real dead.
And folks wonder why I call most "sheeple".
I actually read the decision ( http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf ). I would encourage all to read it also. It only obligates the state to recognize same sex marriages and issue licenses for same sex couples.
Near as I can tell, no claim is made on religious institutions to conduct or honor these marriages.
Scalia's dissent (which I agree with):
“The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws,” Scalia wrote. “So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage.”
“It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact-and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create ‘liberties’ that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.”
Team Sergeant
06-26-2015, 10:25
Scalia's dissent (which I agree with):
“The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws,” Scalia wrote. “So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage.”
“It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact-and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create ‘liberties’ that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.”
Yup I also agree. Next year on my taxes I'll be married and claim those privileges/tax credits. My dog really loves me......:munchin
Near as I can tell, no claim is made on religious institutions to conduct or honor these marriages.
I think this is KEY.
If they went any further they would have to say they are ready to legislate the break-up of the 1st amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I see it as a on-going bag of worms and I don't see it getting better..
...congress need not make a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof as long as there are at least five activists in the supreme court waiting to judge
...congress need not infringe on your right to keep and bear arms if there are enough anti-gun judges to legislate away your rights from the bench
...congress need not violate your right to feel safe and secure in your home when your need for security can be judged
...congress need not fret over the length of your trial or the impartiality of your jury as long as it is more expedient to allow you to be judged
Most importantly, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively should the high court see fit.
It's nice to know that we can always rely on the council of elders to help guide our lives.
sure feels like a point blank shot to the head these days
This week,…the Supremes, Boehner and his Bitches, and Obama & Co. have shown what shape the future is taking.
(Next up? Our right to own and posses a firearm.)
Nothing good happens fast,.. Even during the best of times, change requires a certain period of time to fully digest. Radical changes coming back-to back-to back are going to lead to monstrous impact and strife.
Wether any of you, or I, agree with some, any, all or none of what has transpired, our mindsets must continually grasp what we are looking at so that we can position ourselves, our families and our friends in the best position possible for continued prosperity and survival.
An old saying in the Barracks used to be "Cheer up, things will probably get worse".
Methinks they will!
Surf n Turf
06-26-2015, 14:37
Scalia's dissent (which I agree with):
I have also read the entire decision, and thought that Scalia's dissent rated special reading, as it highlights so much of what it wrong with the Federal Government and the arrogance and hubris of those who would rule in the name of the Republic.
Justice Scalia's full dissent --- does it portend then end of the Republic ?, perhaps not in my lifetime, but certainly in my grandchildren's time.
SnT
JUSTICE SCALIA, dissenting.
I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.
The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance
Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.
Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to.1 Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.2
The Constitution places some constraints on self-rule—constraints adopted by the People themselves when they ratified the Constitution and its Amendments. Forbidden are laws “impairing the Obligation of Contracts,”3 denying “Full Faith and Credit” to the “public Acts” of other States,4 prohibiting the free exercise of religion,5 abridging the freedom of speech,6 infringing the right to keep and bear arms,7 authorizing unreasonable searches and seizures,8 and so forth. Aside from these limitations, those powers “reserved to the States respectively, or to thepeople”9 can be exercised as the States or the People desire. These cases ask us to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment contains a limitation that requires the States to license and recognize marriages between two people of the same sex. Does it remove that issue from the political process?
Of course not. It would be surprising to find a prescription regarding marriage in the Federal Constitution since, as the author of today’s opinion reminded us only two years ago (in an opinion joined by the same Justices who join him today):
“[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”10
“[T]he Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.”11
But we need not speculate. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification.12 We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification. Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.
But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment, ”thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.13 That is so because “[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment didnot presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions . . . . ”14 One would think that sentence would continue: “. . . and therefore they provided for a means by which the People could amend the Constitution,” or perhaps “. . . and therefore they left the creation of additional liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process of legislation.” But no. What logically follows, in the majority’s judge-empowering estimation, is: “and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”15 The “we,” needless to say, is the nine of us. “History and tradition guide and discipline [our] inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.”16 Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four“principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman.17
This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.
Surf n Turf
06-26-2015, 14:43
(Continued)
Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers18 who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single South-westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner(California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans19), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question ofsame-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.
II But what really astounds is the hubris reflected intoday’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in2003.20 They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago,21 cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies , stands against the Constitution.
The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.22 Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”23 (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.
Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.) Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”24 (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) And we are told that, “[i]n any particular case,” either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause “may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive verge in the identification and definition of the right.”25 (What say? What possible “essence” does substantive due process “capture” in an “accurate and comprehensive way”? It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements that this Court really likes. And the Equal Protection Clause, as employed today, identifies nothing except a difference in treatment that this Court really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence. If the opinion is correct that the two clauses “converge in the identification and definition of [a] right,” that is only because the majority’s likes and dislikes are predictably compatible.) I could go on. The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop-philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.
* * * Hubris is sometimes defined as o'weening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.”26 With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.
2 years ago this began.....
FWIW - I cannot see Western society allowing such an act to be 'decriminalized' as the thread's title would indicate.
Richard :munchin
http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=411999&postcount=69
We have kicked the abnormal sexual behaviors topic around in at least 4 threads, most of would like to believe these behaviors would not be normalized/de-crimialized.
Back then this thread began, only 9 or the 50 states (Post #53 (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=499846&postcount=53)) allowed same sex marriage, now it 19 out of 50. The 19 equate to 8 by Court Decision, 8 by State Legislature and 3 by popular vote.
Leaving only 31 states that ban same sex marriage.......and 9 states have had their bans overturned by the judiciary.
And the hits from the Western Society court system keep on coming, and perversions are becoming.......normal behavior in the eyes of the court.
[/QUOTE]
I think this is KEY.
If they went any further they would have to say they are ready to legislate the break-up of the 1st amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I see it as a on-going bag of worms and I don't see it getting better..
Next up.............
The constitutiional right to not be offended!
This is no longer My United States of America. The current flag in my yard is being replaced only with the state flag of TN.
More of a win for the divorce attorney lobby than the gay lobby. Cha-ching$$$:lifter
x SF med
06-26-2015, 15:49
The most telling part of Justice Scalia's dissent is his flying in the face of the current crop of younger(?) members of the SCOTUS, and falling on the side of Constitutional Impotence adjudicated by the SCOTUS over the years.
When THE highest ranking Adjudicant in the country rails that the court, which he oversees, is undermining the document that allowed/allows them to make the laws to the detriment of the founding documents of the country, based on the decisions of a very small, select, inbred group of judges - we have a huge issue.
This same individual, states clearly that the Democratic Republic and it's freedoms are being whittled to nothing by the 'equality' forced on them by the federal government, in light of the fact that many of the rulings are in areas reserved for the "individual States, and citizens" in the founding documents.
Our current government is at war with the Constitution, and legislating away the freedoms and rights guaranteed to individuals and states by usurping the authority to "make it better by making it a federal law".
How do we, as those who have sworn to 'Uphold and Defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign or domestic" justify what is happening? The Chief Justice of the United States has clearly stated in a dissenting opinion that the Constitution is being whittled away, and the Executive and Legislative Branches of the government are laughing, because they attain new powers with each small or large victory over the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.
The handwriting is on the wall, but the populace has forgotten how to read.
Pardon my rant...
Monsoon65
06-26-2015, 15:58
More of a win for the divorce attorney lobby than the gay lobby. Cha-ching$$$:lifter
I've been telling people that since Day One of the whole same sex marriage deal. The only winners in this struggle will be the divorce lawyers. It's another demographic they can make money from.
Gays like to boast that their marriage is exactly the same as a marriage between a man and a woman, now they get to experience the same rate of divorce.
It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy
Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html#ixzz3eCyGsOSK
Let's see, I was taught that bronze was an alloy made by the marriage of copper and tin. Now I guess it can also be made by the marriage of copper and copper or the marriage of tin and tin. Cool!
Pat
Badger52
06-26-2015, 17:07
I find it disgusting (but not shocking) to hear Roberts whine about the importance of words and that they should be interpreting what the law IS (vs what they think the Congress intended), when cavalier disregard for what he's whining about is what took them to support the previous day's decision RE Obamacare, Roberts included.
Scalia's a guy I could probably have a cup of coffee with.
:munchin
By their reasoning, there can be no obstacle to polygamy or incestuous marriage as longs a you are a consenting adult
blue02hd
06-26-2015, 17:55
Is anyone watching their stop watches to see how fast this hits home on an ODA?
It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy
]
I'll pass. I like my fights one at a time if given the choice
Go Devil
06-26-2015, 18:20
30859
Hahahhahahhaha!
I'll pass. I like my fights one at a time if given the choice
JW you may not a choice in the matter, the flood gates of perversion are now open. The Statue of Nathan Bedforfd Forrest could be replace by Catlyn Jenner or Jimmy Savile! You will see polygamy, animal lovers and connoisseurs children all vying special status like their homosexual brothers and sisters.
The part of this I find most troubling is the potential treatment of Christians....
I find it disgusting (but not shocking) to hear Roberts whine about the importance of words and that they should be interpreting what the law IS (vs what they think the Congress intended), when cavalier disregard for what he's whining about is what took them to support the previous day's decision RE Obamacare, Roberts included.
Scalia's a guy I could probably have a cup of coffee with.
:munchin
Sigba always said 'Words have meaning'
Team Sergeant
06-26-2015, 18:57
The part of this I find most troubling is the potential treatment of Christians....
Christians, deserve all they get for eternity as far as I'm concerned. And yes, I hate all organized "religions".....
They are responsible for more human killings than all the wars combined.
Let's get back to the 1% that have made the 99% kneel before them.....
And remember in any successful revolution you must kill all the lawyers (judges included) and the media folks.
Christians, deserve all they get for eternity as far as I'm concerned. And yes, I hate all organized "religions".....
They are responsible for more human killings than all the wars combined.
Let's get back to the 1% that have made the 99% kneel before them.....
And remember in any successful revolution you must kill all the lawyers (judges included) and the media folks.
You do make a valid point about the body count, but the Constitution is 'supposed' to protect people from persecution...including religions.
More worrisome than the persecution of Christians is the 1% of the population with the help of 5 Justices who have turned the entire system on its head......this is what happens when the 99% have more interest in ESPN's NBA Draft coverage and stupid coverage on a flag.
I do not know whether the Constitution protects same-sex marriage or not, but I do believe that same-sex marriage is a natural right. My argument is that if the Constitution doesn't really protect it, I'd hope we could have a Constitutional amendment some day to explicitly protect it.
If all they wanted to do was get married it would be fine, go to city hall or a gay friendly church and get hitched... but they don't. They have already proven they intend to force themselves, their ways and their cause on everyone.
Surf n Turf
06-26-2015, 20:34
First response from someone in "power" with a suggestion to the usurpation by the Supreme Court.
Wonder if other leaders willl chime in :munchin
SnT
Ted Cruz: Constitutional Remedies to a Lawless Supreme Court
This week, we have twice seen Supreme Court justices violating their judicial oaths. Yesterday, the justices rewrote Obamacare, yet again, in order to force this failed law on the American people. Today, the Court doubled down with a 5–4 opinion that undermines not just the definition of marriage, but the very foundations of our representative form of government.
Both decisions were judicial activism, plain and simple. Both were lawless.
As Justice Scalia put it regarding Obamacare, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’ . . . We should start calling this law SCOTUSCare.” And as he observed regarding marriage, “Today’s decree says that . . . the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”
Sadly, the political reaction from the leaders of my party is all too predictable. They will pretend to be incensed, and then plan to do absolutely nothing.
That is unacceptable. On the substantive front, I have already introduced a constitutional amendment to preserve the authority of elected state legislatures to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and also legislation stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction over legal assaults on marriage. And the 2016 election has now been transformed into a referendum on Obamacare; in 2017, I believe, a Republican president will sign legislation finally repealing that disastrous law.
But there is a broader problem: The Court’s brazen action undermines its very legitimacy. As Justice Scalia powerfully explained,
Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before the fall. . . . With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.
This must stop. Liberty is in the balance.
Not only are the Court’s opinions untethered to reason and logic, they are also alien to our constitutional system of limited and divided government. By redefining the meaning of common words, and redesigning the most basic human institutions, this Court has crossed from the realm of activism into the arena of oligarchy.
This week’s opinions are but the latest in a long line of judicial assaults on our Constitution and the common-sense values that have made America great. During the past 50 years, the Court has condemned millions of innocent unborn children to death, banished God from our schools and public squares, extended constitutional protections to prisoners of war on foreign soil, authorized the confiscation of property from one private owner to transfer it to another, and has now required all Americans to purchase a specific product, and to accept the redefinition of an institution ordained by God and long predating the formation of the Court.
Enough is enough.
Over the last several decades, many attempts have been made to compel the Court to abide by the Constitution. But, as Justice Alito put it, “Today’s decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed.”
In the case of marriage, a majority of states passed laws or state constitutional amendments to affirm the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. At the federal level, the Congress and President Clinton enacted the Defense of Marriage Act. When it comes to marriage, the Court has clearly demonstrated an unwillingness to remain constrained by the Constitution.
Similarly, the Court has now twice engaged in constitutional contortionism in order to preserve Obamacare. If the Court is unwilling to abide by the specific language of our laws as written, and if it is unhindered by the clear intent of the people’s elected representatives, our constitutional options for reasserting our authority over our government are limited.
The Framers of our Constitution, despite their foresight and wisdom, did not anticipate judicial tyranny on this scale. The Constitution explicitly provides that justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,” and this is a standard they are not remotely meeting. The Framers thought Congress’s “power of instituting impeachments,” as Alexander Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers, would be an “important constitutional check” on the judicial branch and would provide “a complete security” against the justices’ “deliberate usurpations of the authority of the legislature.”
The Framers underestimated the justices’ craving for legislative power, and they overestimated the Congress’s backbone to curb it.
But the Framers underestimated the justices’ craving for legislative power, and they overestimated the Congress’s backbone to curb it. It was clear even before the end of the founding era that the threat of impeachment was, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, “not even a scarecrow” to the justices. Today, the remedy of impeachment — the only one provided under our Constitution to cure judicial tyranny — is still no remedy at all. A Senate that cannot muster 51 votes to block an attorney-general nominee openly committed to continue an unprecedented course of executive-branch lawlessness can hardly be expected to muster the 67 votes needed to impeach an Anthony Kennedy.
The time has come, therefore, to recognize that the problem lies not with the lawless rulings of individual lawless justices, but with the lawlessness of the Court itself. The decisions that have deformed our constitutional order and have debased our culture are but symptoms of the disease of liberal judicial activism that has infected our judiciary. A remedy is needed that will restore health to the sick man in our constitutional system.
Rendering the justices directly accountable to the people would provide such a remedy. Twenty states have now adopted some form of judicial retention elections, and the experience of these states demonstrates that giving the people the regular, periodic power to pass judgment on the judgments of their judges strikes a proper balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability. It also restores respect for the rule of law to courts that have systematically imposed their personal moral values in the guise of constitutional rulings. The courts in these states have not been politicized by this check on their power, nor have judges been removed indiscriminately or wholesale. Americans are a patient, forgiving people. We do not pass judgment rashly.
Yet we are a people who believe, in the words of our Declaration of Independence that “when a long train of abuses and usurpations . . . evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security.” In California, the people said enough is enough in 1986, and removed from office three activist justices who had repeatedly contorted the state constitution to effectively outlaw capital punishment, no matter how savage the crime. The people of Nebraska likewise removed a justice who had twice disfigured that state’s constitution to overturn the people’s decision to subject state legislators to term limits. And in 2010, the voters of Iowa removed three justices who had, like the Supreme Court in Obergefell, invented a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Surf n Turf
06-26-2015, 20:36
(continued)
Judicial retention elections have worked in states across America; they will work for America. In order to provide the people themselves with a constitutional remedy to the problem of judicial activism and the means for throwing off judicial tyrants, I am proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would subject the justices of the Supreme Court to periodic judicial-retention elections. Every justice, beginning with the second national election after his or her appointment, will answer to the American people and the states in a retention election every eight years. Those justices deemed unfit for retention by both a majority of the American people as a whole and by majorities of the electorates in at least half of the 50 states will be removed from office and disqualified from future service on the Court.
As a constitutional conservative, I do not make this proposal lightly. I began my career as a law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist — one of our nation’s greatest chief justices — and I have spent over a decade litigating before the Supreme Court. I revere that institution, and have no doubt that Rehnquist would be heartbroken at what has befallen our highest court.
The Court’s hubris and thirst for power have reached unprecedented levels. And that calls for meaningful action, lest Congress be guilty of acquiescing to this assault on the rule of law.
But, sadly, the Court’s hubris and thirst for power have reached unprecedented levels. And that calls for meaningful action, lest Congress be guilty of acquiescing to this assault on the rule of law.
And if Congress will not act, passing the constitutional amendments needed to correct this lawlessness, then the movement from the people for an Article V Convention of the States — to propose the amendments directly — will grow stronger and stronger.
As we prepare to celebrate next week the 239th anniversary of the birth of our country, our Constitution finds itself under sustained attack from an arrogant judicial elite. Yet the words of Daniel Webster ring as true today as they did over 150 years ago: “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.” We must hold fast to the miracle that is our Constitution and our republic; we must not submit our constitutional freedoms, and the promise of our nation, to judicial tyranny.
— Ted Cruz represents Texas in the United States Senate.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420409/ted-cruz-supreme-court-constitutional-amendment
Old Dog New Trick
06-26-2015, 20:53
I swore to myself I'd never vote for another Texan, but this moves the pendulum up just a little.
At least stomp your feet and pump your fist just a little Ted. :munchin
UWOA (RIP)
06-26-2015, 21:35
Yup I also agree. Next year on my taxes I'll be married and claim those privileges/tax credits. My dog really loves me......:munchin
Ahhh, but will you be the pack leader or the follower?
:munchin
.
My wife had an interesting observation. She worked for HP and they caved to the "same sex couple" benefits crowd several years ago. Now, they can require a marriage certificate in order to receive those benefits. The guys and gals who were just roommates and received health and dental insurance will now have to, in fact, be married. Be careful what you wish for. ;)
Pat
Old Dog New Trick
06-26-2015, 22:32
Hey look at the up side. Gays will be miserable like the rest of us :D
There is also this. The liberals may have shot themselves in the foot. (pun intended)
http://bearingarms.com/scotus-ruling-sex-marriage-mandates-nationwide-concealed-carry-reciprocity/
ROTFLMAO! :lifter
The law of unintended consequence.
ROTFLMAO! :lifter
The law of unintended consequence.
Or better known as the law to do whatever the f you want.
(continued)
This complete post, Could you please use [ quote ] & [ /quote ] and colorize each source. I can't tell if Cruse or you or someone else is saying what. Very confusing..
If your point is to put SCOTUS to a general election on some timely bases, I strongly disagree.
This would denigrate the third leg of our government up to the whims of an electorate that barely has enough brains to find the election booth.
Additionally, You think Hil is sitting on a bazillion of ill gotten money??
Who would BANKROLL SCOTUS elections??
:munchin
I would agree to term limits in some form, so the justices are not rotated with POTUS or congress.. Say 23 yrs or some other Prime Number.
It is time to flush the whole DC crowd and send new ones up. That includes every branch and department including the military leadership. They have lost touch with America.
I spent the morning reading many many comments of FB and MSM news articles.
Personally, I think everyone should have the same civil rights.
Be it voting, job opportunities, religion, or sexual preferences.
It' not in my performance plan to be judgmental..
That said,, I have some concerns..
1) I worry that the LEFT will read this as the starting volley in their effort to Criminalize all religion affiliations. They have already criminalized a persons ability to live by the expressions of their personal religion. Now they can go after the Churches as well.. How long before you will see Timothy Michael Dolan, the Archbishop of NY in court for not presiding over a gay mass at the Cathedral of St. Patrick?? Our forefathers used the terms "separation of church and state" and "freedom FROM persecution" for a reason...
2a) This could lead to a complete dissolution of all States rights.. Something that I'm personally not in favor of.. This is the 2nd time SCOTUS tore into States rights,, the ruling on berry-care is a similar affront.. One needs to be careful..
2b)Oklahoma voted in MARCH,, and other states are looking at stopping the issuance of wedding licenses. Up until now this has been a States Right issue.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/newshomepage3/oklahoma-house-votes-to-do-away-with-state-marriage-licenses/article_20a61d10-17e8-5d68-87a4-59d35218d5e0.html
Is it now going to be Federalized?? Will the SCOTUS decision lead to the federalization of wedding licenses??
How about teachers, bus drivers, doctor, lawyers, hot dog venders, school food service employees(FLOTUS wants), baby sitters, lawn service??
I know, you're going to say:
I can keep the lawn service I have,,
it will make the service BETTER & CHEAPER,,
I might even get a tax credit,,
only the rich will suffer,,
and EVERYONE will have the same service..
Be careful,, very very careful...
My $00.00002..
Let's get back to the 1% that have made the 99% kneel before them.....
For every gay person I know, I know at least a 100 straight people who support gay marriage...so it's really not just 1 percent.
For every gay person I know, I know at least a 100 straight people who support gay marriage...so it's really not just 1 percent.Must be a pigment challenge thing because, in the non-pigment challenged folks; they are a against it.:p
For every gay person I know, I know at least a 100 straight people who support gay marriage...so it's really not just 1 percent.
So, the people you know is the template from which to gauge public opinion? It doesn't occur to you that you might associate with like minded people?
1% is weak,,
How many Democrats are there,
multiple that number by 5(need to count the dead),
then div by 300,000,000,
that is THE %..
Guessing 70-80 %
Team Sergeant
06-27-2015, 14:13
For every gay person I know, I know at least a 100 straight people who support gay marriage...so it's really not just 1 percent.
Hold on a second and let me find my Bullshit flag....... I'm guessing your facebook "friends"?
It's really 1% you know it and I know it.
I don't know a single person that's ok with gay marriage, not one.
Roguish Lawyer
06-27-2015, 14:39
You guys love to rant, yet not one of you has given a dime to the one guy fighting for your views politically. WTF, over? The retired guys have no excuse.
Click this link and give some money, or STFU. :mad:
https://donate.tedcruz.org/c/FBCA0007/
Roguish Lawyer
06-27-2015, 14:40
It's really 1% you know it and I know it.
Not where I live. :eek:
If the support is in the 1-to-100 range then how in the hell did proposition-8 turn out the way it did?
...I'd agree that the ration is 1-to-100 of gays to folks that are sick and tired of hearing about it
At least the supremE c0urt isn't afraid to legislate because congress sure as hell cant get anything done
GratefulCitizen
06-27-2015, 16:19
Time to move on and push for the legalization of polygamy.
Wonder how liberals will like that idea...
Team Sergeant
06-27-2015, 16:50
Not where I live. :eek:
And my point was and still is the gay population in the United States is 1% of the entire population. And that 1% made the 99% kneel to their demands.
I am not religious nor am I spiritual but even I can see a problem with the opening of Pandora's Box on this issue. Our children's children will be paying for our fuck-ups today.
You guys love to rant, yet not one of you has given a dime to the one guy fighting for your views politically. WTF, over? The retired guys have no excuse.
Click this link and give some money, or STFU. :mad:
https://donate.tedcruz.org/c/FBCA0007/
How do you know we haven't? :confused:
Not where I live. :eek:
Move! There's ambulances to chase in other parts of Merica. :D
For every gay person I know, I know at least a 100 straight people who support gay marriage...so it's really not just 1 percent.
You must either know a shitload of people, or very few homosexuals.
Roguish Lawyer
06-27-2015, 17:40
How do you know we haven't? :confused:
I'm a high-level dude at the NSA. Actually, one of you has now donated.
I'm a high-level dude at the NSA. Actually, one of you has now donated.
You better believe him....:cool:
Roguish Lawyer
06-27-2015, 18:06
:D
I just love how they throw around words like "dignity, honor, respect, tolerance, equality".
The dignified process of two persons without the appropriate chromosones required to procreate marrying one and other?
Sounds real dignified, and honorable.
Maybe I should petition to marry my revolver. I mean I love it, and we can't make babies if I fuck it, so whats the difference?
I knew our country was gone before this decision was made, but it really came to light after doing some reading online the last few days. Never in all my 35 years have I seen a bigger group of sore winners. Just trampling dissenting opinions and using every opportunity to cite the constitution whilst calling anyone who doesn't actively support two dudes banging eachother a bigot.
...your opinion is no longer your own
...your opinion is no longer your own
If you were to take 3.14 out of an opinion, all you would have left is an onion.
:munchin
Team Sergeant
06-28-2015, 06:25
I agree that calling those that disagree with same-sex marriage a bigot is wrong, as not everyone disagrees with same-sex marriage hates homosexuals. But I do not get what all the ranting and raving about this is about. Homosexuality occurs naturally. If two people love each other, what is the big deal? Marriage isn't solely based on procreation. Not all married couples procreate and sometimes they can't due to medical reasons even if they want to.
Regarding your revolver, the difference is that your revolver can't love you back nor is it capable of reason at all. It's just an inanimate object.
You've got those liberal New York "blinders" on so tight that it's restricting the blood flow to your brain.
Years back Ginsburg was speaking somewhere and mentioned something like the values of European countries should be given consideration when deciding US law.
Caused a little flap at the time but the tree is starting to bear fruit.
But I do not get what all the ranting and raving about this is about.
Can you point out where Justice Kennedy's majority opinion actually CITED the Constitution? The dissenting opinions sure did and, going further, EVERY SINGLE dissenter cited (in their own ways) that the majority's opinion contravened the American idea of democracy and in effect the 10th Amendment.
That's what it's about.
bailaviborita
06-28-2015, 07:54
I agree that calling those that disagree with same-sex marriage a bigot is wrong, as not everyone disagrees with same-sex marriage hates homosexuals. But I do not get what all the ranting and raving about this is about. Homosexuality occurs naturally. If two people love each other, what is the big deal? Marriage isn't solely based on procreation. Not all married couples procreate and sometimes they can't due to medical reasons even if they want to.
Regarding your revolver, the difference is that your revolver can't love you back nor is it capable of reason at all. It's just an inanimate object.
The issue is social norms and the assumptions about doing away with norms and what that will cause. If you think gay marriage and gay equality is the objective- you are fooling yourself. Go to their websites and read their agenda. This is just the beginning. Their goals are totally transforming society. Doing away with the labels male and female. They're already talking about passing the baton to the Q crowd.
If you assume that a society that "evolves" into one whose individuals are "free" to determine on a minute by minute basis who they are, who they want to have sex with, and what they should be responsible for (in terms of the products of their sexual activity and social relationships at any moment in time)--- is a better society, then you should be cool with all this. If you think that there are inherent strengths in norming behavior, two couple heterosexual parents raising kids, and the majority of people not questioning or being constantly hung up about their sexual identity to the point of psychosis- then you are probably a little worried at current trends and university reeducation efforts...
Hold on a second.....I just heard that we no longer burn witches at the stake. WTF is happening to this country???
Team Sergeant
06-28-2015, 08:44
Hold on a second.....I just heard that we no longer burn witches at the stake. WTF is happening to this country???
(It's been contracted out to foreign countries.....)
Mustang Man
06-28-2015, 08:47
The scary thing is that in an interview I just saw with a LGBT fellow, he mentioned something along the lines of, "This historic decision moves our community a step forward but there is still work to be done." First thing I thought of was, what the hell else needs to be done??? The supreme court just circumvented the 10th amendment for you all.
You can now marry anywhere & be out loud proud of being gay and sue anyone of who disagrees with you.
Anyone now wanna take bets on what the next "progressive" movement to get shoved down our throats will be?
My moneys probably on either pedophilia or trans-species/beastiality.
Team Sergeant
06-28-2015, 08:50
trans-species/beastiality.
I was not aware there was a moral issue with this? ;)
Time to move on and push for the legalization of polygamy.
Wonder how liberals will like that idea...
Liberals will endorse anything that has the potential to garner a vote Bacha bazi, Polygamy, Incest, Animal Love....it is all on the table.
The scary thing is that in an interview I just saw with a LGBT fellow, he mentioned something along the lines of, "This historic decision moves our community a step forward but there is still work to be done." First thing I thought of was, what the hell else needs to be done??? The supreme court just circumvented the 10th amendment for you all.
You can now marry anywhere & be out loud proud of being gay and sue anyone of who disagrees with you.
Anyone now wanna take bets on what the next "progressive" movement to get shoved down our throats will be?
My moneys probably on either pedophilia or trans-species/beastiality.''
Mustang Man their are many who put their money where you do..
http://www.narth.org/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf
http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/15/conference-aims-to-normalize-pedophilia/
and a previous discussion here:
http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34853&highlight=trojan+couch
I recall an older thread that was immediately after the 2008 election where members put in the Obama forecasts.....it would be interesting to see how the forecasts panned out
Team Sergeant
06-28-2015, 08:57
Liberals will endorse anything that has the potential to garner a vote Bacha bazi, Polygamy, Incest, Animal Love....it is all on the table.
And so is Stem Cells and Same Sex Reproduction.....
http://www.explorestemcells.co.uk/stem-cells-same-sex-reproduction.html
Wanna take bet's what social groups are pushing the research? :munchin
RomanCandle
06-28-2015, 08:59
People thought the Communist invasion would happen by means of a Red Dawn type scenario under the shadow of a mushroom cloud. Instead it happened in the fertile minds of university students during the Cold War. All the shots fired in anger were just a side show to the real war that was silently being won.
And so is Stem Cells and Same Sex Reproduction.....
http://www.explorestemcells.co.uk/stem-cells-same-sex-reproduction.html
Wanna take bet's what social groups are pushing the research? :munchin
Caitlin Jenner should have the right to impregnate itself, carry a child for 9 month, give birth and breast feed.
Hold on a second.....I just heard that we no longer burn witches at the stake. WTF is happening to this country???
New directive just came down ... Ya gotta weigh 'em first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
.
I think all peoples, lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-queer-questioning, have the right to marry, so long as it is two consenting adults.
Why only two? Why not three or four? Should a mother and her son be allowed to marry as long as they are both adults?
Considering your argument, and if you are intellectually honest, your answer should be yes.
Sir, see my above post (#72). Regarding a mother and son, I do not see that as a problem as it isn't affecting anyone else. That leads into a discussion however about the health of the child or children if any are produced, as there is a higher chance of deformities with incest. However, the thing is that, there are lots of people in ordinary marriages who also have predispositions to diseases and problems who procreate, so should they then not be allowed to marry either? For example, if a man and a woman both come from families with a history of heart disease, or two albinos, etc...
Initially something like incest marriage may sound crazy, but I could only see that happening if say the two people never grew up together or say the child had been given away to adoption, then met the parent later, and thus it was, from a mental standpoint, a normal relationship, except that biologically, the people are siblings, cousins, or parent-child.
You don't think parents having sex with their children is a problem and doesn't effect anyone outside the relationship.....You are a mixed up puppy.
Old Dog New Trick
06-28-2015, 14:28
Turkey sees things differently, I guess the euphoria celebrated in the U.S. isn't going over so well in other countries.
Check out this article from USA TODAY:
Istanbul police break up gay pride parade
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/06/28/istanbul-police-break-up-gay-pride-parade/29425631/
Water cannons and rainbow flags. These colors do run!
Sir, see my above post (#72). Regarding a mother and son, I do not see that as a problem as it isn't affecting anyone else. That leads into a discussion however about the health of the child or children if any are produced, as there is a higher chance of deformities with incest. However, the thing is that, there are lots of people in ordinary marriages who also have predispositions to diseases and problems who procreate, so should they then not be allowed to marry either? For example, if a man and a woman both come from families with a history of heart disease, or two albinos, etc...
Initially something like incest marriage may sound crazy, but I could only see that happening if say the two people never grew up together or say the child had been given away to adoption, then met the parent later, and thus it was, from a mental standpoint, a normal relationship, except that biologically, the people are siblings, cousins, or parent-child.
When the gene pool is diluted and people are born with club feet and other deformities, it DOES have an impact on society.
Especially since the majority of healthy Americans are the ones who foot the bill for the subsidies that allow SCOTUScare.
There is also a moral boundary that needs to be enforced. One could argue that all beings on earth commit incest and and homosexual acts, however there are no beings on the face of this earth that have the mental capacity of humans. The heightened capacity for critical thinking and a moral compass separates us from the animals and savages who purely act on instinct.
Essentially, the fortitude to avoid the trap of "if it feels good, do it".
Sir, see my above post (#72). Regarding a mother and son, I do not see that as a problem as it isn't affecting anyone else. That leads into a discussion however about the health of the child or children if any are produced, as there is a higher chance of deformities with incest. However, the thing is that, there are lots of people in ordinary marriages who also have predispositions to diseases and problems who procreate, so should they then not be allowed to marry either? For example, if a man and a woman both come from families with a history of heart disease, or two albinos, etc...
Initially something like incest marriage may sound crazy, but I could only see that happening if say the two people never grew up together or say the child had been given away to adoption, then met the parent later, and thus it was, from a mental standpoint, a normal relationship, except that biologically, the people are siblings, cousins, or parent-child.
From your post on this thread it leads me to believe that you are possibly a member of nambla and are really one messed up person.
I don't think it's about that at all. Whether the Constitution actually protects a right to same sex marriage or not is a more academic argument. The reason those against it are upset is because they are against the practice period. Also, how does the decision contravene democracy? Democracy is irrelevant regarding individual rights. I also do not see how it goes against the 10th Amendment.
Academic argument? Isn't that what the Court is for?
I urge you to read the majority and dissenting opinions. When a chosen (not elected by the People) group of 5 dictate to the people, that is not democracy. The Court defined marriage without citing any legal precedence: it simply made it up out of thin air. Where was the judicial REVIEW? This (http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/symposium-a-tremendous-defeat-for-we-the-people-and-our-posterity/), in my opinion, is a good summation.
The right to dignity clause is not in the Constitution, yet Justice Kennedy believes Americans have that right and exclusively focused on this right throughout his opinion.
Since we now all have the right to dignity, that right is infringed when I get robbed or assaulted in front of my family therefore, I should be able to bear arms in all 50 states in order to preserve my dignity.:eek:
How does it effect others outside the relationship?
Wouldn't it be great if all Mom's and Dad's could bed their children....we could even have parties were we can swap our kids.....and you could then poke your neighbor daughter without fear of repercussion.
Sounds like a good plain :rolleyes:
It will effect every generation of their spawn that continue the practice of family f@%king family, and would surely spread outside the immediate family to other families as their spawn left their fold....and before too long everyone is swapping fluids with everyone.
Roguish Lawyer
06-28-2015, 16:45
https://donate.tedcruz.org/c/FBCA0007
Another shameless plug. Two days before the June 30 FEC report comes out -- every dollar helps. Thanks for those of who who have contributed so far!
craigepo
06-28-2015, 17:26
The opinion is a relatively quick 103 page read (relatively quick because there are a lot of skippable footnote and appendices). I would encourage everybody to read the opinion, not just to get the gist of the opinion, but more importantly to understand how the justices reached their conclusions.
Having read thousands of cases, I must say I have never read a majority opinion with such a lack of legal authority. Kennedy mentions the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, but never illustrates how those clauses apply.
Thomas' dissent gives a very interesting lesson on what the word "liberty" really means (in short, in the Constitutional context it's defined as a freedom from government intervention). He then contrasts that with this case, wherein the petitioners were actually requesting an "entitlement", or a benefit that flows from the government (a recognition from the state governments that their marriages granted them rights such as inheritance, tax breaks, etc.).
All in all, a worthwhile read, no matter what you think of the outcome.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.supremecourt.gov_opinions_14pdf_14-2D556-5F3204.pdf&d=AwICAg&c=KOHztIzJte-x4ZNpHoGJxQ&r=tfzpuGjPY9jNMTyIxzWuU-lh2Nb2N-9qiykj8Y96tdE&m=Y4zbfG4V67eI3FRVFkVpqO8xrFzIal3q5VeRNnnHPhA&s=Yg8MNSy-7QoTkwQfuXjIGFxi5rCzfRDaVJtly1sNbU4&e=
Team Sergeant
06-28-2015, 17:38
I am not a member of NAMBLA and do not support anything that NAMBLA stands for, which is a violation of children's rights. Also I do not like the idea of any incest relationship, but two things I have mentioned make me reluctant to say it should be illegal:
1) There are "normal" people who have medical issues that could lead to children with major problems and those people are not banned from marrying and/or having children
2) Aside possibly from the issue of children, I do not see how an incest relationship would harm anyone so long as it is two adults
Put down the shovel and quit digging. You failed Logic 101 and more than one friendly SF'er has attempted to steer you in the right direction. Now it's time for you to just read.
Team Sergeant
06-28-2015, 17:39
https://donate.tedcruz.org/c/FBCA0007
Another shameless plug. Two days before the June 30 FEC report comes out -- every dollar helps. Thanks for those of who who have contributed so far!
I'm thinking of a 30 day ban maybe?
What do you SF guys think? :munchin
Old Dog New Trick
06-28-2015, 17:42
The opinion is a relatively quick 103 page read (relatively quick because there are a lot of skippable footnote and appendices). I would encourage everybody to read the opinion, not just to get the gist of the opinion, but more importantly to understand how the justices reached their conclusions.
Having read thousands of cases, I must say I have never read a majority opinion with such a lack of legal authority. Kennedy mentions the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, but never illustrates how those clauses apply.
Thomas' dissent gives a very interesting lesson on what the word "liberty" really means (in short, in the Constitutional context it's defined as a freedom from government intervention). He then contrasts that with this case, wherein the petitioners were actually requesting an "entitlement", or a benefit that flows from the government (a recognition from the state governments that their marriages granted them rights such as inheritance, tax breaks, etc.).
All in all, a worthwhile read, no matter what you think of the outcome.
Thanks for summary. It's not the first time the SCOTUS has violated the Constitution. I'm wondering how long or if this "decision" will hold before it's overturned and ruled unconstitutional by the next majority.
I'm thinking of a 30 day ban maybe?
What do you SF guys think? :munchin
He's a pretty quick learner - I'd support a week on GP for that olde lawyer's trick of not seeking permission first. ;)
As for this thread's topic, I'm pretty much in agreement with the likes of Clint Eastwood:
"I was an Eisenhower Republican when I started out at 21, because he promised to get us out of the Korean War. And over the years, I realized there was a Republican philosophy that I liked. And then they lost it. And libertarians had more of it. Because what I really believe is, let's spend a little more time leaving everybody alone. These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage? I don't give a f**k about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of."
"They go on and on with all this bullshit about "sanctity"—don't give me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want."
Clint Eastwood, GQ interview with Leonardo Dicaprio over the making of "J. Edgar", September 2011
http://www.gq.com/entertainment/movies-and-tv/201110/leonardo-dicaprio-clint-eastwood-gq-september-2011-cover-story-article
And when it comes to religion and such matters as this, I've seen all sorts of shenanigans over the years and pretty much focus on the 11th and 12th commandments nowadays:
11 – Thou shalt not be an @$$hole
12 – Thou shalt leave everyone else the hell alone
MOO.
Richard
https://thenib.com/are-you-against-gay-marriage-because-the-bible-f67c2d12231c
craigepo
06-28-2015, 21:14
https://thenib.com/are-you-against-gay-marriage-because-the-bible-f67c2d12231c
You might inform the developer of this that he might want to check Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:8-11.
The problem with trying to hide facts is that, when someone finds out, a writer's credibility is destroyed.
Now, back to the topic.
Originally Posted by Paslode View Post
You don't think parents having sex with their children is a problem and doesn't effect anyone outside the relationship.....You are a mixed up puppy.
How does it effect others outside the relationship?
:confused:
https://thenib.com/are-you-against-gay-marriage-because-the-bible-f67c2d12231c
You're own credibility and objectivity is questioned when you choose sources such as this.
I wonder what Aldous Huxley would think if he were alive to see how society has evolved since he wrote Brave New world...
This is just another bump of Overtons Window by the social engineers in search of "utopia"
craigepo
06-29-2015, 07:51
I wonder what Aldous Huxley would think if he were alive to see how society has evolved since he wrote Brave New world...
This is just another bump of Overtons Window by the social engineers in search of "utopia"
I read an interesting quote this morning from Late Cardinal Francis George:
"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history."
frostfire
06-29-2015, 07:58
12 – Thou shalt leave everyone else the hell alone
MOO.
Richard[/COLOR]
The American dream: I can do whatever I want, with whoever I want, as long as I don't hurt anybody.
....but no one give a **** about who they hurt anymore.
I remember a kid who was admitted for psychiatric breakdown because her parents split and mom decided to be her "true self" and be with her partner.
That's okay though. The kid is the one confused, several more years , several more psychiatric diagnoses, and $$$ in counseling later I am sure she will accept this "alternative" lifestyle. It's in her DNA all along afterall :rolleyes:
Pray for this country folks....
I read an interesting quote this morning from Late Cardinal Francis George:
"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history."
Thank you for sharing that. Considering that it has only been a couple of months since the Cardinal passed away, it is going to be quite sometime before the rebuilding begins.
RIP Cardinal George.
Old Dog New Trick
06-29-2015, 08:13
I woke this morning and realized the world was just as forked up as it was last Friday morning...nothing really changed.
I only wonder now (sometimes) what the future holds for same sex couples' benefits and military base housing. Surly, this will add costs and shortages across the board to everyone in service. I always thought back when I was in that everybody should get BAS/BAQ and that it was discriminatory to single out single folks and deny them what was basically more money and the freedom to live off-base simply because you were married. :munchin
no one give a **** about who they hurt anymore.
I remember a kid who was admitted for psychiatric breakdown because her parents split and mom decided to be her "true self" and be with her partner.
That's okay though. The kid is the one confused, several more years , several more psychiatric diagnoses, and $$$ in counseling later I am sure she will accept this "alternative" lifestyle. It's in her DNA all along afterall :rolleyes:
Pray for this country folks....
Of course, that has never happened to a child of parents who split to run off with another straight person.
frostfire
06-29-2015, 08:32
Of course, that has never happened to a child of parents who split to run off with another straight person.
Tell that to the kid.
Classic. Drive the blame somewhere else. After all, two wrongs make it right. No need to draw the line anywhere. Moral is relative and what people do is none of our busineess
You're own credibility and objectivity is questioned when you choose sources such as this.
How about this one???
http://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/youre_your.htm
Moral relativism is awesome...
...it provides such a broad lane for navigating the ship of self-righteousness
Team Sergeant
06-29-2015, 09:15
You're own credibility and objectivity is questioned when you choose sources such as this.
I would agree, especially when someone like me that believes in angels, spirits, demons and gods as much as I do dragons, trolls, vampires and werewolves. That said I don't harbor any ill feelings if someone I know does believe. (Except muslims, they are absolutely fanatical)
When I was younger I also thought "live and let live" until I saw how f**king insane gays actually were. I don't know any "straight" folks that go to "rest stops" looking for sex except gays. I'm not aware of any folks except gays that think they need to force their perversion on everyone else. Tell me what other group has parades with sex toys and performs sex acts in public during these "parades", just gays.
But I guess if I was attempting to reconcile my gay beliefs because someone I knew and care for was gay or transgender I'd might be tempted to defend their way of life also. (OK, I was just kidding, you will not find me defending gays, muslims, mass murderers or socialists/communists.)
The supreme court has just demonstrated how stupid it can be, in my opinion they have lost all creditability and respect and are nothing more than puppet politicians that need replacing.
The 1% has just forced the 99% to eat shit and it had zero to do with the Constitution.
How about this one???
http://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/youre_your.htm
So much for taking your posts seriously.
Team Sergeant
06-29-2015, 10:00
Moral relativism is awesome...
...it provides such a broad lane for navigating the ship of self-righteousness
You do realize that you're wasting your time here when you should be writing a book or ten........;)
(Yeah, no shit and I would stand in line to purchase it.)
Yes, but then that's where the discussion gets complicated, because that raises the question of should all people with some genetic predisposition towards a disease or deformity also be banned from getting married or reproducing. There was a woman who was born with a condition where she had no arms. She wanted a child though. The doctors told her that her condition meant there was a 50% chance the child would also be born without arms. She had the child anyway, and it was a boy with no arms.
Morals in that sense can get arbitrary though. It also isn't just about, "If it feels good, do it." It is about what one is sexually attracted to and romance and love.
I love lamp.
I do not hold the "love" aspect in this whole thing to a high degree of credibility. I am pretty sure that through successful indoctrination, we have created a great deal of people who may have been straight, but influenced into thinking that being a homosexual was normal.
This is especially true for the high percentage of "unattractive" and "depressed" homosexuals.
Morals in that sense can get arbitrary though. It also isn't just about, "If it feels good, do it." It is about what one is sexually attracted to and romance and love.
A child can love its parent. In some cases, the love between a parent and a child extends from birth of child to death of parent. That love can be so strong that the child will go to great lengths to shelter, feed, clean, clothe the parent.
How many child, parent relationships end in divorce? Can that not be used as a meter to gauge the success of the child/ parent relationship?
Wouldn't it be totally rad if a kid that really loved its mom could live the first half of its life getting benefits as a child, then live the last half of mom's life getting benefits as a spouse?
...performs sex acts in public during these "parades", just gays.
Honestly, and not for not, but I've seen biker chicks blowing anyone who walked by right in the center of the main drag at a biker blow out. It's not the same because there were a circle of people standing around watching. I suspect if that would have been a dude blowing dudes, the response would have necessarily involved police and ambulances.
You do realize that you're wasting your time here when you should be writing a book or ten........;)
(Yeah, no shit and I would stand in line to purchase it.)
I would as well.
MOO, the sooner the dust settles on same sex marriages and other matters of equality, the sooner some members of the LGBTQ can gravitate towards political philosophies that advance the majority of their other interests.
That is, I believe that many same sex couples are going to want many of the same things that other couples want: lower taxes, better public services, fewer regulations, competent politicians, sound economic and fiscal policies, and national security policies that protect the nation's interests.
Overall, I think that the ruling will push America slightly to the center right. Same sex couples will seek to adopt kids that would otherwise be aborted. Many adopted kids of same sex couples will balance out the overly aggressive left-radicalism of their parents the same way kids often end up having political views that sharply differ from their birth parents. (FWIW, Rosie O'Donnell's son attends The Citadel. (http://www.people.com/article/rosie-odonnell-heartfelt-stand-up-hbo-special-video))
I think that as the years unfold, many Americans who are currently displeased will find that what makes some members of the LGBTQ community so controversial is not their sexuality but the fact that they're flamboyant, attention seeking d-bags.
My $0.02.
Team Sergeant
07-01-2015, 06:12
Honestly, and not for not, but I've seen biker chicks blowing anyone who walked by right in the center of the main drag at a biker blow out. It's not the same because there were a circle of people standing around watching. I suspect if that would have been a dude blowing dudes, the response would have necessarily involved police and ambulances.
Yeah I'm sure you have and I'm also sure that many kids are also attending those events. And those "biker events" you speak of are not located in the heart of a major US city.
Apples and oranges.
Whole post
That was a unique perspective Sigaba. I hope that you are right.
Team Sergeant
07-01-2015, 09:40
"Rosie O'Donnell's son attends The Citadel"
I was not aware that humans could even breed with pigs! (Learn something new every day!)
"Rosie O'Donnell's son attends The Citadel"
I was not aware that humans could even breed with pigs! (Learn something new every day!)
They can't. He's adopted. ;)
O'Donnell admitted she interrogated her son as to why he made such a decision and he responded, "Only in America, mom, could somebody like you who came from a horrible childhood, grow up and adopt kids like me who needed a family and I owe something to this country." In her typically loud tone, O'Donnell mock screamed, "No, my son. You owe something to me!"
- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2014/02/07/rosie-odonnell-my-son-joined-military-annoy-his-left-wing-pacifist-m#sthash.rzZ7nT1o.dpuf
Pat
"Rosie O'Donnell's son attends The Citadel"
I was not aware that humans could even breed with pigs! (Learn something new every day!)
Perhaps he was hoping she would disown him.
I wouldn't shit on Rosie O'Donnell's head even if I thought it would make redwood trees grow from her eye sockets.
...the supreme court needs to meet to decide if she is or is not an actual human or just a hairless ape that learned to repeat shit she heard from the people around her
BlueYing
07-02-2015, 12:01
"Only in America, mom, could somebody like you who came from a horrible childhood, grow up and adopt kids like me who needed a family and I owe something to this country." In her typically loud tone, O'Donnell mock screamed, "No, my son. You owe something to me!"
I did not see that interview in its entirety. I don't know if Rosie clarified her remarks at all. All I can go on is what she said from the quotes and the shirt snippet from the link provided.
It appears as though her son has his head on his shoulders. He knows that he owes and he's willing to give. However, his mother doesn't seem to understand this. The fact that she might think that she's the one her son owes a debt to is mind boggling. Sadly, it's not just her that thinks this way. It seems that hers is the majority opinion as far as service of any kind to and for this country. That makes a big problem for the future of this country.
Enough for off topic. On topic, I've always said, especially in the company of my wife, that I think gay couples should have the right to marry because I think everyone should have the right to be as miserable as straight couples. In all seriousness, though, I've never cared what anyone does in their personal life so long as they don't hurt themselves or others. Everyone should have the same rights. Period. Anything short of that is a disservice.
craigepo
07-02-2015, 13:02
Everyone should have the same rights. Period. Anything short of that is a disservice.
Words matter. Many readers would assume that by using the term "everyone", you would mean two consenting adults. However, movements are already afoot to change the law from that meaning to various other meanings, including polygamy and relationships previously defined criminally as incestuous and sounding in child/statutory sodomy and rape.
Additionally, there is no "disservice clause" in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution at one time allowed the various States to determine whether proposed legislation was proper or not. Five members of the Supreme Court seem to have changed that, at least as to laws they don't like.
I did not see that interview in its entirety. I don't know if Rosie clarified her remarks at all. All I can go on is what she said from the quotes and the shirt snippet from the link provided.
It appears as though her son has his head on his shoulders. He knows that he owes and he's willing to give. However, his mother doesn't seem to understand this. The fact that she might think that she's the one her son owes a debt to is mind boggling. Sadly, it's not just her that thinks this way. It seems that hers is the majority opinion as far as service of any kind to and for this country. That makes a big problem for the future of this country.
Enough for off topic. On topic, I've always said, especially in the company of my wife, that I think gay couples should have the right to marry because I think everyone should have the right to be as miserable as straight couples. In all seriousness, though, I've never cared what anyone does in their personal life so long as they don't hurt themselves or others. Everyone should have the same rights. Period. Anything short of that is a disservice.
FWIW FYI
Her comments on her son going to the Citadel are part of a self-skewering riff on her experiences as a mother and a celebrity.
http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/rosie-odonnell-a-heartfelt-stand-up
BlueYing
07-02-2015, 14:11
Words matter. Many readers would assume that by using the term "everyone", you would mean two consenting adults. However, movements are already afoot to change the law from that meaning to various other meanings, including polygamy and relationships previously defined criminally as incestuous and sounding in child/statutory sodomy and rape.
Additionally, there is no "disservice clause" in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution at one time allowed the various States to determine whether proposed legislation was proper or not. Five members of the Supreme Court seem to have changed that, at least as to laws they don't like.
I do agree t that words matter. That's why I wrote: "I've never cared what anyone does in their personal life so long as they don't hurt themselves or others." Incestuous relationships and "relationships" where statutory rape is involved do hurt people and should not be legalized.
I like the 14th Ammendment myself. While it was originally intended to stop racist states from writing laws and denying rights of anybody not white, it can and has been applied to different situations since. In this case the 14th Ammendment, like it or not, overrules the 10th.
Badger52
07-02-2015, 14:56
Good Mobil1 10w-50 on someone's slope.
Full story at link. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/02/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-for-wedding-license/?intcmp=latestnews)
Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license
Published July 02, 2015
Associated Press
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife.
Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage. Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy — holding multiple marriage licenses — but Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied.
ddoering
07-02-2015, 16:15
I hear USASOC is creating a new holiday, "Gay for a Day." It will be immersion training to help develop cultural awareness for the lifestyle. I predict it will be a pain in the ass to some and leave a bitter taste in the mouths of others.:munchin
craigepo
07-03-2015, 07:14
I like the 14th Ammendment myself. While it was originally intended to stop racist states from writing laws and denying rights of anybody not white, it can and has been applied to different situations since. In this case the 14th Ammendment, like it or not, overrules the 10th.
If you're such a fan of of previously-unknown Constitutional rights trumping explicit portions of the Constitution, you will surely love what's going on in Oregon as read below:
http://www.caintv.com/oregon-imposes-gag-order-on-ch
BlueYing
07-03-2015, 08:11
I find that appalling, actually.
I used to run my own restaurant. During that time I did refuse service and even ban certain customers from my restaurant. Mostly for being rude, obnoxious, a**holes towards either myself or my staff. Short of that, I would serve or employ anybody I could to make money. As a business owner that was my priority. I am a Christian but I never made the leap to think that if I served or hired someone then I supported what they do in their personal life. But I do see how someone could and I do think that anybody who runs their own business should have the right to serve whomever they want on a moral basis without fear of civil retaliation or, in the case you cited, state fines or gag orders.
Personally, I never understood why the lesbian couple, or in a more general sense any gay couple would sue a business owner who refused service from a religious standpoint. Just walk down the street and find someone else to serve you and then get the word out to boycot. I'm also not a big fan of that lawsuit because how long will it be, especially now, before churches are getting sued for not marrying gay couples? From what I understand there is a clerk in Kentucky who refuses to issue marriage licenses to anybody (so nobody can claim discrimination). How long before she, or the state of Kentucky is getting sued? Incestuous relationships, marriages between adult and minor, polygamy, marrying your pets because you love them so much, these are all stretches (yes, some wackos will come out of hiding to try to gain their rights, but they won't win) but it's these other ripple effects that are more likely and I'm more worried about.
And, yes, I am a fan of the Constitution and all of the Ammendments in its entirety. As far as I'm concerned, the business owners have a right to say what they want, when they want. The have a right to refuse service.
Team Sergeant
07-03-2015, 08:26
If you're such a fan of of previously-unknown Constitutional rights trumping explicit portions of the Constitution, you will surely love what's going on in Oregon as read below:
http://www.caintv.com/oregon-imposes-gag-order-on-ch
Exactly.
The liberal federal government says; "Screw your religious freedoms, the 1%'s sexual perversions trump your rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."
Pandora's Box is wide open.
(Let me know when the revolution starts so I can ensure my weapons are clean.) :munchin
Yes zero is keeping his word and fundamentally changing America, soon you will have no idea what it used to look like.
mark46th
07-03-2015, 08:30
TS- You mean "Screw your religious beliefs, unless you are muslim..."
Team Sergeant
07-03-2015, 08:33
TS- You mena screw your religious beliefs, unless you are muslim...
Well of course! I stand corrected!
"We Want Sharia Law in America Now!"
Personally, I never understood why the lesbian couple, or in a more general sense any gay couple would sue a business owner who refused service from a religious standpoint.
Read Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, it's in there. You are too young to know that these same lefties used to say, "We don't need a piece of paper to prove we love each other." Well, suddenly they believe that they do. Why's that?
Pat
If you're such a fan of of previously-unknown Constitutional rights trumping explicit portions of the Constitution, you will surely love what's going on in Oregon as read below:
http://www.caintv.com/oregon-imposes-gag-order-on-ch:eek::confused::mad:
craigepo
07-03-2015, 18:02
Now, let's use Justice Kennedy's exemplary legal reasoning, and apply it to the case below.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/spencer-raley/2015/07/02/salon-writer-cant-handle-polygamist-who-wants-same-marriage-rights?
Now, let's use Justice Kennedy's exemplary legal reasoning, and apply it to the case below.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/spencer-raley/2015/07/02/salon-writer-cant-handle-polygamist-who-wants-same-marriage-rights?
Nature selects for polygamy in the animal world. It selects against homosexualality, though. And the Left says that conservatives don't believe in Science.
Pat
Team Sergeant
07-04-2015, 09:14
Nature selects for polygamy in the anamal world. It selects against homosexualality, though. And the Left says that conservatives don't believe in Science.
Pat
That's why the liberals have words like:
homophobe and islamophobe
Its their way of combatting science, logic and common sense.
That's why the liberals have words like:
homophobe and islamophobe
Its their way of combatting science, logic and common sense.
I am diagnosed a obamaphobe. I'm also a borderline democratphobe, depending upon the vector.
Everything is up for grabs nowadays.....:eek:
Team Sergeant
07-05-2015, 14:31
Everything is up for grabs nowadays.....:eek:
Liberal Fascism
The insanity continues....
"The Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act recognizes that the words in our laws have meaning and can continue to reflect prejudice and discrimination even when rendered null by our highest courts," Capps said. "Our values as a country are reflected in our laws. I authored this bill because it is imperative that our federal code reflect the equality of all marriages."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-declare-war-on-words-husband-wife/article/2567925
ddoering
07-11-2015, 06:33
Why not just add pitcher/receiver instead of having to go thru and changing every gender based term?
On the other hand, I'm glad to see Congress has finished all the serious business of keeping the country running and now has time to change happy to glad.
"March 14, 2012 03:54
Recent research has found that homosexual behavior in animals may be much more common than previously thought. Although Darwin’s theory of natural selection predicts an evolutionary disadvantage for animals that fail to pass along their traits through reproduction with the opposite sex, the validity of this part of his theory has been questioned with the discoveries of homosexual behavior in more than 10% of prevailing species throughout the world.
Currently, homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 different animal species worldwide. For instance, observations indicate that Humboldt, King, Gentoo, and Adélie penguins of the same sex engage in “mating rituals like entwining their necks and vocalizing to one another.” In addition, male giraffes have also been observed engaging in homosexual behavior by rubbing their necks against each others’ bodies while ignoring the females. Yet another example is lizards of the genus Teiidae, which can copulate with both male and female mates.
Biologists Nathan W. Bailey and Marlene Zuk from the University of California, Riverside have investigated the evolutionary consequences and implications of same-sex behavior, and their findings demonstrate benefits to what seems to be an evolutionary paradox. For example, their studies of the Laysan albatross show that female-female pairing can increase fitness by taking advantage of the excess of females and shortage of males in the population and provide superior care for offspring. Moreover, same-sex pairing in many species actually alleviates the likelihood of divorce and curtails the pressure on the opposite sex by allowing members to exhibit more flexibility to form partnerships, which in turn strengthens social bonds and reduces competition. Thus, not only do animals exhibit homosexuality, but the existence of this behavior is quite prevalent and may also confer certain evolutionary advantages."
http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/
... For example, their studies of the Laysan albatross show that female-female pairing can increase fitness by taking advantage of the excess of females and shortage of males in the population and provide superior care for offspring. ...
So do the female - female albatrosses use a turkey baster?
So do the female - female albatrosses use a turkey baster?
LOL
So do the female - female albatrosses use a turkey baster?
Nope cigars, kinda like the albatross that occupied the White House a few years back. :D
Team Sergeant
07-12-2015, 07:03
"March 14, 2012 03:54
Recent research has found that homosexual behavior in animals may be much more common than previously thought. Although Darwin’s theory of natural selection predicts an evolutionary disadvantage for animals that fail to pass along their traits through reproduction with the opposite sex, the validity of this part of his theory has been questioned with the discoveries of homosexual behavior in more than 10% of prevailing species throughout the world.
Currently, homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 different animal species worldwide. For instance, observations indicate that Humboldt, King, Gentoo, and Adélie penguins of the same sex engage in “mating rituals like entwining their necks and vocalizing to one another.” In addition, male giraffes have also been observed engaging in homosexual behavior by rubbing their necks against each others’ bodies while ignoring the females. Yet another example is lizards of the genus Teiidae, which can copulate with both male and female mates.
Biologists Nathan W. Bailey and Marlene Zuk from the University of California, Riverside have investigated the evolutionary consequences and implications of same-sex behavior, and their findings demonstrate benefits to what seems to be an evolutionary paradox. For example, their studies of the Laysan albatross show that female-female pairing can increase fitness by taking advantage of the excess of females and shortage of males in the population and provide superior care for offspring. Moreover, same-sex pairing in many species actually alleviates the likelihood of divorce and curtails the pressure on the opposite sex by allowing members to exhibit more flexibility to form partnerships, which in turn strengthens social bonds and reduces competition. Thus, not only do animals exhibit homosexuality, but the existence of this behavior is quite prevalent and may also confer certain evolutionary advantages."
http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/
Thank you Mr. Science Guy!
Having a "scientist" from University of California confirm homosexuality in animals is like having the Vatican confirm who's buried in the Sistine Chapel and using Vatican archaeologists to confirm that tidbit....... (and it was actually done)
My problem with the albatross study was that it was done in an area with a shortage of males.
The males will mate with any female who is receptive - and the birds have a strong instinct to pair off to raise their young. With a shortage of males that would lead to female-female pairing.
I find stretching that to claim "... animals exhibit homosexuality..." is somewhat agenda driven.
bailaviborita
07-12-2015, 07:18
Yeah- I'm not sure what that means. Animals also eat their young, eat their feces, and the males rape their females- so is all that cool for us too?? Comparing animals to humans isn't something I'd do- and subscribing behavior to them that is labeled by humans to be so much more meaningful than to be just about sex is disengenuous. The reasons animals engage in activities are different than the reasons humans do- so similarities ascribed to behavior are just PETA wet dreams...
ddoering
07-12-2015, 12:43
"March 14, 2012 03:54
Currently, homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 different animal species worldwide. For instance, observations indicate that Humboldt, King, Gentoo, and Adélie penguins of the same sex engage in “mating rituals like entwining their necks and vocalizing to one another.” In addition, male giraffes have also been observed engaging in homosexual behavior by rubbing their necks against each others’ bodies while ignoring the females.
http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/
I guess most football players are gay as well by these standards.
Old Dog New Trick
07-12-2015, 22:10
I guess most football players are gay as well by these standards.
Well, there was (probably) an unwritten "don't ask, don't tell, and don't talk about it policy" in or out of the locker room for many years. Butt, there sure as hell been a lot of grab ass on and off the field. :D LOL
As far as the animals are concerned: do they enjoy cunilingus and blow jobs from the same sex? :munchin Did the scientists determine that?
As far as the animals are concerned: do they enjoy cunilingus and blow jobs from the same sex? :munchin Did the scientists determine that?LMAO!!!!!:D