Accuracy in Media

Justice Antonin Scalia said in his dissent in the same-sex marriage case that the ruling was a threat to our democratic form of government and constitutes a “judicial Putsch,” or secret power grab. He didn’t just say the majority was wrong or misguided; he essentially said they had conspired to overthrow our form of government. His position on the Court may have made it impossible to supply specifics. But one possible explanation of what he meant is that he saw a conflict-of-interest on the part of members of the majority, which required their recusal from the case.

Rather than investigate what Scalia is hinting at, our media have opened fire on Scalia for blowing the whistle on judicial corruption.

In fact, the push for gay marriage has been tainted by lies from the beginning. As Professor Paul Kengor notes, Obama himself was caught lying by his own adviser, David Axelrod, who now admits Obama favored gay marriage when he was publicly opposing it to get elected. “According to Axelrod,” Kengor told WorldNetDaily, “Obama supported gay marriage as far back as the mid-1990s, when he was an aspiring Chicago politician. He publicly suggested otherwise, however, in order to get votes, especially from African-Americans who rejected gay marriage in higher numbers than white Americans.”

Kengor, author of Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage, said he believes Obama was influenced in favor of “a more open view toward sexuality” by his communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, a pornographer and pedophile. But Obama was careful to sound conservative and Christian on these issues when he ran for president.

What’s more, as AIM has documented on numerous occasions, media “coverage” of the issue has been non-stop propaganda, much of it emanating from a group called the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association. Most people haven’t heard of the group, which is the way they want it. The nature of gay pride parades has even been censored, prohibiting the public from understanding that the homosexual movement celebrates crude displays of nudity and vulgarity.

Politically, it would be one thing if Scalia had responded that there was an honest disagreement over the meaning of certain words in the Constitution. Instead, he said the majority subverted the Constitution by reading into it something that does not exist—the “right” to force government at all levels to recognize gay marriage. By inventing this “right,” Scalia and the other dissenters said, the Court has put our actual rights of freedom of religion and expression in grave jeopardy. This seems to be the nature of the “putsch” Scalia is talking about. He could very well be referring to behind-the-scenes pressures put on the Justices by homosexual elite forces, the financially powerful one to two percent, who seem to have so much sway over the media, academia and the corporate world. These people are now attempting to suppress a new film, “An Open Secret,” about pedophilia in Hollywood.

Whatever the reason for the putsch, our form of government has been overthrown and another put in its place—a judicial dictatorship that is devoted to elevating to protected status a sexual minority seeking the abolition of traditional values. Left unchecked in its drive for power over others, this cabal threatens not only our heritage but America’s standing in the world as a superpower. It appears the Obama administration wants to spend more money on Pentagon gay pride events and climate change than actual weapons systems to defend America.

As we get ready to celebrate Independence Day, however, we can rest assured that the American people remember enough about the founding of their country that they cannot and will not accept a judicial tyranny. That would make a complete mockery of what July 4th is all about and what millions of Americans have sacrificed for.

The critical part of the law in the gay marriage case is Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, Section 455 of the U.S. Code, which is applicable to judges and courts. It says, “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These disqualifications include cases in which “he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party…”

Our media didn’t treat it as a big deal, but Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had both officiated at gay weddings. Groups such as the National Organization for Marriage, the American Family Association, the Coalition of African American Pastors, and the Foundation for Moral Law had called for Kagan and Ginsburg to withdraw from the case.

Matthew Kidd, executive director of the Foundation for Moral Law, told Accuracy in Media that the failure by Kagan and Ginsburg to withdraw from the case leaves them open to impeachment and removal from the bench.

But will Congress act?

According to the Supreme Court website, the only Justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805. It says the House of Representatives passed Articles of Impeachment against him; however, he was acquitted by the Senate. A majority is required for impeachment in the House but a two-thirds vote is required for conviction.

In the case of Kagan, an Obama appointee, she may have had a personal conflict-of-interest. This is a sensitive matter, but various reports indicated that Kagan was a known lesbian before she was nominated to the Court by President Obama. For example, the gay blog QueerTY had identified her as a lesbian. That would mean she was compromised on homosexual issues prior to her ascension to the bench and after she was confirmed. This is a conflict of interest that cannot be tolerated.

Whether the reports of her lesbianism are true or not, we know that Kagan had an extremely radical record as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003 to 2009) where she promoted homosexuality and transgenderism. Nevertheless, she was confirmed to the Supreme Court in a 63 to 37 vote.

Kagan “avoided the sort of scrutiny that some nominees have faced,” The Washington Post noted at the time.

We now see the evidence of what happens when the media and Congress fail to do their jobs.

Congress, however, can try to undo some of the damage by holding hearings into the possible impeachment of Justices Kagan and Ginsburg. This would be one way of getting to the bottom of Scalia’s sensational charge that America’s democratic system has been subverted and stolen from the American people.

We are bound to hear that impeachment would be difficult and conviction impossible. There’s always an excuse for not taking bold action in Washington, D.C. But a congressional failure to act, in the wake of Scalia’s extraordinary charge of a judicial Putsch, would suggest that celebrating July 4th means fireworks and nothing more.

I think enough Americans are sufficiently concerned about this matter that they want to see some real fireworks, in the form of Congress exposing the lies, corruption and conflicts of interest that went into the sick and tyrannical gay marriage ruling.

Members of Congress taking up this cause will not get sympathetic headlines in the media. But it is something that has to be done if Independence Day is going to have any meaning left at all.




Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments

  • BG

    We can’t give up for the children’s sake!

  • Batcrap crazy. We don’t impeach justices of the Supreme Court for making decisions that Mr. Kincaid doesn’t like. Moreover, there is no recusal requirement of the justices. Each justice makes the determination for himself or herself.

  • “Oh the CHILLdren!” You mean the kids currently being raised by gay couples who will now have married parents? Just what do you mean?

  • Gringo_Cracker

    Fear of being called bigots is as paralyzing for Republicans as kryptonite is for Superman. Congress wouldn’t dare criticize, much less impeach, a female justice if all three of them formed a daisy-chain on the Supreme Court steps in broad daylight.

  • G.B.

    Or, as Christopher Carson quoted in American Thinker, “Article III, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution expressly states):

    “In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/the_gop_congress_refuses_to_use_the_power_it_has.html#ixzz3ejtyE4Hi
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    I believe Congress is basically gutless. They use Supreme Court decisions as cover so that they do not have to do their jobs – they simply blame the courts.

  • emag

    And Kagan is gay. So she should have excused herself from this case.
    This court has lost its credibility altogether. Its now all emotion, no more rule of law or common sense.
    Supreme Court should be elected, but NOT for life. How can these people change our country forever. They have their own feelings and prejudices, especially this Supreme Court.

  • RMThoughts

    The Supreme Court mandated gay marriage for all fifty states, in what is being celebrated as a bold stand for equality. Of course, all the Supreme Court really did rubber stamp the opinion of the Ruling Class: Big Business, the main Stream Media, and the academic and bureaucratic Establishments. The Court’s decision on marriage was undeniably a judicial coup d’état byAmerica’s home-grown Jacobins.

    This last week did not just reveal the impotence of the Beltway Right. It also saw the beginning a truly frightening witch hunt that reveals members of the historic American nation will not just be politically dispossessed but personally punished for any views perceived as out of step with the emerging Third World America.

    Impeachment? really Mr Kincaid your naivete is frightening.

  • john robel

    As the great pedophile Michael Jackson stated, ” I only did it for the children”.

  • John Cunningham

    “No Man Is An Island” at least that is what I think it says. Of course many would say I am sexist for not including a Woman but, my point is the same. No body should be forever. Especially Politicians and SCOTUS is A typical Politicians.

    Terms should be for all Politicians and limits as well. A President should serve six years then another should be voted on. The same should be said for Justices. In other case, under a decision that someone is rotten, they should be able to remove them.

  • Ted

    Just as with Roe vs. Wade 42 years ago … 42 years from now … Republican dinosaurs will still be p*ssing and moaning about this decision. It’s what the Republic Party has become: a p*ssing and moaning fraternal society.

    H*ll, there are still fatcat McCarthyite Republicans p*ssing and moaning about communism … while at the same time … they’re becoming uber-rich as a result of doing business with Communist China!

    It’s all just bu**sh**!

  • john robel

    If Darth Vader Ginsberg and Kagan had ANY INTEGRITY they would have recused themselves to avoid precisely this argument. They DID NOT and DO NOT. THE SUPREME COURT HAS BECOME AN AGENDA PROTECTION AGENCY FOR THE OBAMUNISTS.

  • Tuxedo_Plowboy

    No president should have the right to self appoint Judges. Obummer Appointed Kagan who is a political activist and is using the Supreme court to change and redifine laws. Bypassing Congress (the law makers)

    I say impeach Kagan and embalm Ginsburg.

  • Peter

    This was not about justice being seen to be done.
    This was about justice being seemed to be done.

    America is hallucinating and blowing bubbles.
    It may be brought back to earth in September.

  • Peter

    But the game is already over. But if you insist play on.

  • Ted shows his ignorance by whining about Republicans’ p*ssing and moaning when he and his libtard friend are still doing the same about Bush supposedly stealing the 2000 election from Gore.

    Ted further shows his ignorance of the “McCarthyite” Republicans by virtue of his cluelessness of the seminal work of M. Stanton Evans, which thoroughly discredited the Media and the Hollywood Left and named names of active Communists in the Hollywood and the Federal Government.

  • You got that right, amigo!

  • You apparently didn’t bother to read the article carefully, cement-head. The justices Shall recuse themselves upon the stated criteria… (um, do you know what criteria means, dipstick?)

  • Good way to put it, John!

  • BG

    How many reasons? Let me count the ways. A little too long a list for my patience right now. Children need to be raised by the ones who made them barring the tragedies of life. Nature calls that biological mother and father. No matter man’s perverse redefining of words, same sex marriage is fake… make-be-live. Children have human rights too. They have a right not to be forced by government edit into faux families formed by people who covet undeserved acceptance, respect and government checks. They have a right to be shielded from Sobsc (Sexually Obsessed Clowns) as seen in “Gay” Pride Parades and all the drugs that make them functional. They have the right to not be tutored/abused/molested by people and their “associates” who have lost all sense of basic morality. I could go on but I’m grieving over the family member who died far too young as a result of AIDS after being seduced as a child. I know, I know. Most homosexuals were lured into the death style when they were children and I grieve for them too. But that does not mean all children must suffer that!

  • Peter

    Very naive of you to think the Supreme Court did some serious navel gazing before making its decision. It was by devious appointment, forgone concluded prior to going through the motions. These decisions are always the 5-4 decision, not a 7-2 decision. This is how social engineering against the tide of public opinion is advanced. It always just tips the balance in favour of the unfavourable. Never resort to the people when social engineering requires a degenerate decision to be made the rule of law. Thirty-one states by referendum decided marriage is for a man and a woman by definition in law. SCOTUS was deployed to erase such democratic impudence. Look behind the scenes and see a mocked democracy.

  • RightVote

    I am disgusted with this current batch of the female ‘Supremes’.
    Each is a Victim — and they are going to right the wrongs and ‘get even’
    These are the Women that ‘represent’ Women’s Advancements ?
    If this is the best we can do as a country…..We have a long way to go.
    And before the pile on…..This IS posted by a woman !

  • RightVote

    These women are pitiful representatives of “The Best” this country has to offer.
    They represent Themselves and Perceived Victims of this country. !

  • Peter

    I just had another look at her photograph. And she does look scorned.
    ‘Gay’ is hardly the word. It must be duplicitous for ‘Sad’. Duplicity is another plank in the taking down of America. Maybe her honeybabe has just left her.

  • emag

    The whole country is on a binge of being offended, including the Supreme Court Judges, especially the women.
    There is no gravitas, no honor, no integrity with them, and you’re right they want to get even for some imagined wrong.
    Kagan should be impeached and Ginsburg should be retired. And lets hope the next judges will be vetted thoroughly.
    But I won’t bet on that.
    The system of appointing Supreme Court Judges for Life sucks. We cannot trust them any more to thoughtfully enforce the Rule of Law.

  • Find the Truth

    Evans book was just another of the many right wing fantasies your crew loves to believe in…

  • Oh yes, I’m sure you read the book from cover to cover and thoroughly checked the many references and sources of authority. But then again, “your crew” was never troubled by a lack of logic or facts on your side. Just self-righteous emotion is sufficient, right?

  • Tucker Matthew Rain

    I pray God will let Ginsburg and Kagan know what he thinks about it himself….soon.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    I don’t understand the fear of the word “bigot,” when it emanates from cultural marxists like Theodor Adorno. I don’t understand the fear of an American, of an ideology that has slaughtered and enslaved millions of people. I fully understand that you have to deal with the conditioning that has been done to the culture. Most in this nation are under a spell. However, nothing could be more un-American, cowardly and deadly, than fearing the cancer of marxism. This nation needs to truly turn to God and let God go before us and get the victory in the battle.

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Putsch noun 1. a plotted revolt or attempt to overthrow a government, especially one that depends upon suddenness and speed.

    “Judicial Putsch” is a pretty clear warning, and America’s response is crickets chirping. The people of this nation will not wake up, until the military boot kicks them in the behind.

  • Find the Truth

    Didn’t need to, it was widely criticized by people in the know…if you actually believe you or ANY “conservative” has a grasp of the facts, you are a victim of right wing propaganda who will need therapy to recover.

  • Dream on, sucker.

  • foolproof

    The other justices are heterosexual. Shouldn’t they have excused themselves too? Opponents of gay marriage say that gays will destroy the institution of marriage, some of these heterosexual justices are married. So why must the gay judge be expected to recuse herself and the heterosexual judges make the decision?

  • Find the Truth

    Feel free to continue your delusions, the United States of America is moving forward…your version of “conservatism” is just about dead and gone/.

  • Go cash your welfare check and then get back on the short bus.

  • Find the Truth

    I could buy and sell you 1000 times over son…one day you’ll wake up and see that “conservatism” has been working against you since the day you were born.

  • Sure. And socialism/liberalism works just fine. As in Soviet Russia? North Korea? China?Hell, how about Chicago, Detroit, New York City Los Angeles? Yessiree, you lefties and your Workers’s Paradise do just fine as long as someone else pays the freight.

  • Find the Truth

    You seem to know much about the commies…you must be one of them. Stuff the “workers paradise” BS in your ear my fascist friend. You REALLY must be old if you think that crap works anymore. Am I talking to Phyllis Schlafly???

  • Eddie Evans

    Sounds like a lot of sour grapes. You didn’t hear all this whining
    when the Hobby Lobby verdict came down. Ginsburg dissented there because she wasn’t a Christian that is bound by religious law under penalty of eternal damnation. That’s one hell of a conflict of interest, don’t ya think? The Christian judges should have withdrawn themselves from that case.

  • If we move to impeach Kagan and Ginsburg for not recusing themselves from Obergefell because of their involvement and affinity for the homosexual movement, how then do we answer liberals when they call for Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from cases dealing with racial issues?

  • Elizabeth Putnam

    “In future days the Jew will certainly continue to raise a mighty uproar in his newspapers if a hand is ever laid on his favorite nest, if an end is put to the mischief of the press and this instrument of education is put into the service of the state and no longer left in the hands of aliens and enemies of the people.” Adolf Hitler.

    “He could very well be referring to behind-the-scenes pressures put on the Justices by homosexual elite forces, the financially powerful one to two percent, who seem to have so much sway over the media, academia and the corporate world.” Cliff Kincaid.

    It’s interesting that the author of this article uses the same type of arguments as Adolf Hitler. Anyone who has actually read Mein Kampf, Hitler is always saying Jews have taken over the economy like the corporate world and financially elite through banks, as seen above he believed the Jews controlled the media, and Hitler believed Jews had taken over colleges. Now instead of Jews, the author is claiming gay people have taken over the 1%, the corporate world, media and academia.

  • Peter

    Big man, you’ve got money in your hand. So what? You’ve got a table for two but still there’s only you, Big shot.
    What your money can’t buy, your love can’t own; you can’t romance your
    fame . . . . . . . .

  • Peter

    Hitler did not believe anything he said about the Jews. He made them the common enemy to unite his listeners behind him in accordance with the “Psychology of National Socialism (Nazism)”.
    Today the proponents of global warming are doing the same, providing the common enemy that unites the sheep behind the NWO via the Pope and Obama. They don’t believe a word of it – they’re just frantic to sell it as the stepping stone to the NWO. It is called propaganda. This tells us that the NWO is global Nazism. In this regard Obama pulls the wool over the eyes of the sheep. Obama is the wolf that intends to eat the sheep. Nothing is what it seems to the gullible public.
    You might as well kiss America goodbye if the blinkers are still on. Say Hullo to Phil if you are from Albuquerque New Mexico. I went to school with him.

  • JoAnn Kennedy

    blowing the whistle on government corruption — he should be selected out – get in line buddy – behind 100’s and 1000’s of whistle blowers who expose the truth and then loose everything, their identity, their homes, their jobs, they become a pox, a malcontent , a dead beat the labels are as long as the corruption — and it’s pervasive at all levels too — pretty soon you get emasculated by the legal system. http://work2bdone.com/live/ Rule 1.6

  • Terance Healy

    Scalia is pointing at Rule 1.6 which has been demonstrated and proven unconstitutional and the reason for continuing injustice. The constitutional case was suppressed and obstructed in the Eastern District of PA, but when exposed in the Superior Court of PA the courts ordered PA Attorney General Kathleen Kane to silently participate in the conspiracy to obstruct justice… and then Montgomery County attacked the AG for investigating the evidence which was concealed by a grand jury to prevent exposure of the nationwide problem. Rule 1.6 is in every state.

    Look up THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6.
    Or
    Healy, Krautheim v Attorney General Kathleen Kane and the Attorneys General of the United States

  • jooberdoober

    More like impeach Scalia and Thomas! They are way past senile with the stuff they say!

  • JoAnn Kennedy

    they hide behind Rule 1.6

  • JoAnn Kennedy

    we, the people know why this happened, it had nothing to do with Rule of Law or the Constitution it had to do with $MONEY$ — there was a special on the other night about the influx of revenue to florists, bakery’s weeding planners, big halls and reception venues — not to mention the shot in the arm the marriage license fees will garner in the local general fund. Morals be off the table, scruples and ethics be dam’ned — all hail the $MIGHTY DOLLAR$

  • Your screed is getting tiresome. Show us some concrete examples of a left-wing government doing a good job! Greece? Illinois? Detroit City? Right!!

  • Find the Truth

    Show me one successful “conservative” government in the history of the world and I’ll be happy to provide the examples you asked for…and who is “us”??? Are you running a few sock puppets?

  • Find the Truth

    and you’ve got nothing but a mouth I see…

  • R.W. Johnson

    Are you mad cause now same sex couples can legally marry? Oh well: get over it: cause its happening and we have been waiting for years for OUR moment: and we shall have it. Thank you very much.

  • R.W. Johnson

    Are you mad cause now same sex couples can legally marry? Oh well: get over it: cause its happening and we have been waiting for years for OUR moment: and we shall have it. Thank you so very much.

  • R.W. Johnson

    Are you mad cause now same sex couples can legally marry? Oh well: get over it: cause its happening and we have been waiting for years for OUR moment: and we shall have it. Thank you very much: have a good day.

  • R.W. Johnson

    Are you that mad cause now same sex couples can legally marry? Oh well: get over it: cause its happening and we have been waiting for years for OUR moment: and we shall have it. Thank you very much.

  • LeRoy Whitman

    Impeachment of them would be the right thing to do, of course, since they committed illegal “marriages.” However, the real issue here is not vengeance but Law. STATES MUST REFUSE TO OBEY this illegal unConstitutional ruling. See the 13 two-minute videos and get the short, documented, historical, and historic call to action at LesserMagistrate.com and get a copies to State-level legislators.

  • Put up or shut up, dipstick. I asked you first. Or do you consider Detroit a successful democrat/liberal story? Probably by liberal standards, it is!

  • Find the Truth

    Not going to happen slick, you’re a waste of my time…God himself could tell you that you’re wrong and you still would stick to your fantasies.

  • Ken Pullen

    The dementia is strong with this one (i.e., Cliff Kincaid). Ideology does not equate to facts, particularly made-up, fear-mongering tripe like the above piece.

  • Pat

    I’m mad that somehow SCOTUS can find marriage in the 14th Amendment but not firearms in the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution doesn’t make mention of marriage therefore SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to rule on it. They don’t have the authority to write laws and impose them, the Constitution is very explicit in that only the people through their elected officials can enact law. I would be upset too if I was a supporter of gay marriage, the law is bogus. Technically it should be null and void, they should have allowed the people to decide.

  • Lance Brown

    You can’t have your moment until the moment of conception. Now run sit in the corner, hold your breath while we wait for that to happen.

  • RMThoughts

    The Supreme “Court” has facilitated a coup d’état by Obama’s Minority Occupation Government. The inevitable reversing of these measures could well take many years and the effect within families and across generations is likely to be terribly divisive and destructive

  • disqus_smWiOrvPtd

    Just wait until Jesus Christ, the Lord of Hosts, has HIS moment.

  • Gary Reimund

    They do on the basis for which the case was brought before the court. When the Constitution allows for “equal justice under the law” for all of its citizens while some states decide not to honor that concept in their laws, it is the job of the SCOTUS to find in favor of the person or persons petitioning for a resolution to that wrong.

    So long as the County Clerks of ANY part of this Country provide for some citizens to join as pairs in a legally recognized and benefited consensual relationship , they have to allow all of its citizens across the land to do so under the equal protection clauses of the Constitution.

    According to the 1st amendment, religion cannot impose their beliefs on the government regardless of what they believe. If we had a religious test for marriage, we would also have to decide by which religion marriage would be qualified. Is it the Catholic Churches current version (has changed over the years)? So only recognized marriages are between 2 virgin Catholics being joined until death do they part (Divorce is not acceptable according to their rules except in extreme circumstances)? Then how do Jewish, Protestant, Evangelicals, Wiccan, Muslims, Baptists, Agnostics, Atheists, and so on get the right to marry? Petition the Pope?

    The Citizens United ruling is another case as corporations are NOT people and are the last thing our Founding Fathers intended to have any more than the most base protections from our government and those only from themselves as they believed business to have a one sided purpose of sucking up money. They felt that so long as they were held in their charters to provide for some common goods to the citizenry and communities they could be chartered to remain in business for 20 to 30 years at which point they would be dissolved to prevent them from garnering too much power over the communities in which they existed.

    The Healthcare cases that went before the SCOTUS are examples of cases from which Thomas should have recused himself due to his wife’s direct participation in that business and activism for it. You weren’t calling for that though I’m sure.

    At the end of the day, SCOTUS did the job they were supposed to do in this, at least in part. They did neglect to carry the findings far enough to also provide for equal justice for the entire LGBT community in ALL matters of the law and legal rights under the umbrella of equal justice for all as well.

  • Billca

    Elected? No, sorry. The founders rejected that idea because it would mean justices who have to curry political favors to keep their jobs. Then the court would be just as politically corrupt as Congress.

  • Billca

    Timing is everything.

    If they are impeached and removed from office too early it would only give Barry the chance to put two more ultra-left judges in place, despite opposition from the right. You’d see a nearly unprecedented media blitz to support his choices too.

  • Conservative Forum

    You can equate officiating at same sex weddings with a spouse showing support or lack of, for an issue?
    That is a stretch.

  • emag

    Ha! And that’s what they are now…
    I bet this administration has something on everyone of them.
    So what is the solutions?

  • emag

    Those 2 are bitter jewish women.

  • lorrainie

    So, are you getting married now?
    If not, you won’t get any benefits.
    Btw, your moment is not a good thing because God is looking at you all and judgement day will be Gods “moment”…Oh well, get over it.
    Have a good day!

  • lorrainie

    Amen Rightvote!

  • Pat

    Excellent, then based on this ruling by SCOTUS we all get to own firearms and carry them from state to state unimpeded by state law in the interests if equal justice under the law. Cool!

  • Peter

    Kagan is an Irish surname. If she is not atheist, she is most likely a catholic. Even Rothschild’s office headquarters is filled with Jesuit symbolism for those that recognize it. Rothschild too is Catholic, though Jewish by race. He personally is only worth £465,000,000. He is not even a billionaire. You can check it out on Youtube. The Vatican Bank aka the Bank of Rome spawned the Bank of England (Rothschild’s bank) which spawned the Federal Reserve Bank and Bank of Canada. All are private banks. Plenty of information out there for those with two eyes to see. Those who are ‘one-eyed’ are victims of the Illuminati creation on 1st May, 1776 of the Jesuits.
    Being Lesbian, the surname Kagan is likely handed down from her father and not from any marriage. The long arm of the law has traditionally been an Irish domain in the U.S. So much so that Disney named Mickey Mouse’s police chief Sergeant O’Hara.

  • emag

    “…Born April 28, 1960, in New York City to parents Gloria and Robert, Elena Kagan grew up as the second of three children in a middle-class Jewish family living on Manhattan’s Upper West Side……….’
    Taken from her bio. Jews used to change their names when they immigrated, so I don’t know if that is their real name. I had a friend who was jewish, she told me her family changed their name 3 times. Look at Jon Stewart (Daily Show) His real family name was Leibowitz
    I guess they didnt want to be known as Jews.
    But Kagan is definitely NOT Irish, she is jewish.

  • bramreem

    Why should homosexuals excuse themselves and heterosexuals not? If heterosexuals are presumed to have no interest in this matter (and hence, be allowed to contribute to an impartial ruling), then it logically follows that heterosexuals have no right to begin with, to deny people with another sexual orientation to marry. If they have such strong feelings about same-sex marriage being a threat to society, they should excuse themselves because they cannot think healthy. Perhaps only asexuals should be allowed to contribute to an impartial ruling.
    This article is disgusting and Kincaid being the director of AIM means that ‘Accuracy in media’ cannot be trusted to be any more than ludicrous rants. Also Mr. Kincaid is a disgrace for his nation.

  • Peter

    Does anybody really think married sodomites will be loyal to each other and not commit ‘gay adultery’? The whole thing is meaningless.

  • Peter

    Heterosexuals cannot marry just any opposite sex person. Incestuous marriage is a limitation because children may be involved. A father cannot marry his daughter, nor a brother his sister.
    Gay marriage is not limited by this possibility of producing inbred children, so there would not be any sound incestuous limitation. So sodomites will be able to marry their brother, and lesbians their sister. No inbred children will be involved including adopted same-sex children which is the only probability.
    This will therefore be discriminatory against married heterosexuals and unequal justice to such, caused by same-sex marriage. Will heterosexual incestuous marriage have to be legalised to overcome this disparity in justice? Guess so!
    This has opened a can of worms, because as usual, nothing is thought out by the drongos ruling the country via their rulings brought down, for no other purpose than to destroy the country’s social structure. And this is called ‘socialism’.

  • Peter

    I think you’ve already had your moment, or are you a gay virgin keeping yourself for another gay virgin? Will your wedding night be just so very special as you set about consummating ‘the big day’ by sodomizing your one and only one. Will it be a white wedding? Between the two of you, you will have to consummate it twice; first He sodomize you and then you sodomize Him. Who gets to go first that is the question – or will it all just go POOF!

  • Peter

    OK, well said.

  • Gary Reimund

    It is illegal to marry your siblings, children, and a host of other provisions that will still apply EQUALLY to ALL people’s marriages. You are throwing a straw man into the fire of your hatred for gay people.

    Since we already have a military that protects ALL America, shared government built (paid for) infrastructure, Government services like the State Department and Justice department which include embassies and courts, as well as other agencies such as the CDC, Homeland Security, the FBI, CIA, and so many other entities that we share the cost of in a socialist manner, that your argument about socialism is and has been for longer than either of us have existed on this planet moot.

    This ruling has tried to seal a can of worms, but left it open in that it did not find that the LGBT community is entitled to ALL equality under the Constitution. They will surely have to take that up in the near future.

    In the meantime, if you WANT to marry your siblings, children, or other such unacceptable partnership relations, try to fight in court to get those “rights”. Over the course of a very short time I’m sure you will realize how very different that battle is from the fight of the LGBT community.

  • Gary Reimund

    I don’t understand your point. A county clerk or JP “officiates” the marriages and affirms the licenses. If they have some moral issue with doing so, they can hand off their responsibility to another official in their office. So long as they do not impede justice as per the Constitution, they don’t run afoul of the law.

    I don’t see what the spouse part of your comment pertains to. Spouses disagree on many things and manage still to remain happily married despite that. Should they not be happy in their marriages, they can seek remedy in the court system EVEN where their religion forbids it or casts divorce as a sin. That is the beauty of system that separates Religion from Law.

  • Gary Reimund

    As the other Justices are married, they too should have recused themselves from doing their jobs.

    SMDH

  • Pat

    Poppycock, only the people through their elected representatives can enact civil law.

  • Pat

    The Constitution says nothing about marriage therefore the SCOTUS has no legal jurisdiction to rule on it, stop making shot up!

  • emag

    That’s not the point. Kagan officiated at a gay wedding.

  • Pat

    SCOTUS doesn’t have the legal authority to enact law, only the people do through their elected representatives. We have something called separation of powers in the United States regardless of how desperate and determined Progressives are to undermine it. Think 3 branches of government, Executive, Judiciary, Legislative…. SCOTUS has usurped the authority of the legislative branch so that they could had gay America a victory without having to consult we the people……

  • Gary Reimund

    That is correct. As soon as the people’s representatives allowed for American Citizens to be married by the County Clerks and JPs, they created the law that SCOTUS upheld had to be equally applied to ALL American Citizens, not just those who were Christian, not just those whose Churches allowed those marriages, not just the ones a narrow group of people or even the majority of people supported.

    If your contention is that only Christian marriages or that Church weddings are the only ones allowed, you will STILL find that there are some Christian Churches who have accepted gay pastors (priests, parish heads, whatever your church refers to the leaders as) AND gay marriage. So on that front they upheld the Church’s rights to perform marriage according to their religious beliefs thereby allowing for the free expression of those religions. By not adding ANY clause REQUIRING those churches that find it objectionable to perform those weddings, they have upheld their religious freedom.

    So no desperation was experienced or pushed onto the Judicial Branch and the Legislation written by the States was forced into the ONE TEST it must ultimately pass of being within the parameters set forth by the Constitution.

  • Gary Reimund

    Many of the Justices have participated in things they have had to make judgments about. Where it becomes an issue is when they are deciding a case about Exxon and they have either served on their board, are a large shareholder, have a spouse, friend, or family member that meets those characteristics, or they are doing some other business or have some other personal connection to the object(s) of the case. The women should not be forced to recuse themselves from issues regarding women’s issues as your claim would also suggest, as the men should not recuse themselves from judgments that involve something in which they have participated.

    If all the hunters on the court had to recuse themselves from every case that comes before them dealing with hunting or hunting gear or the animals which are hunted, there would be a lot of cases that would likely have a 1 – 0 win/loss if not outright not having ANY Justice qualified to make a judgment.

  • Gary Reimund

    What about the children being raised in abusive homes? Do they not deserve to be raised in a LOVING home? Just because 2 people were able to produce offspring doesn’t mean they are necessarily capable of raising them. The State (our government) steps in A LOT when reports are made of abuse. Sometimes they may be wrong, but they try to err on the side of doing what’s right for the kids. They fail at that a lot too, but again, it still comes down to people who may or may not be capable of responsible decision making where the good of children is concerned. For all we know in this forum, you are not a responsible advocate for the children any more than the people against whom you hold a bigoted position.

    It’s easy to try to use the Bible as your cover for everything, but our Government is guided by the Constitution that grants you the freedom AND defends your right to believe as you wish SO LONG AS you do NOT infringe on that same right of your fellow American Citizens whose rights are EQUALLY protected under that document.

  • Pat

    BS! Marriage was only one man and one woman. The new SCOTUS law is bogus.

  • Gary Reimund

    “Straight adultery” doesn’t preclude those marriages from being legally recognized. AND despite the adultery part being against the Bible, doesn’t seem to draw any ire from the Churches either.

    Your straw men arguments garner you no more respect for your opinion on the matter.

  • Gary Reimund

    Again with the straw men.

    Does the County Clerk or JP have to ask about the applicants virginity? NO. Your Church may require this ritual, but many just move along and accept that in this day and age virginity at the time of marriage is unlikely to say the least. I don’t question the virtue of virginity at marriage, only that you OR YOUR Church really hold any of the people for whom they have qualified the marriage acceptance to that same standard.

    Again, some Christian churches hold that the people they marry have to meet certain criteria such as being members of the same form of Christianity and sometimes the same parish/sect as well as a list of other things that the State does not require in its provision of the marriage license. If you want to hold marriage to the definitions in the Bible, you have to define WHICH definitions and in WHICH Bible. You will also then have to usurp the power of the Constitution of the United States of America as written in the very 1st Amendment to prevent the selection of ANY religion to hold sway over our legal protection under that document.

    Be careful of the Nazism you choose to rule the masses. Even many in Germany who at first signed on to the ideals of theirs soon found them untenable to support.

  • Pat

    Marriage being between one man and one woman isn’t confined to the Christian religion. Matter of fact it’s been defined as a union between one man and one woman for millennia, long before Christianity. The ultimate purpose of marriage is procreation that cannot take place naturally between two same sex people. The Constitution doesn’t mention marriage anywhere not even the traditional hetero sexual variety therefore SCOTUS has not the legal jurisdiction to rule upon it. SCOTUS doesn’t have the authority to enact new laws, they only have the authority to interpret the law. There is no law regarding homosexual marriage, you’re just full of chicanery as are all Progressives.

  • Pat

    Using that same argument then everyone not convicted of a felony should be allowed to carry a pistol even across state lines without being harassed by a Marxist driven police force.

  • Pat

    No, it’s not that Republicans are moaning and P*ssing gratuitously, it’s that yet again the Progressives have acted in a lawless manner. I would be able to respect any new law put before the American people in a referendum and summarily passed but that’s not the case here is it? Who needs a legislative branch of government when we have SCOTUS more then willing to do end runs around the people, right? Stop violating the law as stated in the Constitution and we Republicans will stop “moaning and p^ssing.” You do remember THE LAW do you not?

  • Gary Reimund

    Depending on your religion or particular sect of Christianity, any of these would still constitute biblically acceptable marriages;

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2009/04/the-varieties-of-biblical-marriage/

    As for marriage before Christianity, many men had harems of both wives AND concubines or slaves with which they consorted thereby skewing the whole adultery issue as well.

    You’ll have to try harder. Meanwhile remember that the SCOTUS decides on the validity of law based on the Constitution of the United States of America, not ancient historical practices, which is a good thing, because a great many people might be thrown to the lions, stoned (with real rocks), have their hearts cut out while alive and on hallucinogens, thrown into a volcano, or any number of other ancient customs our Founding Fathers chose NOT to make a part of how We The People shall be governed.

    I respect your right to your feelings and beliefs while rejecting the premise that I should be subjected to them.

  • Gary Reimund

    A strict holding to the Constitution could actually allow for even convicted felons not to be denied the right to own firearms as the 2nd amendment states that “no law shall be written” that “infringes” on that right. But it has been done with many cases of this likely a good thing. Non-violent criminals should have that right restored after completing the terms of their sentences in the Courts in order to more closely align with the stated premise of the 2nd amendment as translated by the gun lobby and many of its supporters.

    I hold that you are either FOR gun control or Against it. If you don’t want some group or another of American Citizens to benefit from the FULL weight of the Constitution, you are FOR gun control period.

  • Richard Hellstrom

    Right or wrong Gay marriage under English socialism is communism. 3 Strikes and you can marry a Mason is just political non sense – Stalking people with government dossiers claiming that you have top secret grade one data showing that some one had child sex 50 years ago when they were three years old and must be deported ( at the aweeeeee of their community ) and never be allowed to live in America because the homosexual government is stalking them and paying the poor people back for their social equality while they get married at the clock because it’s time , invokes such a social equality the U.S could be seeking social comparison with Mao Zedong !

  • Peter

    With all due respect, the reason for not marrying siblings in heterosexual marriages, is absent in sodomite marriages because it does not exist, and that is the prospect of inbred children.
    The strawman here is ‘that absence’ of any reason, being thwarted to appear as equality in justice when all it is, is morality giving way to decadence.
    When the rule of law makes no sense, is irrational, and no mistake has been made either, all that is left is the whiff of corruption.

  • Peter

    I’m talking about the guy having his ‘moment’. He doesn’t need to be married to have his ‘moment’. It was already legal for him to have his sodomite ‘moment’.
    Yes, you are going to say same as de facto hetero partners. And refer to straw men argument again. But sodomites will increasingly marry, while heteros increasingly live defacto. Sodomy is Sodomy and marriage is marriage, nothing straw about that realistic distinction.
    It is a straw man argument for you to defend a sodomites right to marry. Sodomy and marriage do not equate.
    I am not championing any religion, but what is normal. I do not hate sodomites. Neither do I fear them, called homophobia. I strongly disapprove of sodomite marriage and sodomy.
    What strawman assessment do you make of his ‘moment’? The court SCOTUS was a straw court. It made a strawman decision.

  • Peter

    Unmarried fornication and married adultery is different to unmarried sodomy and married sodomy, inside or outside the marriage. Homosexual marriage does not clean it up, or make sodomy more acceptable. Don’t you just love that word ‘sodomy’? It has a nice ring to it.
    Gary, you can use that word too – if you like!

  • Peter

    I agree with your common sense entirely. And sodomy is sodomy married or unmarried. Sodomite marriage changes nothing. You won the argument. Good on you Pat.

  • Peter

    A male sodomite married couple did adopt a boy and abused the kid all over the Internet and were caught. Don’t use your bigotry against hetero-sexuals to support the sodomites.
    Just because married sodomites are able to adopt offspring of others doesn’t mean they are necessarily capable of raising them. Don’t they deserve to be raised in a LOVING home away from sodomites also?
    Stop living in a glass house throwing the ‘bigotry stone’ around
    unimpartially. Your partiality to sodomites shows.

  • Peter

    ‘Straight’ married adultery is not the same as sodomite sodomy married or not.
    Neither is ‘straight’ unmarried fornication the same as sodomite sodomy, unmarried or not.

  • Gary Reimund

    Adultery is against the 10 Commandments and is not separated so easily as you attempt in your comments from judgment. Sodomy on the other hand is called out in the Bible but not listed in the 7 deadly sins OR the 10 Commandments.

    SO even on a biblical level you are wrong.

    AND once again, your religious beliefs do come into play when considering the rights of American citizens decided in the courts based on the Unites States Constitution.

    You are once again entitled to your beliefs, and so long as you do not attempt to force them on others, I can respect your having them. But that respect is only in so far as you yourself adhere to them. If you are judging others according to some reference like the Bible, you had better be making the grand effort to act according to that same reference.

    I seem to remember something about not judging lest ye be judged and loving your fellow man (human) in this life in order that you represent the spirit of your “Lord”. Failing to do those things and others related to helping people in need makes you hypocritical and a phony. If I did the same thing with the law and judged rapists one way while I acted as thief, I would be no better than either.

  • Gary Reimund

    The law still stands, but you make a good argument for it to be cast down. I would suspect that once again the equality clause will come into play and the other part of your argument would win the day in order to maintain that equal justice is applied by not allowing any group to marry siblings.

    There are people who are medically incapable of conceiving children who are still allowed to marry. Some of them are sexually mature but have non-functioning sex organs (bad sperm or eggs or both), or they are past their prime sexual reproduction years and can no longer conceive.

    By your arguments, these people would also be denied a right to marry as they are incapable of procreating. How could you deny them the ability to tie themselves legally with all benefits to each other to strengthen their love?

  • Gary Reimund

    I understand now.

    Justice Thomas and his wife have both had dealings with the insurance industry for their benefit. His spouse has a vested interest in getting certain judgments from the court on which her husband presides. For him not to recuse himself in matters that could directly affect his financial well being is a far greater crime than for someone “who once officiated a gay marriage” to not recuse themselves on a case regarding gay marriage.

    Some of these judges have sat over death penalty criminal cases and yet none have ever recused themselves from deciding the Constitutional merits of the Death Penalty or related laws.

    Your argument then becomes moot. It would be impossible to appoint a judge to the SCOTUS when the cases they must decide almost certainly pertain to some law or another over which they have all heard cases in court.

    The bar is that if their is an appearance of personal or financial gain or collusion, or some form of quid pro quo, it is wrong for them not to recuse themselves. I just don’t know who would call them on it or how they would remedy any such situation under the law.

  • Pat

    Marriage was already an institution between one man and one woman in the Pagan era long before Christianity or the Bible being spread to Europe. Traditional marriage goes back at the very least to Ancient Greece and possibly further back then that. Traditional marriage predates Christianity so don’t even go there, it is by no means exclusive to Christians.

  • Pat

    “Equal justice under the law” is vague as traditional marriage has been the way that marriage has been defined for thousands of years. By the way, that you Progressives would argue “equal justice under the law” is more then just a little ridiculous. The only “equality under the law” that Progressives push for is when it comes to some form of degeneracy.

  • Pat

    Progressives would control everything if they could.

  • Gary Reimund

    You mean degeneracy like people of different ethnicities having the same rights as the rest of the White Americans who mostly prevented these others from being protected equally under the law? Or when we fight for women to get equal protection under voting and wage laws?

    Try again.

    The “conservatives” circled the wagons around a man who molested his sisters and touts Ted Nugent, a known pedophile and draft resistor by more than questionable methods as an upstanding patriot.

    Progressives try to protect the environment, civil rights, consumer rights, working class people, and children. Conservatives have been cutting educational budgets, removing regulations meant to prevent business from destroying our communities and natural spaces, and participating in activities that pit people against one another for the purpose of confusing elections for a great many years.

    I see no real morals or family values in many of the Right’s top priorities.

  • Gary Reimund

    Regardless of what you believe, all of that is moot. We have our own definition of marriage based on a need by the governments at the local, state, and federal levels to be able to provide for legal remedies for 2 people who enter into the marriage contract for mutual liability and benefit. Governments have only a cold level of control over the relationship we call marriage. It is the people and their beliefs that add the warmth or take it away.

    Greeks participated in sodomy, polygamy, and slave/concubine arrangements just like Christians, Pagans, and most all known religions.

    At the end of the day we adopted a need to make sure that when two people decide to join their lives in the contract known as marriage, that their were legal definitions and responsibilities tied to that for the couple and anyone doing business with them. Credit card companies can hold a spouse liable for debt incurred by the other or pay out insurance tied to the account to the other spouse. Hospital visitation rights are based on definitions affected by the ruling. Other legal issues are all resolved in this finding.

    I again reiterate that you are personally allowed to hold your own beliefs, but they are not based in the legal realm. You continue to make the biblical and “traditional” (too many traditions from too many places to ALL be the same despite your inferences) arguments.

  • Gary Reimund

    That is a goal at some level of EVERY ideology. If your group controls everything you can attempt to make your ideal of utopia. Conservatives are trying to do that now (all the different versions of them).

    No disagreement there.

  • Gary Reimund

    I don’t label people by their sexual positions. There are many heterosexuals participating in sodomy without effect to THEIR marriages, so stop the labeling. It is archaic.

    There are more heterosexual couples and therefore more heterosexual couples abusing children, some of whom are their adopted charges as well.

    Child abuse is always a sad and hurtful thing. The best we can do is make every effort to prevent it, find it and prosecute it, and keep ever vigilant of the signs of it.

    I have not condemned you in any way during our many faceted exchange in this forum. I am for people ALL to be treated with the same respect and courtesy. It becomes harder to maintain with anyone who acts in a disrespectful manner, but I continue to try regardless.

    As a hetero-sexual, I am not biased against them. I am just not particularly biased FOR them either. THAT is how we try to have a reasoned and respectful discussion. When people let their bias and bigotry rule their reason, they tend to make emotionally charged arguments that are not necessarily fact based. Without the facts, an argument is just yelling at people.

  • Peter

    Not judging a serial killer or serial paedophile or a sodomite does not mean the offence must be tolerated.
    I do not approve of, I do not tolerate, I do not celebrate, and I do not condone, sodomite marriage.
    Sodomite marriage is not a person. I condemn sodomite marriage. Quit your straw arguments.
    Do you seriously take a serial killer at face value, and say, “There but for the grace of God go I” ? And then overlook the serial killing.
    All States can be treated equally in law by NOT legalising sodomite marriage. Thirty-one states, by referendum opposed it. SCOTUS ruled in favour of the nineteen states minority. Should Mohammed go to the mountain? SCOTUS has made the mountain go to Mohammed.

  • Peter

    Yes, there are infertile heterosexual marriages. Barring incest, which is with good reason prohibited by law, such marriages could not produce inbred children whether fertile or infertile (no children at all). But in many cases that is not known till the attempt is made to have children.
    I have not said heteros should not be allowed to marry because they can’t have children, and the same for sodomites. With heteros that is not before known. You are misrepresenting my argument here.
    I have said heteros cannot marry a sibling because of the known possibility of inbred children, assuming they were fertile.
    It is before known that a sodomite couple has no possibility of producing
    inbred children, and therefore prohibiting incestuous sodomite marriage
    only serves to prevent them having more rights than the hetero. A non- biological reason vs a biological reason.
    You have turned the argument into a reproductive issue, away from the ‘inbred children from incestuous marriage’ issue.
    Incest law does not rationally serve the equality clause, and sodomite marriage does not rationally equate to heterosexual marriage.
    Quite simply put the biology is not equal. Never can be.

  • Peter

    Married heterosexuals who participate with sodomites are called bi-sexuals. Don’t accuse me of labelling. The label is LGBT. This stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transvestite. I did not invent that label. I would re-label the G for Gay, to S for Sodomite. That would be my suggestion only.

  • Gary Reimund

    SO you are NOT against female same sex marriage, I assume, as they are less likely to participate in sodomy than even hetero-sexual couples, whose marriages you do not indicate you are against despite the very real possibility that there are nearly as many hetero-sexual marriages in which the partners participate in sodomy.

    Are you actively seeking to bar sodomite hetero couples from marrying as well?

    As for the states rights issue, there are a lot of states that participated in the Jim Crow laws that the SCOTUS overturned on the same amendments of the Constitution. The states have rights to govern themselves so long as their laws pass the test of compliance with the spirit of the Constitution.

    The majority of the Country is allowed to believe that white people are better than everyone else. They are however not free to persecute or deny their fellow citizens the rights guaranteed under the US Constitution.

    You are, as with Pat, entitled to your beliefs. You are not however allowed to impose them on your fellow Americans.

    As you are not required to marry a person of the same sex, and same sex couples are consenting to their own actions in accordance with the pursuit of happiness that is the spirit of American Freedom, it doesn’t matter to the law what you think or how you feel about their situation in that it has no direct bearing on your life that is not brought on by yourself and your own actions. You can hardly blame another entity for causing you harm that you yourself are CHOOSING to bring upon yourself.

  • Peter

    I apologize if I am being offensive. Yes, you are quite restrained in your approach. But when you make an argument, consider the reverse argument as well, as you do to me so that I do it back. Quite rightly both sides of the fence have to be examined out of fairness.

  • Peter

    First paragraph. Wrong assumption. I am against same sex marriage between lesbians also. My original reply was to R W Johnson about having his sodomite moment. He has not replied. You took it up instead. Then you misconstrued ‘less likely’ and ‘very real possibility’ into certainty saying, “there ARE nearly as many hetero-sexual marriages in which the partners participate in sodomy. Since when did chance become certainty? ‘Likely’ and ‘possible’ indicates you don’t know.
    Second paragraph. Bisexuals are fine to marry a member of the opposite sex, and get on the right track biologically. This is not a sodomite marriage. Get it?
    Third paragraph. Stick to the current issue. Irrelevant. You have become sidetracked again.
    Fourth paragraph. Is that right? That is because the majority are white. The minority can also believe coloured people are better than everyone else. They are not however free to persecute anyone at all. So what? Sodomite marriage is the issue.
    Fifth paragraph. Thank you for that. Free speech is not the same as imposing my opinion on others. You are free to read what I write. It is my humble and ‘araldite’ opinion and I’m sticking with it. You are imposing your counter irrelevant arguments on me, and I am free to read it along with everybody else. I don’t consider your counter arguments any imposition at all. Just irrelevant.
    Sixth paragraph. Same sex couples are not required to marry a person of the same sex either. They can live in de facto bliss, or refrain from abomination completely. Last sentence. Are you threatening me with harm by another entity brought on by myself, as you say?

  • Peter

    Gary, you have just snuffed out the entire Supreme Court of the U.S.
    Where does that leave your philosophical whimsy?
    The court is gone, next on the list is democracy and the Constitution and the right to bear arms.
    Next step knock out religion excepting the NWO church.
    Justice Scalia is right. The ‘Putsch’ is on.

  • Peter

    The person accused of child sex 50 years ago when they were three years old, would now be 53 years old. That fifty three year old would have been the three year old child victim 50 years ago. Am I right? Just to clear it up that such a child sex victim could be accused of this to besmirch their reputation in the eyes of the public who do not look deeper into the wording, and thereby jump to the wrong conclusion. Situations like this are happening all the time.

  • Richard Hellstrom

    The government makes these ridiculous public claims to have this special knowledge of child sex that nobody in the community has seen or has any kind of first hand knowledge too to invoke class warfare and character assassinations that they pass from employer to employer , state to state , and friend to friend. That’s some kind of political surveillance program and government. I can recall being younger and having a bunch of middle aged girls telling me how they were under such political attacks even though their child hood friend had never said a word or had been seen doing anything of the nature and it was only an isolated incident ! Their contention was that they were frequently followed by homosexual harassment squads. So the idea of the political base was what ? To invoke some form of inverted biblical text ? One girl said that every time her son wanted to spend the night with a friend they would start shouting at her from the streets that History Always Repeated It Self ! She felt horrible but lived in fear of letting him spend the night with anyone and didn’t ! One guy said they kept stalking him all over the country contending he had violated some sort of three strikes and he was out rule by the same kind of harassment squads. He loved the idea but just wanted them to invoke the malicious prosecution against some one who was in violation. Like the people that kept stalking him. The problem with the White House and Congress is that they could turn into a pedophile communist transgender overnight and wake up in the next morning as if nothing had changed and it probably hadn’t !!!

  • Richard Hellstrom

    The government does need keep the homosexual business owners and community informed of the children they have beguiled so they can protect the community through some form of mutual protection association. Right ?

  • Gary Reimund

    This is my last attempt at reason. After this you are on your own.

    First, men married to women DO engage in anal sex (sodomy) WITH THEIR FEMALE WIVES. And so that is by YOUR definition a “sodomite marriage” and thereby disallowed, except there is no law or manner in which to confirm either way. That marriage by your definition should STILL be against the law.

    Second, women are incapable, without the use of some devices, of performing sodomy on each other. While there is also the possibility (likelihood) of this occurring in their relationships, it is at least as likely ALSO occurring in hetero marriages. If used as the basis for disqualifying marriages, it now spans even those marriages you want to sanction on face value while you deny 2 women from marriage despite the face value also being in their favor of NOT being sodomites.

    Third, the equality laws are relevant to the discussion despite your disagreement with that premise as this was decided based on those amendments to the Constitution despite the rantings of a couple of dissenters.

    Fourth, SAME SEX Marriage is the issue, and your bigoted language about it indicates your unwillingness to allow others the freedom to live their own lives as they see fit.

    Fifth, in your attempt to sway the legislature to enact laws that disqualify people of beliefs and ways other than your own, You ARE persecuting others.

    Sixth, same sex couples wish only the ability to enter into the same contractual obligations to each other with the same legal protections as EVERY American who gets married as a sign of their love for a partner.

    As for the idea of a threat, I did not make any threat. I implied that that hurt or harm you feel at the idea of somebody else getting married outside of the definition you hold most correct is brought on by YOUR own thoughts and feelings on the matter, not those of the people engaging in the actions you do not condone. I feel hurt by people abusing animals, as an example. While the issue is different due to the abuser actually doing something hurtful to another, in this case an animal, the pain may be the same. While I will take action to protect animals from abusers which I think is a good thing for EVERYONE to do, you are taking action against people entering into consensual situations that are none of your business and cause no harm to you that you are not inflicting upon yourself by your spending time you might otherwise have to help your fellow man through hard times with food drives, paying their utilities, building homes with Habitat For the Humanities, or some other such charitable “Good Works” called for in the very same Bible your hatred is rooted in. I do not threaten you. I feel sorry for you to suffer at your own hands for wishing to insert yourself into the lives of people who love each other enough to commit to a legally binding partnership of mutual caring, respect, and support.

    I’m out. I have said ALL I can to give another perspective. At this point it is up to you to settle this within your heart and mind. I hope you find the strength to be humane.

  • Peter

    You have said that if a thief sits in judgment to condemn a rapist, then the thief condemns himself also because he is no better.
    By this you are also saying that if I condemn a sodomite, I condemn myself also if I am a thief, or even a rapist. I am not a thief and I am not a rapist and I am not a sodomite. I do not condemn these anyway even if I can by not being one of them.
    I do condemn sodomy and theft and rape however.

    You have said, my failure to help others in need, my failure to love others, and my failure to not judge others makes me hypocritical and a phony.
    But you are wrong. You have no evidence of this and YOU are judging ME, but wrongly. You are the guilty one here by your own written evidence. I am presently shoring up an old 82 year old lady’s home, complete with back door frame, back steps, and rear wall to wind proof and rainproof it. My labour is free. Loving your neighbour is the social or socialist part of the law, the 10 commandments. It is your duty to your fellow man in doing him no wrong. Condemning the wrongs of my fellow man, is not condemning them, so I am doing no wrong. I do condemn the wrong that can be done to my fellow man ( and animals). I condemn theft, rape, and sodomy as such.
    The penalty for theft is seven times, sometimes five times restitution. The penalty for bestiality is death to both man and beast (why cause the animal to die? – this is not love). The penalty for sodomy is death to both partners married or not – and you call this love. If a sodomite loves a possible partner he would not have him sodomized into also being sentenced to death along with himself. By sodomizing him, he is doing him wrong. Love is doing right by your fellow man, not wrong. It is not my place to condemn the sodomite. I condemn sodomy strongly.
    You have made theft more heinous than sodomy, by saying theft is outlawed by one of the Ten Commandments, but that sodomy is not.
    Stealing can be very minor. You are saying that sodomy is less than minor theft and not in breach of the ten commandments either.
    Sodomy is an abomination. Leviticus 20:13.
    You have mentioned my religious beliefs coming into play. My wife gave me the Leviticus quote. I do not support any religion. I support what is obviously normal. You fabricate your own evidence and sit in judgment against your own accusatory advice to me, not to do what you are doing.

    I never mentioned the bible or the Ten Commandments or the seven deadly sins till now. You introduced all of these along the way. I did not even reply to these till now. All these were your lone suppositions, because I did not come into these till now. You assume much. I do not even know what the seven deadly sins are said to be.
    The greater commandment the first four or five are our duty to God called “Love God fervently”. This is what the socialist social lesser commandment leaves out holus bolus. It is within these that you find the deep and secret things of satan, Babylon’s golden cup or chalice of abominations that leads to all the abominations in the earth. This is where Sodomy comes from. It is an abomination and far far worse than petty theft. I am sorry to disappoint you brother.
    Abomination, the word, in its old Spanish form was Abhomination by association with the Latin word ‘homo’. Check your dictionary and see.

    I will not go into all your other aspersions against me. They are all wrong as demonstrated. I will say abomination desolates a nation by devastating it. YOUR religious mentors are captaining this through the highest courts where one vote has outgunned your entire democracy, and through your religious mentor media propaganda machine.
    This one person of five on SCOTUS has tipped the balance one way to make the United States of America a Poofta nation. I believe that by this ruling of SCOTUS, America has separated itself from God. Using God’s eye for eye principle of justice, God will now separate himself from the U.S. And God says:
    “I will even bereave them of children (abortion and sodomy). WOE TO THEM WHEN I DEPART FROM THEM.” Hosea 9:12 / Hosea 7:13.
    You tried hard Gary but next time please try to be more clinically accurate. Though misguided, I do respect your ‘never say die’ resolve. But it is America, that the world once loved, that is dying.

  • Peter

    When SCOTUS legalised same sex marriage, or gay marriage, it included lesbians and sodomites. I abhor both forms

  • Pat

    Progressives are totalitarian, that’s why they try to force you to buy into their wack-a-doodle anthropogenic global warming hoax and call you a “denier” or “flat Earther” when you don’t buy it.

  • Pat

    That’s the express providence of we the people by our elected representatives not SCOTUS, the law is bogus. There’s nothing in the Constitution or the 14th Amendment that mentions marriage therefore SCOTUS has not the legal jurisdiction to rule on it.

  • Pat

    No, I never said that furthermore I would respect whatever the will of the American people was regarding the gay marriage issue however SCOTUS usurped what was the people’s call not their call. The people had the right to be heard yet they were brushed aside by a tyrannous Supreme Court. I doubt that Hillary will win in 2016 and I would be very nervous if I was a Progressive totalitarian like you.

  • Pat

    It’s not really the sodomy or religious aspects of the SCOTUS ruling that irks me, I would have respected whatever was the will of the American people on that issue. The problem I have is that SCOTUS usurped legislative power they were never intended to wield. The Constitution is very explicit in that only the people through their elected representatives can enact common law. That SCOTUS usurped that check on them by bypassing the proper legislative process as specified in the Constitution is most disturbing to me, more so then two people having anal sex. That SCOTUS can find marriage in the 14th Amendment but cannot find firearms or even common pocket knives in the 2nd Amendment is deeply troubling to me. Progressive Democrats and leftist Supreme Court justices have gone totalitarian on the rest of us and I fear for those of us on the other end of the political spectrum if they are not reigned in soon. They are picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution they wish to maintain and what parts they wish to make a mockery of. They are getting away with soft tyranny and the hard tyranny of things like firing squads and re-education gulags are only a hop skip and jump away now.

  • Pat

    The word “marriage” is not in the Constitution or The Bill of Rights anywhere, they cited the 14th Amendment which has nothing to do with marriage and deals with citizenship for former slaves. They didn’t have the jurisdiction to rule on same sex marriage, only the people though their elected representatives can enact common law and the Constitution explicitly states that. Then there’s the issue of Kagan and Ginsberg both having performed same sex marriage that made them legally obligated to recuse themselves due to bias. I’m not asking for your faint approval or disapproval, I am telling you that the law as stated in the Constitution was made a mockery of, you do remember THE LAW do you not? This is not a matter of feelings, beliefs or even opinions, it is a matter of lawlessness and the usurpation of legislative powers not granted to SCOTUS by the CONSTITUTION……

  • Peter

    That’s why I keep calling it a ‘deMOCKracy’. Spread the word.
    I agree with what you are saying. It is a judicial ‘putsch’ to destroy America.

  • Pat

    In political science the difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism is that totalitarians expect for everyone to accept their dogma. Saddam Hussein was an authoritarian, he didn’t care what you though so long as you paid your taxes and did what your were told to do. Progressives are totalitarian, they want more then just taxes and obedience, they also want to proselytize and make converts. That’s why they insist people take their insane anthropogenic global warming hoax seriously and call those who don’t ridiculous names like “global warming denier” or “flat Earthers”. Conservatives don’t make up junk science and insist that everyone believe it, don’t even go there. Conservatives aren’t the ones pushing all the ridiculous politically correct nonsense, that is being done exclusively by Progressives. To Progressives right and wrong don’t exist, there is only correct and incorrect. All that one needs to do to make a Progressive apoplectic is to tell them a politically incorrect truth, the more incorrect the better of course. Progressives also go nuts when the facts don’t square with their dogma….. That’s why they are flipping out over Trumps recent comments on Mexicans. Trump dared to utter a politically incorrect truth and Progressives being the totalitarians that they are can’t stand to hear that kind of truth. If I was a Progressive I would be very, very worried about the 2016 elections because Trump might just win and if he does the whole Progressive agenda will be in serious jeopardy, Obama and his flunkies have set some very dangerous precedents and turnabout is fair play. Trump is the kind of guy who will see you Progressives hoisted by your own petards and it’s becoming more and more clear every day that he’s the perfect foil for the leftist Progressive media. After the way he trampled Anderson Cooper the other night it’s clear that the media is shotting pickles…..

  • Pat

    What law are you quoting the “two people” phrase from? I think you’re making that up, I don’t know of any law that says marriage is between “two people.” At the end of the day the SCOTUS ruling is bogus on more then one level. Even assuming that what you say is true, there is still the issue of Kagan and Ginsberg having both performed same sex marriages. That directly calls into question their ability to be unbiased therefore they were both obligated by law to recuse themselves yet they failed to do so. If I was the attorney generals of the states opposed to same sex marriages I would ignore the ruling because it’s obviously bogus. If I was a proponent of same sex marriage I would be peeved that the ruling was dubious at best. I don’t think that this argument is over just yet, I think that this haphazard ruling is rife with chicanery and somebody might call out SCOTUS if the Democrats lose the Executive which I believe is almost certain. I would be very, very nervous now if I was a Democrat, 2016 might be the year that the piper gets paid for all of Mubarack Hussein Obama’s indiscretions of which there are so many…..At any rate, if the ruling stands then the same standards will be applied to firearms in that pistol permits will have to be accepted by all the states also. You Progressive Democrats have opened up a can of worms with this……

  • Pat

    Progressives are totalitarians, and that’s why we are all expected to accept the anthropogenic global warming hoax as Gospel. Those of us not willing to accept that fraud of junk science married to politics are called ridiculous names like “global warming denier” or “flat Earthers.” It’s not enough that everyone pay their taxes and do as they’re told for Progressives, we are also expected to accept every fragment of their ludicrous dogma. Right and wrong don’t come into play with Progressives, just correct and incorrect and when the truth happens to be incorrect then the truth be damned.

    Progressives believe in equality for non-White people in the same way that a handicapped golfer is equal. They always have to be compensated for not being White. The racism of lowered expectations for colored people is a Progressive racism!

    The easiest way to make a Progressive apoplectic is by telling them a politically incorrect truth, the more incorrect the better of course!

    “Progressive” sounds like a positive word brimming with the promise of bright tomorrows. In reality it means moving incrementally like a cancer.

    What family values do Progressives promote? Pansexuality? Since when is that a family value?

    I couldn’t be a Progressive because I believe in diversity, especially diversity of opinion! That’s why Progressive students feel compelled to shout down lectures by people they don’t agree with or more importantly to them, people they don’t approve of. That’s confidence for you!

    How about equal protection under the law for firearms owners?

    By the way, when are Progressives going to call BS on Islam? I don’t think that Muslim owned bakeries in the United States will be decorating your same sex wedding cakes but something tells me they won’t be getting the massive fine that Christin bakeries are getting. How about some equal protection under the law there?

    You Progressives are totalitarians and in 2016 the party is going to be over but the best part is that turnabout is fair play. When Republicans have the Senate, the Congress and the Executive all the hardball tactics Obama used to push the Progressive agenda can be turned against you. I hope the new REPUBLICAN President passes a plethora of executive actions, not that he will have to but just to see you idiots hoisted by your own petards. Every dirty trick Obama used to push his agenda can be used to push the Conservative agenda too! Hopefully it will be Trump because he’s a media Progressive killer. He made mincemeat out of leftist media attack dog Anderson Cooper the other night didn’t he? I think America wants more of that, it’s time to rub Progressive faces in shot like they have been doing to us for the past 6 years.

    Yes, the last 6 years of Progressive leadership has been very good for the working class. They no longer have any need to work because there are no jobs.

    Regulations? Right, Progressives have us moving towards an ever more regulated and less free society, good work! Progressives have no problem with regulating our economy right into one of their 1 and 1/2 percent “recoveries.”
    Funny how under Bush 3 percent growth was a Depression and under Obama 1 and 1/2 percent growth is a “recovery.” That;s what I call proper Macro Economics terms! If it wasn’t for double standards you Progressives wouldn’t have any standards.

    GET READY FOR THE 2016 ELECTIONS PROGRESSIVES BECAUSE YOUR AGENDA IS ABOUT TO BE SET BACK DECADES!

  • Pat

    Right, you Progressives have a lexicon all your own and that’s why Progressives have a strong tendency to police language like it belongs to them exclusively. I have news for you Progressive, my thoughts and opinions are not subject to your moral jurisdiction. Marriage has been for thousands of years a union between a man and a woman, that you redefine the word is an act of legislation that no SCOTUS justice has any Constitutional authority to do. The law as written in the Constitution states that we have 3 branches of government not 2. That this bogus law is allowed to stand even temporarily is a travesty. The time honored wedding vows conclude with, “I now pronounce you husband and wife.” It never said, “I now pronounce you 2 people joined together in connubial bliss.” I would worry about civil disobedience over this Judicial dictatorship if I was you, people are waking up to the chicanery of SCOTUS.

  • Gary Reimund

    I didn’t want to do it, because you don’t care about the facts really. You have your own and they will serve you until the end of your time. So I will post some FACTS about marriage you won’t like or even probably read. As this is devolving anyway, I will no longer concern myself with your feelings or many of the niceties of respectful speech.

    As a side note, Progressives support PROGRESS which has taken us fro the time when we separated from that common ancestor of ours and common apes to start our journey to upright walking and critical thinking. Without progress we would be little distinguishable from the modern apes.

    Marriage as you describe it is really only a couple hundred years old as one of the most common practices amongst most cultures prior to ours was the dominant male taking the best women to wife AND concubine. Sounds like the polygamy your ilk decry all the time WAS traditional marriage for far longer than your false definition of it. When you add the allowance for concubines which seems an awful lot like adultery to me, I see that the Republicans we see every election cycle as being “Players” with an unhappy wife, a mistress, and a string of unfaithful interludes, sprinkled with some reported same sex trysts for good measure ARE trying to go back to “Traditional Marriage” as it ACTUALLY existed. So now I understand. The problem for you and your ilk is that you DON’T understand that that is what they are doing in the name of your misunderstood version of traditional marriage between One man and One woman.

    As for the wedding vows, that is a church thing mostly and they are only words that are easily changed like changing the word concubine to sex slave, or mistress to 2-bit Ho.

    Here are some articles to read, or not, I don’t care, and I AM truly out after this;

    http://theweek.com/articles/475141/how-marriage-changed-over-centuries

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

    http://www.ancient.eu/article/688/

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200505/marriage-history

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/20/historical-marriage-definitions_n_4589763.html

    Enjoy…. or not.

  • Pat

    Fact are facts, feelings are just ………feelings, knock yourself out. Only the people through their elected representatives can enact common law, not SCOTUS. They redefined marriage and in doing so they created a new and thoroughly bogus law. I would ignore the ruling if I was a state attorney general. American Common Law is based upon English Common Law which is based upon CHRISTIANITY which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Suck it up, you know it’s the truth!

  • Pat

    “Progressive” only means moving in increments like a cancer, that is what you are like. Because you are moving “progressively” does not necessarily mean that you are headed to a better place or condition. Diseases progress and that’s what the Progressive political agenda is, a disease of the mind. The exact same political ideology that drove the Soviet Union in the 20th Century has no place whatsoever in 21st Century America. The definition of insanity is repeating the same action again and again and expecting a different outcome. That’s right, the Progressive political agenda is the very same agenda as Revolutionary Marxism just without the Revolution. Who mentioned “concubines?” Where the hell did that come from? Marriage as a union between one man and one woman is thousands of years old and if you bother to read any ancient texts you will undoubtedly be confronted by that fact. Not all men of the ancient world kept concubines moreover that people commit adultery isn’t pertinent to this conversation. Personally I could car less about the issue as I have no plans on participating in any way in a same sex marriage. I would have respected the will of the American people on the same sex marriage either way but they weren’t consulted with as the Constitution demands! What I do have a problem with is Supreme Court Justices USURPING a power no granted them under The Constitution. We have something in this country called “the legislative process”, when that process is usurped and effectively bypassed by a dictatorial judiciary we are heading PROGRESSIVELY towards totalitarianism. Grow the forking hell up would you?

  • Pat

    The only “fact” I’m seeing is the Judiciary usurping a power of the Legislature not vested in them under the United States Constitution. You do remember the Constitution? The part that lays out separation of powers? Forget feeling you forking Progressive loser, we need UNFETTERED TRUTH!

    FEELINGS ARE JUST FEELINGS, THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH……

    GROW THE FORKING HELL UP.

  • no they didn’t. She had to be allowed by congress, The stupid Republicans fought against her forever. The Republicans hate women to have a choice. Thomas and Scabbi are bigoted and have voted to destroy the election process. It is time to impeach Scalia for legal terrorism.

  • stop dude.. you are just proving your lack of education of the 3 branches. Go actually read it…nevermind, you are a troll and stupid at the same time.. I am out.