6-3 and 5-4 respectively

Scalia lives in the 19th century with his jiggery pokery comment. He is the most pompous, egotistical individual I've ever seen.
He probably was near having a stroke when he wrote his decent in the two cases.

So gay marriage and Obamacare are here to stay. These two decisions will go down in history as some of the most significant ever, along the lines of Marbury v Madison, Brown vs Board of Education, etc.

Essentially, the good of the nation outweighs states rights to decide for themselves. Of course it's more complex than that but I don't have time to go into details right now.

Could care less about gay marriage on the surface but Scalia believes in the constitution and what he reads with his own eyes. It is sad to see the Supreme Court fall into the activist role as Roberts stated. They truly were our last hope for saving this country from the far left/socialist/progressive nut jobs. This country has been in a steady state of decline since the progressive movement started in earnest in the 60's and now I am afraid it is lost forever.
Anyone that defends Obama care is missing the obvious and really not worth debating. It is doing more harm than good and will eventually implode under its own weight because we cannot afford it.
Enjoy reveling in your "victories" and keep ignoring that the very ideals this country was founded on are eroded away. Can't wait to hear your tune when they come after your guns and your hunting rights because it is coming. I hope you rue the day you supported these morons and their remaking of the country.

Guns are next.
Not certain how they would accomplish this but I assure you there is a plan, in writing, just waiting for the right time. These liberals are opportunistic. They have time on their side. They can and have been waiting.
First it will be "assault" weapons, then handguns, followed shortly by long guns. The long gun term is meant to include hunting and sporting weapons.
Watch for academicians such as Sunstein, Power, Jarrett and other Obama teacher's lounge miscreants come forward to advise the president. A society's people don't lose all their rights at once. It's the steady erosion, one by one, of rights until all are gone.
Read history, it's the road map of our demise.
Guns are next. Watch for it.

It is a proud day for those males that think it proper to invade another man's anus.

I am sure Kevin Jennings, Terry Bean, Larry Brinkin, and the rest of the crowd is very happy. this is just the beginning. Now they will begin to move in a direction that will take away free speech rights. They will not have those Christians calling the deviant lifestyle "sinful". When they succeed on limiting free speech, then they will start looking to lower the age of consent, giving gay men like Jennings and Bean the legal right to sodomize boys.

America voted for Fundamental Transformation twice, and they have it.

No matter what the Supreme Court decides, “Marriage” is still the union of one man and one woman.

Tomorrow the Supreme Court could decide that a man who sodomized his dog makes a marriage, but it not only does not change the Biblical definition of “marriage”, it defies science and fact.

The anus is not a sex organ, and never will be. It is a one-way exit for excrement. Those who use it for sex are both in contact with blood and fecal matter. The anus is thin walled, and non-lubricated, and subject to tearing and damage. Men who have sex with men suffer from gay bowel syndrome, hemorrhoids, fissures, tears, and are 17 times more likely to get anal and colon cancer. Their rates of STDs are much higher where the CDC shows the 2.5% gay population now carries 75% of all syphilis cases in America and make up over 60% of new HIV cases each year.

Do not take my word on this, look at what our own federal govenments's center for disease controla has to say. Links below.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/
http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm


Homosexuality is not only unhealthy, it does not reproduce our species, and regardless if you believe in creation or evolution, homosexuality is not natural.

Normative procreative monogamous sex between man and woman is natural, non-damaging, does not spread disease, injury, and replenishes our species. It is what creates and grows families.

Stating that Same Sex Marriage is some how “Constitutional” is a farce.

You will not find one framer or signer of our Constitution that every spoke or wrote in favor of homosexual or gay marriage. Madison penned the Constitution, and he never called for “Marriage Equality”.

Jefferson penned the Declaration, and he stated that sodomites should be castrated.

Our original 13 states where governed by the Founders and each had laws on their books criminalizing homosexuality.

The legal acceptance of immoral sexual practices by superpower nations and civilizations is not new. Rome, Persia, Greece, Babylon… went the same route. They did it on their way to destruction.

Scalia does believe in the constitution no doubt about it. Like already said it is sad to see our Supreme Court fall into such a progressive state. The whole purpose of the court is not to over power the people trying to govern themselves. Gay marriage should be a state decision and should not allowed to be over turned by the Supreme Court because it is not in the constitution.

This is verbatim from Scalia and I agree with it 100%." 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."

They have opened up a world of slippery slope cases by relating this to the 14th amendment. Since it falls under the due process clause, and being said that the states should not be allowed to treat people different that other states raises some questions. What about concealed carry in other states, what about weed since its legal in Co? Is every law at statewide levels now must be recognized on a national level? A good lawyer would be able to point back to the 14th amendment and this ruling and the client would be able to get away with a lot of things that were not legal everywhere before.

Look for similar laws and rulings redefining our country. There will be a rapid urgency as obamas last year in office approaches. More garbage will be shoved down our throat. I feel America has already hit the tipping point of debt and moral degradation where it will no longer be able to bring her back to what it once was. There is a reason I refuse to have children, it would be unfair to them bring them into a world saddled with this amount of debt, a struggling economy and job market, no moral compass. Nothing surprises me anymore. I can tell you if the next presidential election comes down to clinton and bush all hope is lost. It has pretty much gotten to the point I don't care anymore what happens with our country just ride it out and hope for the best.

Obama-Roberts Care is now here to stay. America voted for Fundamental Transformation, and they are getting more than they ever imagined.

Apparently Justice Roberts' integrity has been compromised in some way. I would not doubt if some embarrassing info has been uncovered by NSA on the Justice. It's the only plausible conclusion to excuse his behavior on the court.

You can change the subject all day and keep trying to bring up topics with no real relevance at the moment all you want. It still does not change the fact that the SCOTUS is over using its power in an activist state. If people really wanted it legal they should have pushed harder for it in their home states. What ever happened to majority rule? We've been so consumed in trying to please and not offend the minorities that we have forgotten that we the MAJORITY rules. We should not have to scrutinize and break down every single law to apply it to all types of people. We should be allowed to govern ourselves. If that many people are wanting to push it to be legal then we have a vote in our state and that is the deciding factor by the majority. The federal government needs to stop over reaching its power and trying to push one broad thing over everyone. Every state is different in the way it works and governs itself and no one broad policy or whatever is brought up will ever be as effective as the states deciding on what to do. It is time to bring back a democracy to the U.S. before we turn into what I fear the most. A country whose people have no say.

"The good of a nation outweighs states rights "

Dean, define "good" without looking it up in a dictionary.

Gay marriage. Who really gives a shit. Imo, only the far right 10% and far left 10%.

As long as they work, pay their way, stay out of my business, I don't care if they want to marry a guy, girl, or dog ugly fat chick.

To me, I don't think the government should be in anything but building public infrastructure and protecting the country. Stay out of my religion, my family, and quit increasing taxes to pay for lazy bums (of any race).

Also, why stop at States rights. Let's let each county or city decide right and wrong based on the local geniuses, clearly each city has its own moral code. Leave it states right is a republican politician way out.

If a priest does not want or believe in gay marriage, he should not and should not have to marry them. I'm all for freedom of your religious beliefs, but don't push them on me.

But why not a judge? Why care if they are married by a religion who supports it?

As far as the business owner goes, we have long decided it was not right to not rent or not sell something to someone based on your differences.

And you don't have to be a jerk of a business owner if you don't want someone's business, just high bid or say your swamped at that time. Don't have to make a federal case and take a moral stand.

Bottom line, I really don't care to know what a lot of you sick bastards do in your private time, just don't push it on me or my family, even if you believe you have moral high ground.

And I wish my Republican Party would quit taking strong stands on fringe issues, and just try to break our welfare economy.

America needs a not another politician for POTUS. They need someone not worried about getting re-elected but rallying the majority of red blooded working "americans"! Most have lost hope...hopefully that person comes along!

Seems the Dem's are just poised to change America more then anything! Last I looked, it's about as good as it gets here! Yet they seem to want to change that.

I just finished reading the majority opinion and all of the dissents. The majority opinion is exquisitely reasoned. In comparison, Justice Scalia's dissent reads like a school yard bully who didn't get his way, who throws a fit and resorts to name calling. He was unbelievably nonjudicial.

sad day that will bring us unintentional consequences in the future along with Obamacare.

Sorry ranger, you may be correct It may be our downfall of society, but maybe that's gods or natures way. Look at it another way, ,, they have always been around, always will be. So you can either stone them to death like some cultures, or love/ accept as taught in scripture. I chose to accept them. And since then, I have found some different people who have shown me to believe they are people with good morals and families . Personally not for me, but I trust the couple I know. Now I'm sure there are some freaks out there too, same as tg is board has some freaks.

So what's your solution ?

Btw, my conservative solution to aides was a North Dakota quarantine . Deadly contagious disease , but nobody else seems to agree. I figured, one hard winter would have solved problem. So I'm not exactly liberal, just beaten down by reality. Now just fighting winnable fights.

In our new postmodern society where "anything goes" why is it that not everything is ok?
Things are only ok if you want to be a fuckin hedonistic soddomite.
If I want to be opposed to two men marrying each other and performing buttsex I'm wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just read the opinion on Obamacare. Justice Scalia's dissent was better on this one than the gay marriage case. His "jiggery pockery" statement will be used by legal scholars now for generations to come. I might even use it in court in a hearing I have Monday morning. Again , The majority opinion was a masterpiece of interpretive law. Although Justice Scalia's opinion was well reasoned, he still could not resist name calling.

"The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled today that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states. With all due respect to the court, it did not define marriage, and therefore is not entitled to re-define it.


Long before our government came into existence, marriage was created by the One who created man and woman—Almighty God—and His decisions are not subject to review or revision by any manmade court. God is clear about the definition of marriage in His Holy Word: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).

I pray God will spare America from His judgment, though, by our actions as a nation, we give Him less and less reason to do so." ~ Franklin Graham

Justice Scalia focused on the term "exchanges established by the states" to mean only in those state that established exchanges would tax credits apply, and that if a state did not and a federal exchange were force placed, no tax credit subsidy would be available. He ignored the context of the tax credit scheme to fit his strict interpretation methodology. Like I said earlier, Justice Scalia would have interpreted the constitution so strictly had he been a Justice back in the day, that slavery and separate but equal education would still be the law of the land. He's the biggest political hack for conservatives on the bench.

RangerP, the bright side: just think of all the celebratory sex had last night that won't result in unwanted kids 9 months from now.

I generally post just a link, or a sentance or two from that link. this article is worthy of posting the entire thing.


http://emagnify.msgfocus.com/q/17EKdlhz ... R63dan1/wv

Statement on the Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that established homosexual marriage as national policy is unambiguously wrong on at least three crucial levels: Moral, Constitutional, and Structural.


On the Moral Level

The Court’s decision violates the moral standards specifically enumerated in our founding documents. The Declaration of Independence sets forth the fundamental principles and values of American government, and the Constitution provides the specifics of how government will operate within those principles. As the U. S. Supreme Court has correctly acknowledged:



The latter [Constitution] is but the body and the letter of which the former [Declaration of Independence] is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.


The Declaration first officially acknowledges a Divine Creator and then declares that America will operate under the general values set forth in “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” The framers of our documents called this the Moral Law, and in the Western World it became known as the Common Law. This was directly incorporated into the American legal system while the colonies were still part of England; following independence, the Common Law was then reincorporated into the legal system of all the new states to ensure its uninterrupted operation; and under the federal Constitution, its continued use was acknowledged by means of the Seventh Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Numerous Founding Fathers and legal authorities, including the U. S. Supreme Court, affirmed that the Constitution is based on the Common Law, which incorporated God’s will as expressed through “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.”


Those constitutional moral standards placed the definition of marriage outside the scope of government. As acknowledged in a 1913 case:


Marriage was not originated by human law. When God created Eve, she was a wife to Adam; they then and there occupied the status of husband to wife and wife to husband. . . . It would be sacrilegious to apply the designation “a civil contract” to such a marriage. It is that and more – a status ordained by God.


Because marriage “was not originated by human law,” then civil government had no authority to redefine it. The Supreme Court’s decision on marriage repudiates the fixed moral standards established by our founding documents and specifically incorporated into the Constitution.

On the Constitutional Level

The Constitution establishes both federalism and a limited American government by first enumerating only seventeen areas in which the federal government is authorized to operate, and then by explicitly declaring that everything else is to be determined exclusively by the People and the States (the Ninth and Tenth Amendments).



Thomas Jefferson thus described the overall scope of federal powers by explaining that “the States can best govern our home concerns and the general [federal] government our foreign ones.” He warned that “taking from the States the moral rule of their citizens and subordinating it to the general authority [federal government] . . . . would . . . break up the foundations of the Union.” The issue of marriage is clearly a “domestic” and not a “foreign” issue, and one that directly pertains to the State’s “moral rule of their citizens.” But the Supreme Court rejected these limits on its jurisdiction, and America now experiences what Jefferson feared:


[W]hen all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another.


By taking control of issues specifically delegated to the States, the Court has disregarded explicit constitutional limitations and directly attacked constitutional federalism.


On the Structural Level

The Constitution stipulates that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government” (Article IV, Section 4). A republican form of government is one in which the people elect leaders to make public policy, with those leaders being directly accountable to the people. More than thirty States, by their republican form of government, had established a definition of marriage for their State. The Supreme Court decision directly abridges the constitutional mandate to secure to every state a republican form of government.



To believe that the Judiciary is an independent and neutral arbiter without a political agenda is ludicrous. As Thomas Jefferson long ago observed:



Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.


Judges definitely do have political views and personal agendas; they therefore were given no authority to make public policy. The perils from their doing were too great. As Jefferson affirmed, the judges’ “power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.” He therefore warned:

[T]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. . . . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal. The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.


The Supreme Court’s decision is a direct assault on the republican form of government that the Constitution requires be guaranteed to every State.

The Road Ahead

The Supreme Courts decree on marriage will become a club to bludgeon the sincerely-held rights of religious conscience, especially of those in the several dozen States who, through their republican form of government, had enacted public policies that conformed to both the Moral Law and the traditional Common Law.



While the Supreme Court decision paid lip service to the rights of religious people to disagree with its marriage decision, history shows that not only does this acknowledgment mean little but also that it will be openly disregarded and ignored, particularly at the local level. After all, there are numerous Supreme Court decisions currently on the books – including unanimous Court decisions – protecting the rights of religious expression in public, including for students. Yet such faith expressions continue to be relentlessly attacked by school and city officials at the local and city levels. (See www.religioushostility.org for thousands of such recent examples.)



Even before this decision was handed down, numerous States were already punishing dissenting people of faith, levying heavy fines on them or closing their businesses – not because those individuals attacked gay marriage but rather because they refused to personally participate in its rites. These governmental actions were initiated by complaints of homosexuals filed with civil rights commissions – and all of this was already occurring without a Supreme Court decision on which they could rely. Now that such a decision does exist, expect a tsunami of additional complaints to be filed against Christian business owners, and both the frequency and the intensity of the penalties to be increased.



Now is the time to display stand-alone courage on the issue of marriage as well as the judicial activism of the Court – now is the time to stand up and be counted, regardless of whether anyone else stands with you. Now is the time for individuals to broadly voice support for traditional marriage (which will likely cause you to be verbally berated or attacked by its opponents) as well as for the rights of religious conscience of dissenters (which will cause you to be charged with defending bigots and haters). Good people can no longer be silent and allow themselves to be intimidated by the mean-spirited attacks that occur when you begin to speak out on this issue.



It will soon become obvious that this decision opened a Pandora’s Box that will initiate a series of policy changes affecting everything from hiring practices to college athletics, from non-profit tax-exempt status to professional licensing standards. So the battle is not over; it is literally just beginning. We have a duty to let our voice be heard.



Strikingly, duty was the character trait of Jesus. He loved us because it was the right thing to do; He went to the cross because it was the right thing to do; He forgave us because it was the right thing to do. It was His duty. Our Founders repeatedly praised that character trait, and noted the numerous spiritual blessings that came from its performance:










The man who is conscientiously doing his duty will ever be protected by that Righteous and All-Powerful Being, and when he has finished his work, he will receive an ample reward. Samuel Adams, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION



All that the best men can do is to persevere in doing their duty . . . and leave the consequences to Him who made it their duty, being neither elated by success (however great) nor discouraged by disappointment (however frequent and mortifying). John Jay, ORIGINAL CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, AUTHOR OF THE FEDERALIST PAPERS



The sum of the whole is that the blessing of God is only to be looked for by those who are not wanting in the discharge of their own duty. John Witherspoon, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION










People of faith need to regain the concept of duty, and we would do well to adopt the motto that characterized the efforts of Founding Father John Quincy Adams: “Duty is ours, results are God’s.” Now is the time for people of faith to be silent no more.