Quoted, with some edits, from a post I made earlier elsewhere:


I am personally disgusted by the Supreme Court in its ruling today, but it has been clear for decades (and certainly emphasized by multiple rulings by SCOTUS this week) that the court tends to care little about the law or what is right and just.

Today SCOTUS has yet again disregarded the law and invented new laws to impose upon the several States, and it has struck yet another blow against Federalism, which we may as well call dead in this country.  It is plainly clear when reading the text of the 14th Amendment, the intent of its framers, and the understanding of the legislatures which passed and ratified it that it does not and cannot justify what SCOTUS did today, and what the court has used this amendment to justify since the days of the Warren court, to the great detriment of our country (such as the Reapportionment Cases).

SCOTUS has ruled in a blatantly unconstitutional manner.  It has shown that it is no friend of the law, and that a group of Justices are more than willing to make impositions on the country regardless of the law for the pleasure of the baseness of a certain group of people in this country, whose object has been to use the government as an instrument to force people to recognize their grossly and inherently immoral lifestyles as good and acceptable, and today they most certainly have succeeded.  Not only are they base, but so are the Justices who ruled in the majority in this case, as is their treachery.

When it comes to matters of morality, the traditional Western understanding is that it is not relative (which should not be surprising considering the huge part Christianity plays in the foundation of traditional Western civilization; it is essential to its character, even today when the ripples of 1789 have torn so much apart in our civilization).  There is but one Truth in this area.  When it comes to governments and the laws, their object should be to remain as moral (by the standards of Christendom) as possible, within the bounds required for the existence of a liberal polity, which do have their limits (liberty and absolute freedom are not the same thing).  At the very least, their applied principle should be similar to that of the Hippocratic Oath, i.e. “First, do no harm.”  By enshrining such rank immorality as good and acceptable or even moral (especially when governments crack down on those with opposing views, as we have already seen occur and as which I’m sure will become much more common), the government is doing the very opposite and more.

Given the proper duties of government with respect to morality, and given the duty to disobey laws which are themselves unlawful, as this ruling is, I laud any governor or State legislature which chooses to ignore this court ruling.  The Left is trying to destroy the laws, the ideas this country was founded upon, and general principles of sound government.  It is trying to destroy any elements of the culture which contradict its narrative, sometimes going as far as to resemble Stalin’s purges (look at the Confederate flag issue).  We will soon see it further target those who do not subscribe the court majority’s views as has been done elsewhere, and even already in some of our States.  Dissenters will be punished and demonized.  

This is a fight still worth fighting.  It is right and just to wage this war in counter to that being waged against us by the Left, by such radical forces.  As much as some libertarian types may deny it, virtue undergirds liberty.  It is essential to its maintenance in the long term.  The people pushing and imposing the homosexual agenda upon us are not doing it for the sake of liberal government or of any genuine sort of rights (the idea that there can be an inherent right to something so contrary to the natural law is quite frankly absurd); they do not seek what might be described as “just liberty,” but rather, fulfillment and forced acceptance of their baser desires.  They are the same people wanting to ban symbols contrary to their political beliefs, who want to impose limits on speech and even alter the 1st Amendment, who want to ban our guns, who want a massive Provider State that coddles us from cradle to grave, who want to regulate every aspect of our lives.  They are enemies of liberty, not its friends.  They want their chains, even if they may be concealed with their libertinism, and want us to be constrained by them as well. To paraphrase John Milton, those of us who believe in a liberal government that fulfills its main ends always have the right to win in such a cause, be the voices never so numerous that oppose it.

By imposing their immorality upon us, by using the states as a bludgeon on those who yet dissent from their narrative (using “anti-discrimination laws,” for example), by totally subverting the law and inventing new law from whole cloth as a dictator would do, and by attacking and further destroying the federal principle, these people have shown us that they are the enemies of the ideas which made this country great.  We must continue to oppose them at every turn and in every manner possible, with all of our effort.  It is our duty, even if we may well be destined to lose.  Prius mori quam superari.

Another thing which needs to be put to bed is the idea of equality.  It is one of the most dangerous ideas to have been developed by modern man, as witnessed by the scores of millions of people murdered by their governments and revolutionaries in the name of equality just in the last century (to use the most extreme example).  But it is also a fausse idée claire.  It is an idea with no significant basis in reality.  Our universe was created by God to be one of variety, one of differences, and certainly when God created Man, he did not act any differently.  We are only equal in the sense that we have the same essence, as it is the essence which determines the species of the being.  We are bound by the same laws, i.e. natural law.  Part of that natural law, as it governs Man, is that we will physically, spiritually, and intellectually be different.

To be different is to say that we are not the same, and that lack of sameness is something we can clearly observe every day.  And yet what is the basis of the egalitarian idea?  It is that we are in fact the same.  By that fact alone one can see that those who advocate in favour of equality are advocating against nature and the world around them, which is why the results can be so destructive when taken to their full conclusions in practice.

It is the idea of equality, aside from the selfish and base desires of certain people, which underlies this movement.  It is a movement based on falsehoods.  A romantic relationship between two people of the same sex is not equal to one of two people of complementary sexes, and it certainly isn’t equal to an actual union of two persons (a union implies complementarity).  They are by their very natures extremely different, even without taking into account the moral components of those relationships.  Marriage, by definition, entails a union, one which as mentioned involves the sexual complementarity of its members, the product being, typically and ideally, children.  It is a union because through that act of having children two people become one and two families also become one.  It is so important an aspect of human society that it is only natural that protections in law be made for them, not only to protect and preserve the union, but also for the welfare of its products, i.e. children.

It is oxymoronic to refer to a “gay marriage,” and it always will be, no matter what laws are made to the contrary.  The Truth is not relative.  It is plainly obvious that any homosexual relationship lacks most of the characteristics of marital union.  If the general characteristics of the two are inherently different, then the two things are not the same.  If two things are not the same, they are not equal.  It stands to reason that if two things are not equal, they should not be treated equally.  So it is here, and so the two have been treated differently on an essentially universal basis for millennia, and rightfully so.

I know that my voice is greatly outnumbered among my generation.  But to quote Stanislaw Lec, “He who wants to get to the source must swim against the current.”  I will gladly swim against the current if I must until the day I die, and if it comes to the point where to swim against the current is to invite death (and I pray our country never descends so far, but many already have in the last century), then I will still swim against it.  As I said earlier, prius mori quam superari.  I am willing to face the condemnation and alienation of my peers, or worse, for what I believe to be right and just.

TLDR

Let the 1st annual Hunger Games begin!

I started to read the first sentence but Tom & Jerry came on so I got distracted

Rant rating 4/10.

An attitude held in common with the average American voter, to be sure.

+1

FFS

LOL, it's not even that long.  What some people must do when they encounter a magazine or newspaper can only be left to the imagination, I suppose.

Friday nite, you expect us to read that shit??

Tldr
FBHO

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

One fish

Two fish

Red



Oh fuck dat is to hard.

Dude you need to get a hobby.

Not to mention it violates Natural Law.

Not conducive to the propagation of a species.

Penis made for vagina. Vagina made for penis.

Homosexuality is an aberration.  Clearly a mental disorder. Genetic in origin or environmental. It doesn't matter.

It didn't exactly take me very long to type all of that.  Maybe 15 minutes, tops.  It's not even enough to fill two printed pages.

I read it in less than five minutes.

 

It is certainly disordered, which any condition or behaviour contrary to the Natural Law inherently is.  That we promote and celebrate what is deeply sinful and highly disordered rather than try to help people deal wit their disorders and turn away from sin goes to show how far downhill our society has gone.

Trying to legislate your interpretation of "morality" has:

1)  Caused this problem in the first place.

2)  Causing people to dislike the GOP when we could be focusing on creating jobs, reducing taxes, reducing size/scope of government, increasing freedom. (which I hold in higher esteem than I hold legislation of "morals" according to one of the subgroups in the nation.

Your treatise relies on the premise that government must define, and by extension, regulate morality.  How far down that path can the government go?  Can they regulate pornography?  Interracial marriage?  Ability to conduct commerce on the Sabbath?

And WHOSE morality?  You place great weight upon the Christian faith as the basis for morality, but who is to say Christianity is the final arbiter?  Why not Buddhism?  Or Judaism?  Or maybe even (heaven forbid) Muslim concepts of morality?  Why is Christianity so special?

The whole point I'm trying to make is that, in my opinion, government has NO BUSINESS legislating or regulating morality.  Sure, you may find two guys buttfucking each each other reprehensible, but unless they're trying to buttfuck YOU against your will, it's none of your damn business.

You let government decide what's moral and you end up with a Ministry of Virtue that soon enough will come after YOU.

Thank you bigstick61.

I read articles that have interest in my hobbies, values, morals, etc... I personally couldn't care less about whether gays can get married. I have gay relatives and they don't influence my values. Marriage is a word but apparently we want to define it as something sacred, despite a growing spike in infidelity. If it really bothers you that much what other people do with their lives, then yes, you have too much time on your hands.

Most laws, directly or indirectly, entail the legislation of morality.  The only real question is which moral system (or incoherent set of morals) is to be reflected in the law.  The idea that marriage is inherently an institution between a man and woman is as old as laws against theft or murder, which, btw, are also laws which legislate morality.  Those acts are deemed immoral and prohibited in large part on that account.  And it's not like people went around passing laws against gays.  All that was done was that old laws, following in the footsteps of laws going back to times immemorial, were continuously enforced, and the understanding of the meaning of words as it has lasted for many millennia was maintained.  Only when the gays tried to push their notion of morality on society was any action taken, and then only to preserve or protect the traditional understanding and the existing laws.  It was the gays which caused the problem, not the other way around.

A state which is not virtuous will not long remain free.  Neither will one which eschews tradition, especially when the tradition is that of Western civilization.  Liberty requires virtue.  While there are limits to state activity, at the very least, as mentioned in the OP, the state should do its best not to harm public virtue.  To actively endorse and enshrine immorality as morality, or at least as being acceptable, is to go contrary to that.  If public virtue is undermined, liberty, or what remains of it, will not last long, and I think it is plain to see how it is all working out in this country.

And most of the libertine types, the "gay marriage" supporters, are of a mindset that makes them inherently at odds with the broader conservative programme.  It is not this issue which keeps them away, but rather, their fundamental beliefs, which of course determine and govern the rest.  They are mostly people who are only interested in freedom below the belt.  When it comes to genuine liberty, they are still our political enemies.

Bet you agree w heller tho

Oh good more rights-hating gay bashing

If it matters so little to you and you find it uninteresting, why would you even bother clicking on the thread to begin with, much less post anything?

And this issue is not about what people do in their private lives; it is about what they do in their public lives and their attempt to use the state to accomplish their ends, which affects all, even if the effect might only be subtle in the short term (in the long term, not so much).

We should of seen gay rights sneaking up on us. It usually comes from behind.

Not in its entirety, although in this context I suspect you are thinking more about McDonald.

And I am entirely opposed to incorporation doctrine and the gross and deliberate misinterpretations of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment.  In McDonald it certainly had benefits for people such as myself, but it is still bad law and contributes to the overall undermining of the Constitution and principles such as federalism through the bludgeon of the imaginary form of the 14th Amendment.

I cherish natural rights.  I have not gone against any here.  And I am not bashing gays, but rather, their behavior, their making a lifestyle out of said behavior, and their use of the state to force positive recognition of said lifestyles.  Any person who recognizes that what they are doing is wrong, ceases doing it, does their due penance for their actions, and seeks to avoid such wrongdoing henceforth at the very least deserves something positive, even if their wrongdoing involved homosexual activity, as we all have done wrong in our lives; it is inherent in us due to our fallen nature (original sin).  Some things are certainly heinous enough to the point that society must not tolerate them for practical reasons, but that is not the case for many things.  The sin should be what is hated, not the sinner, but so long as the sinner acts against what is contrary to the good to the point where they affect others (as is always the case where the law is concerned), he must be opposed, not accepted.

So much clenching, so little fun.

Your thread was among many in the active topics. You seem to be upset with a ruling that shouldn't affect you but it did. If you seek to make your life happy, then these petty things won't bother you. I don't see, in any way, how gay marriage can affect the populace. And if I'm wrong, please explain.

What the state does ultimately affects everybody.  Ideas have consequences.  They result in actions, which then ripple across the land and through time, having secondary effects, and so forth.

The enshrinement of immorality as morality by the central government and its imposition of that upon the States, the assault on Federalism, the assault on the rule of law, and the further assault upon the institution of marriage, and so forth do have consequences for the future of this nation socially and politically.  While these actions are by no means without precedent, their continuation and broadening does and will continue to have an impact.  Anyone who values liberal and orderly government should oppose this sort of movement, because it represents an assault on the very things that underlie or constitute that sort of government.

I never said the government should define morality, much less make it the premise of my argument.  I believe the government should rely upon the best traditions of Western civilization, of which Christianity and its principles form a crucial part, and perhaps the biggest part, as the basis for what is and is not moral, since as far as civilizations go, that one comes closest to reflecting Truth in such matters, and has had the greatest practical results as well.

When it comes to the laws, it is unavoidable to have laws which prescribe consequences for the commission of immoral acts.  Without that, one will be left with anarchy, because it will be impossible to have any laws, since all laws are ultimately based on some form of morality.  

Why Christianity?  Because not only do I believe it to be based on the Truth (which I do not regard as being relative), but it is also the foundation of our civilization, and it would be unrecognizable without Christianity.  It has formed the basis of our traditions for the better part of two millennia.  The greatest case for liberal government and its underlying principles, and the view of the individual that is key to it, derives directly from it, as much as some would like to deny that fact.  Certainly it serves as a more robust foundation for good and liberal government than the utilitarianism of the classical liberals.

And traditional Western morals were integral to modern Western civilization for a long time.  The idea that they inherently lead to some sort of religious totalitarianism is quite frankly absurd.  Yes, some people might try to take things too far, but that is why you have things like the principle of subsidiarity and other Western political principles in place.  It's why philosophically you have to strike a proper balance and enshrine that into law.  This ruling not only is an assault upon virtue, but represents an assault on those various institutions that are meant to provide the check against tyranny, such as federalism, which is a derivative of the aforementioned principle of subsidiarity.  And what protections does a written constitution offer to liberty when the courts can legislate by judicial fiat and the government treats their word as being higher than our highest laws?  Ultimately, none except what those judges desire us to have.  I truly believe people on the Right who support this ruling or express apathy towards it lack an understanding of the ruling and all of its implications.

Really?



I find the two quotes of yours to be diametrically opposed.

But they are not.  In the sentence you quoted I stated what the standards in this regard by which the actions of government should be judged should be, and it is something external to government.  It does not say the government should define morality.  The government defining morality is exactly what we are seeing now with the courts and a number of legislatures and chief magistrates.

There isn't any logical reason for a local government to deny a civil right to two adults who want to establish a contract by statute that governs personal property rights and extends into medical rights on the basis of sexual orientation.

This issue was waiting in the wings all along the minute state governments got into the "marriage" business which is to say the business of issuing certificates to couples which granted certain privileges under state statutes.

Bitch and moan all you want. It's not going to go back the way things were.

It was a good read. A little wordy, but a good read.


For future reference, your audience would probably prefer something more along the lines of:


Gay marriage is bullshit, these fucking judges are a bunch of goddamn traitors and the Constitution is now worthless. They made their fucking ruling, now let the fuckers enforce it their damn selves!

A marriage by any traditional or real definition is a union of a man and a woman.  If two people do not meet the qualifications for something, then they don't meet them, and the State governments have every right to deny people things which they are not qualified to receive.  There is no right to a marriage licence.  And it wasn't based on orientation.  If a gay man and lesbian wanted to get married, they would qualify under the law.  If two straight men wanted to get "married" they would not.  

And the issue wasn't "waiting in the wings."  Governments have been involved in marriage in some form or another for a very, very long time, because with marital unions come familial unions and children, and since the idea in the West is that two become one, thee is an impact on the property of the spouses.  It is only natural, for the welfare of the children and for dealing with matters of property and inheritance, at the very least, for the government to have some role, whether legislatively or judiciously, otherwise you can end up with some real issues.  The common understanding has until very, very recently (and in much of the world very much still is) that a marital union by its nature is the union of a man and a woman.  For the States to maintain this definition required no action on their own part, since that was always the understanding of the term as found I the law and elsewhere.  Then you had a group of radicals, a minority, gain the support of the broader Left, which is as a whole radical with respect to the best of Western civilization, come around and make a successful effort to change that.  And while they have not achieved a real consensus they have nevertheless been able to impose their will on the country, mainly through the tool of judicial fiat.  Whether or not that will be permanent remains to be seen, but whatever some judges say, the truth of the matter will always be that marriage is a union of a man and a woman.  That the truth is not reflected in the acts of the government (not the laws, since the laws do not support this ruling, unless there is a constitutional amendment) is unfortunate, but it does not change what the truth is.

Probably so, although I'm not normally one for such things.

The original audience to which this was addressed is far more to the Left than ARFCOM.

You are late to that party.

http://fightstate.com/193-mexicans-died-after-being-kidnapped-and-forced-to-fight-like-the-hunger-games/

You would have a point if all laws weren't already based on a moral foundation. Why is it illegal to steal? To break an agreed contract? Isn't that regulating morality?

TLDR and OP is a cisgendered white male thus opinion does not matter these days.

How does slavery stack up against this ruling?  You know, like Dred Scott.

Thanks so much for posting this and I wholeheartedly agree with you.

  I see most of the children who replied fall into one of two categories:

1) "I'm a lazy, dim-witted slob that's too busy sitting in my recliner watching TV and fingering my phone and therefore don't want to take time to read a thought-provoking post....besides, you use big words that I don't understand."

2) "Why should I care if two men cornhole each other? Doesn't hurt or affect me!" This would be the "It isn't a snake until it bites me" crowd who haven't the slightest understanding of what five individuals just did.

I usually don't say this, but TL/DR.

Just like the original Obamacare ruling that Roberts presided over, the most recent Supreme Court liberal rulings are a preview of yet another Democrat Presidential win.  Liberal rulings like this helps sway those that don't know which way to sway.  We have already lost the Supreme Court

This

 I rest my case.

I read the entire OP, and I really don't understand where you are coming from, at all.

Gay marriage; It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.  

If we had voted gay marriage rights into existence instead of passing all those defense of marriage acts, we would never have had this ridiculous court ruling that strengthens the national government.  But no, gay stuff is icky and we're shortsighted, so now we have this nonsense and all of the unintended consequences that will follow.

smh

Quote for me where gay marriage is unconstitutional

We have to pass it to see what's in it.