Bobby Jindal Wants To Shut Down The Supreme Court After Marriage Equality Ruling

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal announces his candidacy for the 2016 Presidential nomination during a rally a he Pontchartrain Center on June 24, 2015 in Kenner, Louisiana. (Photo by Sean Gardner/Getty Images)

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal announces his candidacy for the 2016 Presidential nomination during a rally in Kenner, Louisiana. (Photo by Sean Gardner/Getty Images)

If you’re a right-wing conservative, today capped off what was a very, very bad week for you. You know what? I kind of feel sorry for you. It must be hard taking so many legal body blows in such a short period, especially for those of you who thought god was on your side. The gay marriage thing? That was just the knockout punch, the icing on the cake, the cue that it’s time to move on.


Of course, there are going to be people like my governor Bobby Jindal who choose to have a conniption fit over the Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage. The satirical website Newslo.com published an article yesterday that stated Senator Ted Cruz promised to do away with the Supreme Court if elected to the White House, because he was so infuriated over their decision on Obamacare. While it was a satirical article, it was close to the truth – and a foreshadowing of the real remarks Bobby Jindal made today in response to the Supreme Court making marriage equality the law of the land.

Bobby Jindal, who was once again missing from Louisiana, made this statement on gay marriage while on the campaign trail in Iowa:

“The Supreme Court is completely out of control, making laws on their own, and has become a public opinion poll instead of a judicial body. If we want to save some money lets just get rid of the court. Yesterday, Justice Scalia noted that in the Obamacare ruling “words have no meaning.” Today, Chief Justice Roberts admitted that the gay marriage ruling had nothing to do with the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that. Hillary Clinton and The Left will now mount an all-out assault on Religious Freedom guaranteed in the First Amendment. Regardless of your views on marriage, all freedom loving people must pledge to respect our first amendment freedoms. (Source)

This has been the predictable temper tantrum attitude from the far-right these days, considering they’ve been having a really rough time in the courts. Not only did the Supreme Court rule for the Fair Housing Act, gay marriage, and upholding Obamacare subsidies, but then there’s the outrage over very conservative states like Alabama removing the Confederate flag from their Capitol grounds – at the order of a Republican governor no less.


Bobby Jindal and other right-wing conservatives keep talking about the First Amendment, but what they conveniently overlook is the fact that the Constitution doesn’t care about your feels. It does not afford more rights to you, nor does it force the government to promote your religious beliefs or favorite flag of treason over the beliefs of others. You are not being persecuted when others get the same rights as you do, and you aren’t being discriminated against when you can’t discriminate against others. You can’t be taken seriously when you propose shutting down a branch of government just because they upheld the part of the Constitution you conveniently ignore while quoting Bible verses to justify your outdated, bigoted views – but that’s exactly what religious conservatives want to do in order to maintain their shrinking hold on political power in the United States.

Here’s some free advice to Bobby Jindal: in the words of Bill Hicks, “shut up, you lose, go home.”



Comments

Facebook comments

  • Gary Menten

    Dear Bobby,

    If the Supreme Court had no right to rule on the issue, why did they agree to review the case? It takes five out of nine justices to make that decision, so even if the entire liberal wing agreed, at least one conservative had to agree to review the case. Please answer this.

    At the same time, please answer the next questions. If marriage is a religious act defined by God, why do we allow states to write the marriage laws? Shouldn’t this be done by churches and only churches?

    Could it be that the Mormons might write something that the Baptists don’t agree with?

    Also, why is there such a civil ceremony with no religion at all and why is it that these may be presided over by lowly lay people like judges, mayors, even municipal clerks?

    Which God is it that decided that marriage was between one man and one woman? Zeus? Apollo? Venus? Yahweh? Rama? It probably wasn’t Allah, was it? It probably wasn’t Yahweh either since King Solomon had rather a lot of wives.

    If marriage is sacred, how come your state has such a high divorce rate. Incidentally, why is divorce even legal?

    • France does not recognize religious marriage. All must be married in a civil ceremony by a magistrate. Cheese eating atheist!

      • Gary Menten

        Not just France. In most many places in Western Europe, including monarchies like Belgium, marriage is a civil state, nothing more. In these countries, typically, the happy couple have a civil ceremony presided over by a civil official and then, afterwards, if they want to, they can go to a church and have the religious ceremony. Not all do.

        Even so, even in the US and Canada , marriage is just a civil status in the eyes of the law. The difference is that clergymen are empowered BY THE STATE to act on it’s behalf to perform the ceremony AND OVERSEE AND FILE THE LEGAL PAPERWORK that makes it all legal. In short, while they are acting on behalf of their churches, they are also agents of the local government in this context. This is why at the end of a ceremony clergymen say “by the power vested in me by the state of _____________, I now pronounce you husband and wife.

    • Ed of Ct.

      US Supreme court did in 1890 see my post above.

    • Gary Harding

      Mormons aren’t considered Christian

      • Gary Menten

        I suppose most Christians don’t consider them as such, but in the 2012 election Romney kept pointing out that his was the church of “Jesus Christ” of Latter Day Saints as if to imply that it was a branch of Christianity.

  • Scott Newman

    Now why didn’t I think of that. President Al Gore.

  • Krys Douglas

    Some one needs to sit down with Bobby boy and explain the Constitution to him.

    • Gary Menten

      Him and the entire GOP.

    • Ed of Ct.

      9th and 10 amendment PROHIBIT courts from legislating and making up 14th amendment as they go along like the liberal fools Kennedy etc. do all the time.

      • Michael Drzyzga

        10th Amendment doesn’t apply in this case. It explicitly specifies “… nor prohibited by [the Constitution] to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Section 1 of the 14th Amendment prohibits certain powers to the States. That’s why it’s called the equal protection clause.

      • Ed of Ct.

        9th amend. and 10th bars Judiciary from doing what they are doing. Very sadly since 1930’s- Minimum wage laws SC has bastardized 14th amendment to set themselves up as a unelected Fed legislature period. 41 states( Cal. TWICE by 7 million voters) and Congress banned Homosexual so called marriage for the same reason 1890 SC outlawed Polygamy.

      • Michael Drzyzga

        I literally just explained why the 10th Amendment doesn’t apply here. The amendment itself says there are exceptions explained elsewhere in the Constitution. And the 14th is one of them. You need to take into account the whole document, not just one part. Moreover, the ruling essentially* translates to, “this right goes to the people, not to the States.”

        *Admittedly, a simplification.

  • OMGface

    OK….I can t stop this unimaginable momentum, so, I’ve accepted the inevitable and now have a question: when we get fully back to The Stone Age, will I still be able to wear my skinny jeans? My feeling is going back to boot cut might be more practical red ambulation.

  • MarsFKA

    …(Insert deity of your choice or suitable non-theistic alternative) bless America! You give us, out here in the world, a never-ending parade of entertaining public figures. This Jindall character is far and away the funniest of the current bunch.
    And the most side-splitting part? He’s a state governor!
    You couldn’t get away with writing a novel with a story line like that.

  • Ed of Ct.

    Tronic that court SC decided in 1890 that Mormons in Utah Territory could NOT get into the USA. They cited Morals of Society-Marriage is between a man and a woman period. Utah did Not get into the USa until they abolished Polygamy. EVERY state that ratified 14th Ammendment in 1868 Outlawed Homosexual deviant sodomy in the same year. To Gary Menten, I guess now Polygamy is now legal. Authors of 14th amend. must be spinning in their graves. So must Thomas Jefferson. He wote letters to Gov. Tom Paine of Virginia equating sodomy with rape. He proposed serious penalties including castration for homosexual males and clipping the noses of lesbians as well

    • Gary Menten

      No Stupid, Polygamy is not legal anywhere in the US. The reason? There are perfectly good secular reasons for outlawing it. There aren’t any valid secular reasons for banning same sex couples.

      • Charles Vincent

        They just redefined marriage Gary. And the polygamists will use the same argument for equality that the LGBT movement used in order to redefine it again.

        For a man of science you sure do ignore the natural order of things.

      • Gary Menten

        Actually Charles, what the court ruled is that the limiting marriage to a man and a woman violated the Equal Protection of the Laws,

      • Charles Vincent

        Re paragraph one
        And the same argument that limiting it to only one man and one woman violates equal protection laws. the same way limiting it only to one man and woman does/did to LGBT couples. For all of recorded history marriage was defined as one man and one woman, thus the supreme court by definition changes that definition by including Homosexual couples(mind you I don’t care either way). if it can bne changed once it can be changed any number of times using the same logic LGBT used to achieve its goal. I object to their method only. The use of marriage licensing is a recent (middle ages) development.

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

        Personally I would have preferred that this sort of individual relationship be subject to the individual, not the state or the church who both used it as a means of generating revenue on a natural right, which is a violation of peoples right of association.

        RE second and third paragraphs.
        I have read and am aware that homosexuality happens in other species of the animal kingdom but this is the exception not the rule in nature. The natural rule and force in nature is procreation. The problem with how its been done here is that it feels like they did the right thing for the wrong reasons using the wrong logic. There are secular reassons that are valdi for arguing against LGBT marriage that argument also fals apoart when you apply the equal protection argument as well.

        The kings natural order of things has been well refuted by people like John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, there are others but those are the two that come to mind.

        RE paragraphs four and five.
        Here is how it affect others not LGBT and their natural rights first the SCOTUS case states they can revoke 501c status of churches for refusing to marry same sex couples. This is a clear violation of the first amendment separating church and state, It is also essentially legislating from the bench which is also unconstitutional.
        here is SCOTUS ruling that supports my conclusion stated above.

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZO.html

      • Gary Menten

        RE: “For all of recorded history marriage was defined as one man and one woman,”
        What recorded history are you talking about. Certainly not human history. There have been many cultures in history that have allowed for polygamous marriages.

        Human history does not begin or end with the United States. 18 other countries have previously legalized same sex marriage before the US has. You are behind the times on this. As I’ve noted, same sex marriage has been legal here in Canada for 10 years. The sky has not fallen, civilization has not crumbled, nor a single church lost its tax exempt status. As photographer, it’s even put a bit of money in my pocket serving as a second shooter at a same sex wedding a couple of years ago. I’ll admit that the experience was a “unusual” at times but there were many other unusual things about this wedding that had nothing to do with the fact both people getting married were women.

        “There are secular reasons that are valid for arguing against LGBT
        marriage that argument also falls apart when you apply the equal
        protection argument as well.”

        Please enumerate them. I will be happy to tear them apart for you.

        “The kings natural order of things has been well refuted by people like
        John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, there are others but those are the two
        that come to mind.”

        You miss the point. The natural order of things is largely opinion, subject to interpretation and change. Plenty of Kingdoms survived Hobbes and Locke, incidentally.

        “Here is how it affect others not LGBT and their natural rights first the
        SCOTUS case states they can revoke 501c status of churches for refusing
        to marry same sex couples. This is a clear violation of the first
        amendment separating church and state, It is also essentially
        legislating from the bench which is also unconstitutional.”

        Right wing fear mongering, nothing else. Just like the Obama Care death panels. The ruling is binding on the states who write the marriage laws, and not the individual churches who are protected under the 1st Amendment. Do you honestly think that the court that ruled in the Hobby Lobby case that small-family owned corporations were protected under the 1st Amendment will allow for churches to be penalized for their religious positions? I frankly don’t agree with you on many things, but I cannot believe you would be so naive as to believe this.

        Persons are not legally required to marry in churches nor according to any religion and if they do hold to a particular religion, then it is their responsibility to live up to whatever code their religion specifies. It is not the role of government to meddle into this.

      • Charles Vincent

        “What recorded history are you talking about? Certainly not human history.”

        Yes human history hello read about it unions for relationships were man and woman as far back as you can go.

        “There have been many cultures in history that have allowed for polygamous marriages and many continue to do so.”

        This seems to shoot you in the foot considering that polygamists can use the equal protection laws to legalize polygamy in the same way the LGBT movement did.

        “Please enumerate them. I will be happy to tear them apart for you.”

        That was supposed to be for LGBT as well as polygamy. excuse the error.

        “You miss the point. The natural order of things is largely opinion, subject to interpretation and change. Plenty of Kingdoms survived Hobbes and Locke, incidentally.”

        Natural law isn’t opinion its observable and measurable. The natural process is male and female not male:male or female:female. Moreover I wasn’t commenting on whether kingdoms survived or not because its not relevant to the discussion. what was relevant is that they show the logical contradiction to the assertion that king reign because of god.

        “Right wing fear mongering, nothing else.”

        Not sure how its fear mongering when the media clearly runs stories covering it on either side of the spectrum so it certainly isn’t naive.

        “Do you honestly think that the court that ruled in the Hobby Lobby case that small-family owned corporations were protected under the 1st
        Amendment will allow for churches to be penalized for their religious positions?”

        BSA v Dale specifically exempts the boy scouts from allowing homosexuals in their ranks, yet there are many states that sued and force them to allow gay into their ranks California is famous for this. and these cases are after the dale decision.

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

        It’s been settled yet many groups including the ACLU continue to attempt to thwart their first amendment right to do so via government force. please tell me again how this is fear mongering and doesn’t happen.

        Re your last paragraph
        No you’re not legally required to marry in a church, but you are required to obtain a permit/license from the government for it to be legal this is part of the problem.

      • Gary Menten

        I’ll start by saying thank-you for your intelligent response. I don’t have time to answer all of the points this morning but will get back to you later this evening or tomorrow.

        “What recorded history are you talking about? Certainly not human history.”
        Yes human history hello read about it unions for relationships were man and woman as far back as you can go.

        The point is that it hasn’t been defined as between one man and ONE WOMAN, as many political ass hats are bleating, including the ones who pound the bible and claim that it comes down from God. Clearly they haven’t read the Old Testament.

        “There have been many cultures in history that have allowed for polygamous marriages and many continue to do so.”

        “This seems to shoot you in the foot considering that polygamists can use the
        equal protection laws to legalize polygamy in the same way the LGBT
        movement did.”

        No because it goes to my previous point about one man, one woman. Granted all of them tend to define marriage as between men and women but you also need to remember that 17 other countries have already decided to allow same sex marriage. So the Supreme Court decision simply puts the US on a par with those countries. We legalized it in Canada 10 years ago. Incidentally, the sky hasn’t fallen nor society crumbled.

        Polygamy and same sex marriage involving only two partners however are very different legal issues I think. The latter is about equality under the law the former about creating inequalities through marriage. I think the courts would recognize this. I think they would also recognize that under their current ruling which has its basis in the 14th Amendment they are simply extending the right of one person to marry one other person to all persons. There are the extremely complex questions of how to decide the legal responsibilities of one spouse to all the others in a polygamous marriage, not to mention the more complex questions of community of property , prenuptial agreements and divorce. I frankly, I cannot believe the current court, even if it had one more liberal on the bench would ever rule in favor of polygamous marriages. Further no country that has legalized same sex marriage has legalized polygamy. We both know that there are people practicing polygamy in both Canada and the US, usually on isolated rural compounds, but they are doing so illegally.

        “Re your last paragraph
        No you’re not legally required to marry in a church, but you are required
        to obtain a permit/license from the government for it to be legal this
        is part of the problem.”

        Exactly the opposite. Marriage is far as the state is concerned, is above all a civil status that entails legal obligations on both parties. It’s a contract that both partners have to live up to. It’s only when you bring religion into the equation that you have a problem. It’s fine for an individual to define marriage according to his or her religion, but not for government, which must be neutral.

        I will get back to you later on the other issues.

      • Charles Vincent

        “The point is that it hasn’t been defined as between one man and ONE
        WOMAN, as many political ass hats are bleating, including the ones who
        pound the bible and claim that it comes down from God. Clearly they
        haven’t read the Old Testament.”

        This is my point the definition has changed over the course of history. Although not all marriages through out history were between men and women(the majority were), be it monogamous or polygamist in nature. I am not even claiming that same sex marriage didn’t happen. What I am saying is that through out history you can see a big picture and polygamy is part of that picture. As I said I dont care if the marry in any case I don’t like the way its been handled.

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

        your posts on the use of polygamy in the bible lend more credence to it being legalized.

        “Exactly the opposite. Marriage is far as the state is concerned, is
        above all a civil status that entails legal obligations on both parties.
        It’s a contract that both partners have to live up to. It’s only when
        you bring religion into the equation that you have a problem. It’s fine
        for an individual to define marriage according to his or her religion,
        but not for government, which must be neutral.”

        I disagree the state issues a license for the sole purpose of revenue generation and as a means of control over people.

        This is unconstitutional as it is because of the Murdock v Pennsylvania.
        “Page [319 U.S. 105, 113] reads… The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution. viz., The state cannot and does not have the power to license, nor tax, a Right guaranteed to the people.”

        especially since marriage is considered a right under the freedom of association protected by the first amendment, and historical data concurring that it is a right as well.

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

      • Gary Menten

        I wasn’t talking about marriage licenses, which are a whole different issue. I’m writing about religious neutrality of government and that where secular government is concerned, marriage can only be a civil status entailing rights and obligations. Religiously neutral government cannot consider it “sacred” in any way regardless of how the individual citizen feels about it. If the individual considers it sacred and handed down by God, that’s fine but it’s up to them to see that they live by the tenets of their faith and not the government’s job to impose it on everyone else.

      • Charles Vincent

        http://www.krtv.com/story/29450937/montana-polygamist-family-applies-for-marriage-license

        Neutral governments cant issue a license and claim to be neutral either.

      • Gary Menten

        Nonsense. The state does not have to take a religious view issue or deny a marriage license. The state merely needs to ensure that the persons applying for the license are following the laws of the state. It goes without saying that the state laws have to pass the Constitutional test. As I have previously stated there are perfectly valid secular reasons for outlawing polygamy, though frankly these laws seem to be difficult to enforce in spirit, if not necessarily in letter.

      • Charles Vincent

        A government that issues a license and charges a fee for the individuals to be able to exercise a right is not neutral. Then enumerate those reasons. Because the odds are that the equal protection under law argument will refute them.

      • Gary Menten

        It many not be in terms of revenue, but how is it not neutral in terms of religion? Does the government not have a vested and secular interest in ascertaining that brothers don’t marry their sisters, fathers don’t marry their daughters, or that nobody marries their first cousins?

        Does not every other type of license issued by the government entail a certain amount of paperwork and a fee of some sort? Driving, hunting, fishing, construction, business, etc. I have never known any license issued by any government to be free. I’ve never known any civil servants who were willing to work for free.

      • Charles Vincent

        Hello hope your holiday weekend went well, although you probably don’t celebrate the Fourth of July like we do. I will answer both your posts when I get home tonight.

      • Gary Menten

        We celebrate the 1st of July and didn’t get a long weekend,

      • Charles Vincent

        “It many not be in terms of revenue, but how is it not neutral in terms of religion?”
        You’re conflating the two here. The government has to be neutral on both sides of the equation. On one side there is religion and on the otherside there are natural rights which the government cannot interfere with, in this case the issuance of a license and a fee. Which is expressly unconstitutional via a SCOTUS ruling in Murdock v Pennsylvania 319 u.s. 105. Specifically “Page [319 U.S. 105, 113] reads… The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution. viz., The state cannot and does not have the power to license, nor tax, a Right guaranteed to the people.”
        Therefore the state has no right to even issue a license or a fee in the case of marriage.

        “Does the government not have a vested and secular interest in
        ascertaining that brothers don’t marry their sisters, fathers don’t
        marry their daughters, or that nobody marries their first cousins?”

        This is a decision to be made by society not government. And can be logically argued against using both medicall data and empirical evidence that doing so in the listed cases leads to some pretty horrific end results.

        “Does not every other type of license issued by the government entail a
        certain amount of paperwork and a fee of some sort? Driving, hunting,
        fishing, construction, business, etc.”

        Yes and i can break them down individually.

        Driving;
        When conducting interstate commerce yes its constitutional.
        When traveling for personal reasons unconnected with commerce no.
        http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml

        Hunting;
        Yes but for a conservation reason, also this to me would seem to be an excise tax and can be avoided by choosing not to hunt, excise taxes are constitutional.

        Construction, business;

        This link details how thing were at the founding of this country and how government intervention made a mess of free market economics.
        http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/

      • Gary Menten

        To continue with my rebuttal in parts.

        On the issue of the Boy Scouts of America, the courts including the Supreme Court have consistently held that the Boy Scouts being a private organization have the right to set their rules for membership. Neither the Boy Scouts nor churches are as far as I understand it constitutionally tax-exempt; they simply happen to be so as a matter of various federal and state laws and so this tax exemption can in theory, be legally revoked. You seemed to have glossed over the sentence in the Huff Po article however that states

        “The law would have no effect on the tax-exempt status of churches, many of which discriminate against gays and lesbians.”

        I have not studied the issue and was unaware of the controversy until reading your last post, however I concede that it would be interesting to consider whether or not the 14th Amendment also protects the Boy Scouts in this case, since an organization, they are only doing what other non-profit organizations do without penalty. I wonder if the 14th only applies to individuals rights as opposed to the rights of organizations? Would it matter? Would the court that ruled that corporations are people not likely take a similar view with non-profits?

        There are of course plenty on both sides of the border that are calling for the revocation of tax-exempt status for churches and religious organizations, though at present I am not among them, believing in essence that it would do more harm than good. I am not by any means a fan of those mega-churches such as Joel Osteen’s which seem to be mostly a tax free money-making enterprise of Joes Osteen; however since many churches use their money to do charitable work, runs hospitals in the 3rd World etc. it seems that taxing these could do more damage than good.

        More to follow.

      • Charles Vincent

        The 14th amendment doesn’t have to because the BSA is covered under the first amendment by free speech, religion, and freedom of association, which was clearly stated in the opinion of the court. Moreover its punitive and unconstitutional to revoke a tax exempt status on that basis in which a group or individual is exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

        https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/29/will-supreme-court-decision-same-sex-marriage-challenge-or-change-christian-colleges

      • Gary Menten

        “The 14th amendment doesn’t have to because the BSA is covered under the
        first amendment by free speech, religion, and freedom of association,
        which was clearly stated in the opinion of the court. Moreover its
        punitive and unconstitutional to revoke a tax exempt status on that
        basis in which a group or individual is exercising their
        constitutionally guaranteed rights.”

        In which case the law should and will be thrown out as soon as challenged in Federal Court, which is one of the reasons the Federal Court system exists. Democracy is messy.

        The articles to those two links are just libertarian and religious hyperventilation and speculation at this point and before losing your minds, just look north to Canada where same sex marriage has been the law for a decade. Have any of those things happened in Canada?

      • Charles Vincent

        “The articles to those two links are just libertarian and religious
        hyperventilation and speculation at this point and before losing your
        minds,”

        Ad lapidem please refute them with concise facts.

        “In which case the law should and will be thrown out as soon as
        challenged in Federal Court, which is one of the reasons the Federal
        Court system exists.”

        We’re talking about the same supreme court right?

      • Gary Menten

        Not necessarily. The lower courts can rule on the issue. The Supreme Court is a last, final appeal.

      • Gary Menten

        Why on earth should I bother? The first article, which is the better of the two simply puts forward a number of hypothetically possible scenarios that have yet to happen but offers no evidence whatsoever that any of the things WILL happen. In fact it goes so far as to admit that were any of the things they say COULD happen were to happen, the process would likely be very slow and subject to legal challenge under the 1st Amendment, DOMA and similar laws at the state level.

        So much for the first article. Don’t hyperventilate, take a deep breath see in a year or two how little your life changes.

        The Second Article is little more than a recitation of Libertarian anti- government talking points. I won’t bother with most of them because if we are perfectly honest, you and I will never agree as to the proper role of government. The overall gist of the article seems to be however, not that same-sex marriage is a bad thing but rather that it should spread on it’s own merits, state by state as public opinion mandates it. Well, that’s a little bit like expecting the slave states in the antebellum south to have abolished slavery at their own pace and they might have eventually done it; it’s difficult to imagine how the US could have carried slavery into the 20th C, but then again the injustice would simply have been prolonged. The ruling of the court in this case sets out to correct what the majority considered was an injustice. I point out that the majority on the court is also backed by twenty or so rulings from lower courts that came before Obergefell v Hodges. The 5th paragraph is the silliest of all, saying that making a bold prediction about what will happen next but a flimsy argument to back it up.

        Like I’ve mentioned, we’ve had same sex marriage here in Canada for a decade, and that was also decided by our Supreme Court, which despite being way more liberal than your own has consistently upheld the rights of religious groups to maintain their practices, even where public opinion was very much against the religious group. I find it difficult to believe that the same court that ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby would rule against religious groups refusing to recognize same sex marriage.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Why on earth should I bother?”
        Because that’s how logical reasoning and argumentation works. If you’re going to make statements like; “The articles to those two links are just libertarian and religious hyperventilation and speculation at this point and before losing your minds,…” you need to cite the valid reasons or you fall in to the logical fallacy Ad lapidem which means “dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.”

        “I won’t bother with most of them because if we are perfectly honest, you and I will never agree as to the proper role of government.”

        Are you sure you know what my view of governments role is in this context?

        Slavery would have died a natural death at the hands of industrial mechanization.

        “I find it difficult to believe that the same court that ruled in favor
        of Hobby Lobby would rule against religious groups refusing to recognize same sex marriage.”
        The hobby lobby case was judicial activism IMHO. I do think that their line of thought was that businesses that are not publicly traded were considered private and not subject to the same metric as publicly traded companies.

      • Gary Menten

        I don’t need to bother because neither article provides any
        solid evidence that the things they say will or might happen, will in fact
        happen. What they assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence. But
        let’s take that a step further. Both articles are written as though the United
        States is the first country in which this sort of thing happened. It’s not. It’s
        happened in 17 other countries first and one would think that a seriously
        written article would have studied what’s happened in at least some of those
        countries since same sex marriage was legalized. As I’ve previously mentioned, Canada legalized same sex marriages 10 years ago, in exactly the same way; by a Supreme Court ruling.

        Because of its many similarities to the US, Canada provides
        an excellent model for study. Both countries are representative democracies,
        and confederal unions with a division of power between the federal and
        state/provincial governments. The Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms enumerates individual freedoms that mirror most of those found in the Bill of Rights, and both countries have historical ties to the United Kingdom where much of the legal principles we both use; the presumption of innocence for instance,
        originate. Both countries have ethnically and religiously diverse populations though the traditional governing class has always been white and Christian, either
        Anglo-Saxon Protestant or French-speaking Catholic.

        Both countries have a very high (for the western world) percentage of people who claim prayer is an important part of their daily lives (US 82%, Canada 69%) though both countries have a separation of church and state. Note; there was a lot less here in my childhood when all the schoolboards were confessional in nature and religion was actually taught in the Protestant schools and the elementary school level and at both elementary and high-school level in the Catholic schools, something which the religious right in America would love, I am sure.

        Canada has a single criminal code throughout the country, but the civil laws including those pertaining to marriage are provincial responsibilities. Canadians mostly watch American TV shows, listen to American music and watch American-made movies. Even in Quebec, the only French majority province, American TV shows and movies are simply dubbed in French.

        Despite all these similarities between Canada and the US, NEITHER of these
        articles references anything that has happened (or not happened) in Canada
        since same-sex marriage was forced on all the provinces by a Supreme Court of
        Canada ruling. Nor do they take any good look at any of the US states that
        legalized same-sex marriage years ago. Why the hell not?

        I can think of two reasons offhand. The first is intellectual laziness; they
        couldn’t be bothered because they were more interested in publishing something quickly while public attention is tightly focused on the ruling. The second is that
        they have done the research but the findings support their arguments. As I rarely
        ascribe to outright malice what can easily by laziness or incompetence, I tend
        to lean to the former instead of the latter. For these articles to be credible, they would have to provide concrete examples of their predictions happening and surviving court challenges. Short of that, they are just huffing and
        puffing.

        I’ll try to address your other comments
        over the next few days

      • Charles Vincent

        “I don’t need to bother because neither article provides any
        solid
        evidence that the things they say will or might happen, will in
        facthappen. What they assert without evidence, I can dismiss without
        evidence.”

        This is circular argumentation the article by Matthew Reese gave specific reasons and short explanations.

        “solid evidence that the things they say will or might happen, will in
        facthappen.”

        This particular statement is an argument from silence which is “where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence”.

        Moreover Matt’s article isn’t crying wolf its taking issue in much the same line of logic I am.

        Furthermore did they attempt to remove references to husband and wife in favor of gender neutral term in Canada like they have here?

        https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr2976

        “Both countries are representative democracies, and confederal unions with a division of power between the federal and state/provincial governments.”

        The U.S.A. is a constitutional republic not a democracy. More specifically according to the leading political theorist Robert Daw it’s a polyarchy.

      • Gary Menten

        This particular statement is an argument from silence which is “where
        the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the
        existence of evidence”.

        While absence of evidence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence, when making a claim, the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the audience. See Russel’s Teapot.

        The U.S.A. is a constitutional republic not a democracy. More
        specifically according to the leading political theorist Robert Daw it’s
        a polyarchy.

        Neither Canada nor the US are participatory democracies; they are representative democracies, whereby we elect representatives to speak for us. Legally of course, Canada is a constitutional monarchy, but all that misses the point. Both countries have a great deal in common in the manner in which they function and in that both constitutions have similar protections of individual rights, and lastly, that American culture is profoundly influential on Canada. In short…despite our longer, colder winters…we’re more alike than a lot of people realize, though obviously, there are also some major differences.

        So the question to ask is, if same-sex marriage has been in force in Canada for a decade and not much has changed in the lives of 97% of the people, does this make a good case for the same thing happening in the US?

      • Gary Menten

        “Slavery would have died a natural death at the hands of industrial mechanization.”

        Assuming this is accurate, how many more decades would this have taken? The first practical mechanical cotton pickers didn’t appear until 1944.

        Also, few if any of the countries that abolished slavery in the latter half of the 19th C or in the 20th C were particularly industrialized. They all had primarily rural economies. Nazi Germany on the other hand was very heavily industrialized and yet made use of slave labour in WWII wherever they found it convenient or practical. Ergo, the abolition of slavery seems to have more to have more to do with prevailing social attitudes than mechanization.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Assuming this is accurate, how many more decades would this have taken?
        The first practical mechanical cotton pickers didn’t appear until 1944.”

        This is speculation on my part but I would say 1900 and a a cost in human life of far less than the ~600,000 Americans that died in the civil war. I also think you underestimate the ingenuity of people they could have easily applied the ideas used in the cotton gin to come up with an idea that could pick cotton faster than people doing manual labor.

        “Ergo, the abolition of slavery seems to have more to have more to do with prevailing social attitudes than mechanization.”

        You’re missing the point here I am not saying mechanization would be what ended slavery but merely a better vehicle to do so than war.

        Your last paragraph is a false equivalency those workers weren’t slaves and they were paid. Moreover they chose to come here and work for that pay willingly because it was better than any of the other options available in Mexico or they wouldn’t have come here.

      • Dianne Rigali Ansley

        Do you realize all of the repercussions that will come about? Pedophiles are already asking for the same respect because of their sexual preferences saying it’s not their fault they prefer young boys & girls. What if they decide your little boy or girl is their type. God forbid! I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. God bless us all.

      • Charles Vincent

        Pedophiles will lose that case because children cannot give consent legally just like they cannot vote.

      • Ed of Ct.

        Judges in Canada and Utah legalized Polygamy stupid . Speaking of secular reasons. Homosexuals are 2 percent of population yet are 67 percent of all cases of STD-AIDs according to CDC WHY??? Lesbian women have a Higher breast cancer rate though I doubt they have to use Estrogen birth control or have abortions major risk factors in Breast cancer. Org favorable to homosexuals report Homosexuals have a Higher rate or child abuse and domestic violence than normal people. Homosexuals life span is Twenty years Less than Heterosexuals WHy???

      • Gary Menten

        Polygamy is not legal in Canada stupid. It’s a crime under Section 293 of the Criminal Code. This doesn’t mean that people aren’t doing it illegally, just as they are doing it illegally in Utah and other places.

        As to homosexuals having a higher risk of AIDS infection, That’s true in North America and western countries; it’s not true in Africa where the disease originates.

        The reasons for AIDS infections are known, and none of them have anything to do with civil status. Do you honestly think that preventing gay people who are already living together and having sex is going to lower the rate of AIDS infection? If so, you stupider than I thought. African-Americans are 12% of the population and represent 44% of the AIDS infections. Latinos 16% of the population and 21% of the infections. Should they be banned from getting married because of this? Would it change anything?

        The rest of fascist diatribe is just too stupid to waste my time with.

      • Ed of Ct.

        CDC states 67 percent of new STD aids are contracted by Homosexuals-Bi Sexuals. Not heterosexual Blacks , Hispanics etc.

      • Gary Menten

        Idiot. Being black or Hispanic and being gay are not mutually exclusive and being a heterosexual is no guarantee of not getting AIDS, a sexually transmitted virus whose origins have been traced to chimpanzees, most of which are probably smarter than you are.

        But the point, dear idiot is that there is a higher percentage per capita of black people straight or gay people having AIDS than white people straight, so by your logic we should also ban blacks from getting married.

        Now kindly explain stupid, how disallowing gay people, who we may assume will remain gay and are already having what we hope is protected sex, will do anything to curb the spread of AIDS. Do you think that because they are not allowed to marry, they will stop having sex?

      • Ed of Ct.

        Courts in Canada have toppled laws against Euthanasia, Prostitution, abortion and Polygamy. They like the liberal outrageous KennedyUSA -SC judge etc(Never heard of the 9th and 10th ammend.-US Constitution) are on a legislative binge their respectice Constitutions notwithstanding. AIDS is spread by Homosexuals Bi Sexuals and Heterosexuals like Bill Clinton and Tiger Woods etc . Marrying your sister-Mom or Pet Animal is a sexual orientation, so is prostitution, Swinging mate swapping, sister wives Polygamy. We have gone from a couple of STD -1950’s Gonnareaha, Syphillis to DOZENS of STDs- Genital warts , P.I.D.’s herpes and Aids etc. . Look at the lewd Behavior at so called Gay Pride events to understand why these afflictions are widespread. NO ONE is disallowing anything. Like the 1890 SC ruling(Mormons-Polygamy in Utah territory) Morals of society is that marriage and sex is between a man and a woman. Seeing the destruction by homosexuals of themselves-20 year SHORTER lifestyle HIGHER rate of STD sexual abuse and domestic violence their deviant lifestyles are secular reasons enough to condemn Deviant lifestyles as the US SC did in 1890.

      • Ed of Ct.

        I am surprised Bill and Hillary Clinton and Tiger Woods are not infected by now a surprise to say the least.

      • Gary Menten

        I’d be surprised if you graduated from high school. Kindly answer my question about how banning same sex marriage will prevent the spread of STD’s. I need a good laugh.

      • Ed of Ct.

        I graduated from College by the way. Court should ban Homosexual marriage for the same reason it outlawed Polygamy in the 1890 Utah cases- Morals of Society. Deviants cannot marry since their lifestyle as so called Gay Pride events and FACTS of CDC(67 % of ALL STD including AIDS by Bi and homosexuals) are their deviant lives are the causes of the staggering INCREASE in the AIDS & STD rate. Homosexuals Cannot marry for the same reason Polygamy, Swingers, Polyandry Deviants cannot marry. Their deviant lifestyles are a anathema to civilization and the health of society . Us College of Pediatrics Condemned the June 26th ruling as devastating on the lives-Health of children.

      • Gary Menten

        Oral Roberts U? Liberty University? Go back and get your money back. They evidently didn’t teach you to think.

      • Ed of Ct.

        I can think and read the constitution 9th and 10th amendment unlike you or bozo judges in the SC. No wonder the scathing dissent from Chief judge Roberts and others on the SC..x

      • Gary Menten

        Try reading the 14th Jethro. The Equal Protection of the Laws supersedes the 9th and 10th amendments. The state writes the marriage laws, but if the fail to live up to Equal Clause they are invalid and can be thrown out, which is a process that happened in 17 or 18 states before it even reached the Supreme Court.

      • Ed of Ct.

        9th and 10th amendment were put in to PREVENT oligarch judges from doing what Kennedy did. 14th amend. was put into constitution just for the purpose of helping blacks after the civil war, Nothing else. Ct. my home state etc.l After civil war Denied black voting right to blacks. 6th circuit and 14 states should Defy the courts. As Andrew Jackson told the SC years ago, You made a ruling now try to enforce the ruling.

      • Gary Menten

        Wrong. 14th doesn’t pertain only to blacks. It pertains to everybody. What portion of “EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS” don’t you understand.

      • Ed of Ct.

        Your reply Medical vs. media was not printed out on my computer properly. Speaking of Mainstream medical PHE of UK similar to CDC (66% new STD ) USA stated that homosexual males accounted for vast majority of new STDs there in UK as well. 14th amendment was meant for Laws for everyone NOT to promote Judicial excess(Pointed out by Chief Justice Roberts) by SC-Kennedy etc. Voters in California TWICE- 7 million voters in Two public votes , Hawaii 60% or voters and 39 other states and Congress Defence of Marriage act) like SC in 1890 case supported Morals of Society that marriage was between a man and a woman period.

      • Gary Menten

        “Your reply Medical vs. media was not printed out on my computer properly.”

        A more likely explanation is that you can’t read.

        The CDC also makes it clear that the vast majority of lung cancers are related to smoking. Why isn’t the sale of tobacco illegal? BTW…lung cancer kills more Americans every year then AIDS does.

        You still haven’t answered my question of how preventing gays from marrying will lead to a decrease in AIDS infections or other STD’s. Don’t bother coming back until you have an answer you can back up with valid evidence.

      • Ed of Ct.

        Homosexuals should not marry for the same reason Polygamists cannot . Besides allowing either would legitimize at self destructive lifestyle. Most people heed warnings about lung cancer-Tobacco. Few Homosexuals heed Medical warnings in Australia, UK and USA that their lifestyles by very nature is dangerous.66 percent of STD -aids Homosexuals USA -CDC though they are 2% of the population. Do you seriously think Bogus so called marriage would reduce that.

      • Gary Menten

        Hey Sparky,

        We are not talking about Australia, we are talking about the USA. One more time, since you Oral Roberts U or the University of Phoenix don’t seem to have taught you to make coherent arguments.

        Lung cancer kills and smoking related diseases kill more people in America than AIDS does. Why do we allow the sale of cigarettes?

        How would disallowing same sex marriage have any impact on the number of AIDS cases in America.

        Don’t come back until you have valid answers to these questions. VALID ANSWERS. Got that? Don’t come back until you do.

      • Ed of Ct.

        Homosexuals are 2 percent of population and 66 percent of CDC stats for new AIDS-STD /Ask yourself why???. Then Why is Homosexuals lives 20 years Shorter than normal folks. Court legislated . All states that ratified 14t Ammend. the same year outlawed Homosexual sodomy. It has NOTHING to do 14th Ammened. College of Pediatrics has it correct US SC is dangerous to our children’s health and future. Homosexuals have a Higher rate of self inflicted child and domestic & sexual abuse than normal folks.

      • Gary Menten

        First off, homosexuals don’t have shorter life spans on average than straight people. That’s just more bullshit spread by the American College of Pediatricians, and has been thoroughly debunked by REAL researchers.

        http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths

        Your statement that homosexual households have a higher incidence of child abuse is also debunked as more ACP bullshit.

        The ACP furthermore is a political group that has been discredited by all serious medical associations. It has no more than 200 members. The American Association of Pediatricians has over 60,000. In short, your sources are bullshit, just like your argument.

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

        Do Homosexuals stand a better chance of getting AIDS than heterosexuals? Yes. So what? Smokers have a better chance of getting lung chance of getting lung cancer than non smokers, and they’re allowed to marry. Alcoholics DO have a higher incidence of child abuse and they are allowed to marry. So again, fuck off and write something factual and relevant.

        As to anti-sodomy laws and the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court threw out the last anti-sodomy laws still standing in the US in 2003. So again…you have no point. You further have still to answer how the question I keep asking, because of course you have no answer. The question in case you need reminding is “how will preventing gays from getting married do anything to stop the spread of AIDS?”

        It’s clear of course by now, that you are not only deeply prejudiced, but either too lazy or too stupid to do proper research and inform yourself properly about what you write about. I will waste no more of my time with you, little man. Not one bit. Write back if it makes you feel better to get the last word, but know that it won’t be read. It goes straight to the trash where it belongs.

      • Ed of Ct.

        Medical groups in Australia &PHE in UK mention the need to Vaccinate Homosexuals for Herpes and serious Anal cancers_STD formerly Associated with prostitutes and women. WHY?? Medical And Psych org were the target of well documented formal political Pressure for decades by pro sodomy groups to get them to change their documented medical views on deviant sexual activity from the 1970’s- present. .> Studies by Pro homosexual groups have established the Higher rate of STD, domestic and sexual violence among homosexuals. WHY are 2% of Population Homosexuals afflicted with 66 Percent of new STD-AIDS according to the CDC..WHY???

      • Gary Menten

        I’m sure that’s the answer to a question that’s out there somewhere Jethro, just not the one I asked.

        As for the American College of Pediatrics, (the proper name of the group you are trying to quote) they are nothing more than a political organization peddling homophobic junk-science and misrepresenting the research of serious scientists and doctors. They are a small and and marginal group that is out of step with the research-based position of the AAP (American Academy of Pediatricians) and other medical and child welfare authorities. In short, nobody in mainstream medicine gives a shit what they say.

      • Ed of Ct.

        Who cares what the mainstream media thinks. Legal , cases should be decided on the CONSITUTION. legal PREDECESSORS polygamy RULING-Morals of society 1890 AND 9TH AND 10 AMMENDMENT SHOULD BE USED BY THE COURTS. Deviant lifestyles should NOT be allowed to marry, it mocks the family and society

      • Gary Menten

        Not mainstream media STUPID. Mainstream MEDICAL. Really…get your money back from whatever correspondence school you got your degree from.

      • Gilvo

        It doesn’t mock a thing, except apparently your idea of it.

      • Gilvo

        You’re surprised because you’ve bought into fear. Despite the many reports you’ve internalized, these diseases are not common. To use them as further argument to the position you’re arguing shows that you’re grasping at straws.

      • Gary Menten

        You need to educate yourself better. Far better.

        Passive euthanasia in Canada is legal. Active euthanasia is murder. Abortion has been legal for a long time, but not as long as in the US. Prostitution is legal; solicitation is not. Polygamy is a crime punishable by 5 years imprisonment.

        What is your point? Canadians are pretty okay with all of this. They sky hasn’t fallen and civilization hasn’t crumbled.

        STD’s are transmitted by people having unprotected sex with an infected person, period. Kindly explain to my why this means that gay people should be forbidden from marrying and how precisely this will stop the spread of STD’s.

      • Ed of Ct.

        Their deviant lifestyle just look at the so called Gay Pride behavior is what causes this. I saw a recent interview with an ex Homosexual man. Obviously he joined Courage or other ex Homosexual group. He stated he had sex with 100 men-typical sad to say. He stated that almost all of those 100 men are Dead. AIDS was spread in Africa by Bi sexual and promiscuity active males with Polygamy and prostitution. It was spread though out the world by sex tourists mainly homosexuals going to Africa and Haiti and then spreading the disease all over the world.k

      • Gary Menten

        Look, I know that you’re just a homophobic idiot with a religious agenda but the simple fact is that anyone who practices unprotected sex with and infected person is at risk of getting AIDS. There is valid scientific that the AIDS epidemic in Africa is linked to particularly to homosexuals and a lot of evidence linking it to sexual promiscuity which is common in many African cultures.

        Put another way, you’re full of shit.

      • OMGface

        ‘lIFESTYLE’!!!!! And anyone wonders why America is going down the tubes?

      • OMGface

        BRAVO, GARY!!!

  • Lilowl

    If there was ever a time to shut down the Supreme Court, it was when they had the audacity to appoint W president even though Gore had more votes. They usurped Democracy and even Justice Connell said that they shouldn’t have done that.

    • OMGface

      White along with a coupla other decisions, I agree Bush v. Gore was head exploding. We need the High Court, as per the incandescent vision of our Founders. Make sure you work hard to elect another president who will make the right appointments to that bench. Jus that we have actual bible thumpers there, including a man with uber internalized racism and no brain at all…..continues to stagger.

  • PontusInSweden

    whiny little bitchboy! go away and let the rest of the world move into the modern times.

  • Jim Bean

    The Constitution is a legal script. The ink dried hundreds of years ago. The job of SCOTUS is to apply its intent to current day situations. The fact that the court consistently cannot reach unanimous decisions is proof that it has abandoned its intended purpose and become just another political forum.

    Not only is it no longer the keeper of the key, it has become an obstacle to democracy.

    • OMGface

      OUTSTANDING POST!

    • Gilvo

      “The fact that the court consistently cannot reach unanimous decisions is proof that it has abandoned its intended purpose” That’s not proof nor even evidence. Explain your position.

      • Jim Bean

        OK. A group of qualified justices at ANY level should all be to look at the exact the same evidence and apply the exact same law to it and arrive at the exact same conclusion nearly 100% of the time because neither the law, nor the evidence, are subjective in nature.

        What these boys and girls are doing is considering the consequences of the decision and adjusting their application of the law according. That’s not adjudicating (their job). That’s legislating (Congresses job).

      • Gilvo

        I disagree. This isn’t math, it’s legislation made up of words and those words are subject to interpretation. The fathers knew this and wisely created a Court to interpret those laws and they also chose to use more than one justice and an odd number at that, evidence that they understood that laws could be interpreted differently as well. Working as intended. Conservative lawmakers attacking the Court are arguing for power we’ve never seen the Legislature have in our lifetimes.

      • Jim Bean

        There is no sane interpretation under the sun that indicates the framers of the constitution intended it to endorse gay marriage and that its just a coincidence that gays waited 226 years to take advantage of it.

        Furthermore, there IS legislation decreeing ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ Its called the Tenth Amendment and this ruling is directly contrary to it.

      • Gilvo

        It’s a moot point since states cannot create laws that undermine the equality clause, and so that point is and should be called by the Supreme Court.

      • Jim Bean

        California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Washington, – none of them will recognize my PA concealed carry permit.

        So, yes they can.

      • Gary Menten

        The framers of the Constitution perhaps not. But the ruling is rooted in the 14th Amendment, which came much later.

      • Jim Bean

        Not 226 years later.

      • Gary Menten

        Doesn’t matter.

      • Jim Bean

        So get rid of the supreme court then like Jindal suggests – because if the Law (Constitution) that they serve to defend is no longer valid, we don’t need them. Lets just put all the big questions to national referendums.

      • Gary Menten

        Who says it isn’t valid? Just because the ruling doesn’t agree with your personal philosophy. Nope.

      • Gary Menten

        Wrong. If what you were saying were accurate, we’d need neither lawyers nor juries. All we’d need is to haul someone before a judge and let the judge decide what to do. Voila. End of discussion.

        Laws are very complex and the Constitution sometimes very nuanced. There were a lot of things the authors of the Constitution outlawed or allowed, without being very specific as to what was meant. For instance, “cruel and unusual punishment,” or “natural born American.” Even the term “well-regulated militia,” it’s meaning seemingly obvious to many, has been debated very hotly.

      • Jim Bean

        So you think they endorsed abortion and gay marriage but kept it a secret for someone to uncover later? You are fabricating.

      • Gary Menten

        I said nothing of the sort.

  • ORAXX

    Like many people who make entirely too much noise about their conservatism, Jindal loves the Constitution……provided of course he gets to interpret it for himself and have it mean what he wants it to.

    • OMGface

      What he really loves, and simpleton that he is, is held hostage by, is his version of the bible.

      • ORAXX

        That’s just the thing, he was a Rhodes Scholar. Everything about the man is pure pander.

      • OMGface

        The minutae on a given CV is never a reflection of emotional health.

  • Projectile Vomit

    America is in decline.I do believe Obama was against gay marriage at one time.What happened to that ideology?Did he evolve?I think Hillary opposed gay marriage also.Perhaps she has evolved as well.

    • Gilvo

      You can only flip over the issue so many times before even the most obstinate see it for what it is. A policy for hatred no more no less. The contemporary idea of ‘religious freedom’ as nothing more than ‘religious oppression’. It’s old, it’s uncomfortable, and it’s tired. And by God we have more important things to worry about.

  • OMGface

    It’s Beyond belief, BUT, it seem, true of all the bible thumping replicants trying to run: it seems NOT ONE OF THEM has read or is capable of comprehending Jefferson (especially) on separation of church and state being NUCLEAR.