Tag Archives: Same-sex marriage

Judicial Tyranny: Dissenting opinions on Supreme Court's ruling on homosexual marriage

Sat, 27 Jun 2015 20:45:58 +0000   eowyn2

Supreme Court 2015

Yesterday, by a razor-thin margin of one, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-4 in favor of the absurd notion of same-sex marriage. Henceforth, homosexual couples must be allowed to marry in every state of the disunion.

The five (names in pink above) are Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor — 3 Jews (Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan) and 2 liberal Catholics (Kennedy, Sotomayor). The four dissenters (names in blue) are John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas — all Catholics.

But the 5-4 vote actually should be 3-4 because two justices who voted in favor of same-sex marriage, Ginsberg and Kagan, should have recused themselves (or removed by Chief Justice John Roberts) due to conflict of interest, both having performed homosexual marriages. Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, Section 455 of the U.S. Code reads (source):

“Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority’s opinion (source):

“The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation…. No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were,” Kennedy wrote. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. … They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

“”It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it”?

Homosexual British actors Derek Jacobi and Ian McKellen, who star as swishy bitchy gay lovers in the British sitcom Vicious and are the grand marshals of this Sunday’s Gay Pride March in Manhattan, immediately put a mockery to that.

McKellen (l) and Jacobi (r)

McKellen (l) and Jacobi (r)

In a Vine posted to BuzzFeed’s accounts, the two celebrated the court ruling with a mock marriage proposal from Jacobi to McKellen, although Jacobi already has a “husband,” Richard Clifford, with whom Jacobi registered their civil partnership in March 2006, four months after civil partnerships were introduced in the United Kingdom.

The four dissenting justices’ minority opinions deserve to be known. Here are excerpts (source).

From the dissenting opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas:

[T[his Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be….

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are? …

Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer….

The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage, and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife.” … There is no dispute that every State at the founding—and every State throughout our history until a dozen years ago—defined marriage in the traditional, biologically rooted way. The four States in these cases are typical. Their laws, before and after statehood, have treated marriage as the union of a man and a woman….

This Court’s precedents have repeatedly described marriage in ways that are consistent only with its traditional meaning…. Allowing unelected federal judges to select which unenumerated rights rank as “fundamental”—and to strike down state laws on the basis of that determination—raises obvious concerns about the judicial role….

The majority’s driving themes are that marriage is desirable and petitioners desire it. The opinion describes the “transcendent importance” of marriage and repeatedly insists that petitioners do not seek to “demean,” “devalue,” “denigrate,” or “disrespect” the institution. Ante, at 3, 4, 6, 28. Nobody disputes those points…. As a matter of constitutional law, however, the sincerity of petitioners’ wishes is not relevant.

When the majority turns to the law, it relies primarily on precedents discussing the fundamental “right to marry.” … None of the laws at issue in those cases purported to change the core definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman…. These precedents say nothing at all about a right to make a State change its definition of marriage, which is the right petitioners actually seek here…. Neither petitioners nor the majority cites a single case or other legal source providing any basis for such a constitutional right. None exists, and that is enough to foreclose their claim….

Same-sex couples remain free to live together, to engage in intimate conduct, and to raise their families as they see fit. No one is “condemned to live in loneliness” by the laws challenged in these cases—no one. Ante, at 28. At the same time, the laws in no way interfere with the “right to be let alone.” …

In sum, the privacy cases provide no support for the majority’s position, because petitioners do not seek privacy. Quite the opposite, they seek public recognition of their relationships, along with corresponding government benefits. Our cases have consistently refused to allow litigants to convert the shield provided by constitutional liberties into a sword to demand positive entitlements from the State…. Thus, although the right to privacy recognized by our precedents certainly plays a role in protecting the intimate conduct of same-sex couples, it provides no affirmative right to redefine marriage and no basis for striking down the laws at issue here….

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?…

The majority’s understanding of due process lays out a tantalizing vision of the future for Members of this Court: If an unvarying social institution enduring over all of recorded history cannot inhibit judicial policymaking, what can? But this approach is dangerous for the rule of law. The purpose of insisting that implied fundamental rights have roots in the history and tradition of our people is to ensure that when unelected judges strike down democratically enacted laws, they do so based on something more than their own beliefs. The Court today not only overlooks our country’s entire history and tradition but actively repudiates it, preferring to live only in the heady days of the here and now….

The legitimacy of this Court ultimately rests “upon the respect accorded to its judgments.” … That respect flows from the perception—and reality—that we exercise humility and restraint in deciding cases according to the Constitution and law. The role of the Court envisioned by the majority today, however, is anything but humble or restrained. Over and over, the majority exalts the role of the judiciary in delivering social change….

Nowhere is the majority’s extravagant conception of judicial supremacy more evident than in its description— and dismissal—of the public debate regarding same-sex marriage…. What would be the point of allowing the democratic process to go on?

Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role. They after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to govern themselves. They would never have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges….

The Court’s accumulation of power does not occur in a vacuum. It comes at the expense of the people. And they know it…. When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the results. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate. In addition, they can gear up to raise the issue later, hoping to persuade enough on the winning side to think again. “That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.” …

But today the Court puts a stop to all that. By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision. There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide…. Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause….

Today’s decision…creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1….

Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage…. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage…. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.

Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate…. By the majority’s account, Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history—in particular, the tens of millions of people who voted to reaffirm their States’ enduring definition of marriage—have acted to “lock . . . out,” “disparage,” “disrespect and subordinate,” and inflict “[d]ignitary wounds” upon their gay and lesbian neighbors…. These apparent assaults on the character of fairminded people will have an effect, in society and in court.… Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous. It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s “better informed understanding” as bigoted….

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it. I respectfully dissent.

From the dissenting opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas:

I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy….

Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to. Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work….

When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so….

But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect….

Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four “principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman. 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….

[T]his Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans19), or even a Protestant of any denomination…. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since….  They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic…. Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”23 (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.) Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”24 (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) … I could go on. The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.

From the dissenting opinion by Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia:

The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.

The majority’s decision today will require States to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages entered in other States largely based on a constitutional provision guaranteeing “due process” before a person is deprived of his “life, liberty, or property.” I have elsewhere explained the dangerous fiction of treating the Due Process Clause as a font of substantive rights. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 811–812 (2010) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). It distorts the constitutional text, which guarantees only whatever “process” is “due” before a person is deprived of life, liberty, and property. U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, §1. Worse, it invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—“‘roa[m] at large in the constitutional field’ guided only by their personal views” as to the “‘fundamental rights’” protected by that document….

By straying from the text of the Constitution, substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority. Petitioners…ask nine judges on this Court to enshrine their definition of marriage in the Federal Constitution and thus put it beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire Nation. That a “bare majority” of this Court…is able to grant this wish, wiping out with a stroke of the keyboard the results of the political process in over 30 States, based on a provision that guarantees only “due process” is but further evidence of the danger of substantive due process….

The majority claims these state laws deprive petitioners of “liberty,” but the concept of “liberty” it conjures up bears no resemblance to any plausible meaning of that word as it is used in the Due Process Clauses….

Even assuming that the “liberty” in those Clauses encompasses something more than freedom from physical restraint, it would not include the types of rights claimed by the majority. In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement….

Whether we define “liberty” as locomotion or freedom from governmental action more broadly, petitioners have in no way been deprived of it. Petitioners cannot claim, under the most plausible definition of “liberty,” that they have been imprisoned or physically restrained by the States for participating in same-sex relationships. To the contrary, they have been able to cohabitate and raise their children in peace. They have been able to hold civil marriage ceremonies in States that recognize same-sex marriages and private religious ceremonies in all States. They have been able to travel freely around the country, making their homes where they please. Far from being incarcerated or physically restrained, petitioners have been left alone to order their lives as they see fit….

Instead, the States have refused to grant them governmental entitlements. Petitioners claim that as a matter of “liberty,” they are entitled to access privileges and benefits that exist solely because of the government. They want, for example, to receive the State’s imprimatur on their marriages—on state issued marriage licenses, death certificates, or other official forms. And they want to receive various monetary benefits, including reduced inheritance taxes upon the death of a spouse, compensation if a spouse dies as a result of a work-related injury, or loss of consortium damages in tort suits. But receiving governmental recognition and benefits has nothing to do with any understanding of “liberty” that the Framers would have recognized….

In a concession to petitioners’ misconception of liberty, the majority characterizes petitioners’ suit as a quest to “find . . . liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.” … But “liberty” is not lost, nor can it be found in the way petitioners seek. As a philosophical matter, liberty is only freedom from governmental action, not an entitlement to governmental benefits. And as a constitutional matter, it is likely even narrower than that, encompassing only freedom from physical restraint and imprisonment….

The majority’s inversion of the original meaning of liberty will likely cause collateral damage to other aspects of our constitutional order that protect liberty.

The majority apparently disregards the political process as a protection for liberty…. In our country, that process is primarily representative government at the state level, with the Federal Constitution serving as a backstop for that process. As a general matter, when the States act through their representative governments or by popular vote, the liberty of their residents is fully vindicated…. What matters is that the process established by those who created the society has been honored…. The definition of marriage has been the subject of heated debate in the States. Legislatures have repeatedly taken up the matter on behalf of the People, and 35 States have put the question to the People themselves. In 32 of those 35 States, the People have opted to retain the traditional definition of marriage…. That petitioners disagree with the result of that process does not make it any less legitimate. Their civil liberty has been vindicated.

Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect…. In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Id., at 7. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples. The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability….

Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.

Perhaps recognizing that these cases do not actually involve liberty as it has been understood, the majority goes to great lengths to assert that its decision will advance the “dignity” of same-sex couples…. The flaw in that reasoning, of course, is that the Constitution contains no “dignity” Clause, and even if it did, the government would be incapable of bestowing dignity. Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built. The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away….

Our Constitution—like the Declaration of Independence before it—was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty, not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded from—not provided by—the State. Today’s decision casts that truth aside. In its haste to reach a desired result, the majority misapplies a clause focused on “due process” to afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible understanding of the “liberty” protected by that clause, and distorts the principles on which this Nation was founded. Its decision will have inestimable consequences for our Constitution and our society. I respectfully dissent.

Statue of Liberty in tears

H/t FOTM’s MomOfIV

In sorrow,

Éowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Obama’s IRS leaked Mozilla CEO’s pro-traditional marriage Prop 8 donation

gaymafialogoLast month, Brendan Eich, a co-founder of Mozilla — the company that invented the Firefox web browser — was promoted from the company’s chief technology officer to Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

Then all hell broke loose.

As DCG recounted in her post of April 4, the online dating site OkCupid.com asked its customers to boycott Firefox because SIX YEARS AGO in 2008, Eich had donated $1000 to California’s Proposition 8 that affirmed traditional marriage. (The proposition was approved by a majority of California voters but struck down by an admittedly homosexual judge.)

OkCupid.com’s boycott in turn led to a “backlash” among Mozilla’s intolerant employees against their new CEO, never mind that:

  • Eich had made the donation as a private citizen;
  • Eich had never let his private political views intrude into his work at Mozilla; and
  • The First Amendment of the United States Constitution promises and guarantees freedom of belief to Eich and all Americans.

Faced with the avalanche of disapproval and hostility from Mozilla employees, Eich resigned.

Has it occurred to you how OkCupid.com discovered Eich’s PRIVATE donation to Prop 8?

Answer: Obama’s IRS leaked the information.

Dr. John C. Eastman reports for FoxNews, Oct. 3, 2013, that in the many state ballot battles across America to preserve marriage as an institution between man and woman, the pro-traditional marriage National Organization for Marriage (NOM) was winning. Since 2004, 32 states had voted by large margins to reaffirm the traditional definition of marriage, and no state had voted to approve “same-sex marriage.”

NOM’s principal adversary, the pro-homosexual marriage Human Rights Campaign (HRC) was waging an uphill battle. So HRC started a website, “NOM Exposed,” designed to publicly identify NOM and its supporters and donors so they and their businesses could be harassed.

To do so, HRC needed access to NOM’s confidential list of donors, lists that NOM is required to file with the IRS but are not public information.

Joe Solmonese with the POSThen, HRC president Joe Solmonese was named a national co-chair for the Obama reelection campaign and, magically, NOM’s tax return and its confidential list of donors and their addresses showed-up on the HRC website.

Eastman writes: “we know that the tax return on HRC’s website originated from within the IRS because it had been redacted to hide internal codes that are placed on documents only after they are received by the IRS.”

Donations to NOM and to the ballot campaigns then underway became increasingly hard to come by, to the point that the “same-sex marriage” forces were able to outspend NOM and its allies by more than $20 million dollars (a nearly 4 to 1 advantage) in the 4 states where marriage was on the ballot in November 2012, resulting in the first electoral losses for traditional marriage ever

Since unauthorized disclosure of a tax return is a serious felony, punishable by up to five years in prison, NOM demanded an investigation by the Department of Justice and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. NOM was given a case number, and its principal officers were interviewed.

Eighteen months later, no criminal charges have been filed. The person(s) responsible for leaking NOM’s donors to HRC is still not held to account. Even worse, the IRS now takes the position that the release of the identity of the culprit is itself barred by the same federal statute that the culprit violated.

On October 3, 2013, National Organization for Marriage filed suit against the IRS, as permitted by federal law, to obtain compensation for the injuries it suffered as a result of these felonies. The lawsuit also enables NOM to pursue discovery that will help identify the culprit and ascertain the extent to which IRS officials (and perhaps others elsewhere in the Obama administration) had colluded with what even the leftwing unfunny comedian Bill Maher now calls “the gay mafia.”

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Justice Scalia’s Dissent on Same-Sex Marriage

OK, I don’t know Legal from Beagle

but give me a minute to put things in perspective on DOMA. TD did a post on Lucifer’s scandals at link below. There are about 24 I believe.

Now don’t throw things at your ‘puter as you will only have to fix. Bare with me now, but today, tomorrow, DOMA will have very little effect. It’s not that big of deal. OUCH!! I forgot to mention pls don’t curse me.  😆 What I mean is we have all these other scandals. For now 1% of population will be booking wedding halls and picking out flowers.

On the other hand the SCOTUS ruling has just morally destroyed the future of this country. My poor son. Oh it’s going to do lots of damage, but it will take a while. I’m just trying to rally you guys and gals.

Pls read Scalia’s Scathing Dissent below.

https://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/did-you-hear-about-the-obama-administration-scandal/


Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy (AP Photos)

Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy (AP Photos)

By Tim Grieve

Updated: June 26, 2013 | 1:33 p.m.
June 26, 2013 | 10:15 a.m.

https://www.nationaljournal.com

Dissenting from this morning’s opinion on the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Antonin Scalia – as expected – holds nothing back.

In a ripping dissent, Scalia says that Justice Anthony Kennedy and his colleagues in the majority have resorted to calling opponents of gay marriage “enemies of the human race.”

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “dis- parage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

calia says that the court’s holding – while limited to the Defense of Marriage Act – is a sure sign that the majority is willing to declare gay marriage a constitutional right.

It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.

And, he says, the holding will short circuit the debate over gay marriage that should have been carried out in the states.

In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.

But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.

~Steve~

https://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/scalia-high-handed-kennedy-has-declared-us-enemies-of-the-human-race-20130626

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Harvard University will have an Incest-fest

We warned you that legalizing same-sex marriage will have a slippery-slope effect. Practitioners and proponents will seek to normalize, if not legalize, other social taboos such as polygamy, incest, bestiality, and pedophilia.

And it’s all happening:

Here’s more evidence: The elite Harvard University, Obama’s alma mater, will have a debaucherous hookup dance called “Incest-Fest” this winter.

The word “hookup” (also called ”booty calls” or “friends with benefits”) refers to an increasingly common practice among America’s youth, especially on college campuses, of sexual intercourse without emotional commitment or even a preliminary pretense of a date. Stripped of its urban slang patina, hookups really are just casual sex — what used to be called “one night stands” — which is just another word for promiscuity.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the highest prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) is among the young: “Estimates suggest that even though young people aged 15–24 years represent only 25% of the sexually experienced population, they acquire nearly half of all new STDs.”

Harvard U’s Kirkland House

Oliver Darcy reports for CampusReform.org, Oct. 10, 2012:

At least one student at Harvard University is expressing outrage over the name of “Incest-Fest,” a hook-up dance to be held at the university’s famous Kirkland House dormitory this winter.

The event, described in the Kirkland House Wikipedia entry, is an annual  “debaucherous dance open only to [male and female] members of the house.”

Harvard’s official student newspaper, The Crimson, also mentions the event in it campus life guide. “You’ll spend all of Secret Santa week watching underclad men gyrating in the dining hall and figuring out who you’ll hook up with at Incest Fest,” it reads. “[H]ouse life is incredibly close-knit, bordering on downright incestuous. But there’s more to Kirkland than raunchy dining hall skits and regrettable hook-ups,” the paper continues.

Junior Samantha Berstler, who is a resident in the Kirkland House however, argued in an op-ed in the The Crimson, that the party’s name is “offensive and insensitive”  because incest is no joking matter. “The name ‘Incest-Fest’ is not sexy or cute or clever,” wrote Berstle.

Other students commenting responded to Bestle’s criticism, however, suggesting she should lighten up. “Don’t go and let other people have a sick time getting laid,” wrote an apparent student, Marcus Bunny.

A spokesperson for Harvard University did not provide comment to Campus Reform, despite multiple inquiries via phone and e-mail.

Famous former residents of the Kirkland dorm include Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Marriage of Party A to Party B?

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0a9J-GAzXF0&list=UU1h3bqESVdqkwm123Ce4ZmA]
~LTG

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Newsweek calls Obama "first gay president"

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness.” -Isaiah 5:20

In Liberal Newspeak, words have no fixed meaning. They mean what you want them to mean, and to hell with what the dictionary says.
During the Clinton administration, the Liberal Establishment Media were so infatuated with Billy, they called him America’s “first black president” even though Billy was and remains pasty white.
Now, the cover of the latest issue of Newsweek to hit the newstand orgasmically proclaims that Obama, his head topped with a rainbow halo, is America’s “first gay president”.

The accompanying cover story was written by openly homosexual sodomite political pundit Andrew Sullivan. The full cover story is not yet online, but in a blog post published earlier this week, Sullivan wrote that Obama’s support of gay marriage brought him to tears.

Obama, Sullivan writes, “had to discover his black identity and then reconcile it with his white family, just as gays discover their homosexual identity and then have to reconcile it with their heterosexual family.”

Although Newsweek’s cover calling Obama “first gay President” is a reference to his recent declaration of support for “same-sex” marriage, the appellation may also be the liberal media’s tacit “wink-wink” acknowledgment that all the rumors about Obama being gay (or bisexual) are true. See, for example,

The New Yorker, too, is orgasmic over Obama’s support of homosexual marriage. Its May 21 issue has this cover:

Bob Staake, the artist who drew the New Yorker cover, said:

“It’s a celebratory moment for our country, and that’s what I tried to capture. […] I wanted to celebrate the bravery of the President’s statement—a statement long overdue—but all the more appreciated in this political year. We are on the right side of history.”

The same Andrew Sullivan who commends Obama for his support of gay marriage candidly admits, in “Virtually Normal” (pp. 202-203), that homosexuals’ push for same-sex marriage does not mean they either want or are prepared to be monogamous:
there is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman; and again, the lack of children gives gay couples greater freedom. Their failures entail fewer consequences for others. But something of the gay’s relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.”

Given that homosexuals want marriage but not the monogamy of those boring heterosexuals, the inquiring mind asks why then do they want “same sex” marriage?

Here’s why:
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” –Michelangelo Signorile, “Bridal Wave,” OUT magazine, December/January 1994, p. 161.
[Legalizing “same-sex marriage”] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.” –Michelangelo Signorile, “I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do,” OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 30.
And they deride Conservatives as paranoiac when we’ve said there’s a homosexual agenda!
H/t FOTM reader Wade.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0