The rules are precisely what the court says they are on any given day due to any given whim

Cato’s Michael Cannon accused the Supreme Court of playing Calvinball in its decision upholding ObamaCare.

In the old Calvin and Hobbes cartoon strip the characters played Calvinball, a game in which the rules were constantly changing to suit a player’s advantage.

You might conclude the court was playing Calvinball in three cases in two days.

In King v. Burwell on Thursday, the court said the words “established by the state” also mean established by a federal agency, when it comes of doling out subsidies.

Also on Thursday in Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., the court ruled that discrimination can be proven by mere disparate outcomes rather than actual evidence.

In Obergefell v. Hodges, today the court ruled, in its customary 5-4 split, that there is a right to gay marriage in every state, no matter how the citizens of any given state may have voted.

In the ruling today, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in dissent a sentiment probably held by many libertarians:

Those civil consequences — and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences — can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. 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.

Justice John Roberts, back from his sojourn in Humpty Dumpty land in the ObamaCare ruling, opined:

Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex. But this 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. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78 …

Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent took apart the Due Process argument of the majority:

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.

How many other rights will now be found in the penumbra of the Constitution now that we have a right to health insurance subsidies no matter what the law actually says, a right to claim discrimination based on statistics (lies, damned lies and statistics) and a right to the benefits of marriage no matter what the law or constitution of a state may say.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote today’s gay marriage ruling, also wrote the opinion striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, signed by Bill Clinton.

In the that earlier ruling, Kennedy wrote:

The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism. Here the State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import. When the State used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community. DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage.

That was then, this is now in the game of Calvinball.

Polygamy must be a right, too. It is in the Bible. If Kennedy can cite Cicero and Confucius, why not the Bible?

In fact, Roberts asked that very question: “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,’ … serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?”






148 comments on “The rules are precisely what the court says they are on any given day due to any given whim

  1. nyp says:

    Do you believe same-sex couples have a right to marry?

  2. The government should play no role in defining marriage, nor should it discriminate in taxation or other means based on marital status.

  3. Steve says:

    Do you believe polygamous people have the right to marry?

  4. nyp says:

    1. No, I don’t. Do you?
    2. I’m afraid I’m too thick to grasp the subtle nature of Mr. Mitchell’s position. Is he saying that the government should not have anything to do with marriage? If so, does that mean that no one can have a civil ceremony before a judge? Or, instead, is he taking the position that the government should not decide who can and cannot get married? If that is the case, it sounds like Mr. Mitchell is the one who believes in the right to bigamy.

  5. Steve says:

    “civil ceremony”
    is very different from
    Church Marriage.

    This decision seems to force churches to provide marriages to same sex people, get ready for the lawsuits.

    So it is fine for one select group to have special interventions but not for another select group to have the same “right”….lib doublethink at work.

  6. So, the little nypper is bigoted towards folks who practice polygamy…and just want the same marriage equality that other groups desire.

  7. nyp says:

    Today’s decision does not force any religious group to perform religious marriage ceremonies. It is limited, as it must be, to the issue of government discrimination against gay Americans.

  8. Steve says:

    Lets see how that theory holds, nyp. Any bets?

  9. Winston Smith says:

    The concept of marriage licenses in America was an abrogation of a natural right under God. Today’s announcement is an abomination before God. (Oh, I’m sorry, did I just commit a Hate Crime?)

    We’ll see where this all takes us, and I doubt it’ll be pretty.

  10. Marriage is a contract.

  11. nyp says:

    I guess that leaves those of us who are either atheist or who have a difference conception of “God” scratching our heads.

  12. nyp says:

    Sounds like Mr. Mitchell believes that polygamy should be legal.

    In any event, marriage is, of course, much, much more than “a contract.”

  13. Explain how it is more than a contract.

  14. Winston Smith says:

    “Sounds like Mr. Mitchell believes that polygamy should be legal.”


    For most Christians, “gay marriage” is far worse than polygamy. Some major Biblical patriarchs were polygamists, none were sodomites…

  15. nyp says:

    Because society believes that marriage is a socially desirable insitution it conveys a host of benefits on married individuals — inheritance rights, tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, guardianship rights, divorce rights, etc., etc.

  16. Rights are not granted by government. And everything except the taxes (isn’t there a marriage tax penalty?) could be covered by power of attorney.

  17. Yesterday’s dissent by Justice Scalia…seems like a Christmas card when compared with today’s scathing critique and dressing down of the five justices in the affirmative! Chief Justice Roberts sounds like he’s a bit schizophrenic…he sounds like two completely different people in these two rulings. Why is it when the leftist judges discover a new “fundamental right” it is nowhere enumerated in the Constitution (Obergefell vs Hodges, Roe vs Wade, Doe vs. Bolton) period?

  18. nyp says:

    1. Rights such as the right to inherit and to receive a tax benefit as a married person are granted by the people, acting through their elected representatives in the government.
    2. You are now conceding that marriage today is more than a contract. You simply wish to eliminate all the laws that grant priviliged status to married people and have everything dealt with through contract. That may or may not be an appealing vision, but it is vision and not reality.

    3. More importantly, I am intrigued by your reluctance to say whether you believe gay people should be permitted to marry. If I asked you what you thought of anti-miscegination laws, or laws that prohibited Jews from marrying Christians, I doubt that you would dodge and weave the way you are doing now. Why not just come out with it?

  19. Two (or more) people may enter into a contract.

  20. nyp says:

    OK. Put Mr. Mitchell in the pro-polygamy camp.

  21. Steve says:


    Nope…anti behemoth government category.

    Government does not belong in the business of deciding who should marry. It should only ensure those who do so are properly recorded as such.

    Put Nyp in the pro Utah slavery camp. Plygs are the underclass in that state.

  22. nyp says:

    This is great. I love it.

  23. Patrick says:

    I wonder what Uncle “Justice” Thomas thought about prior state laws, that would have prevented him from marrying a white woman (before the Supreme Court decided that states have no such authority)?

  24. Steve says:

    “Uncle “Justice” Thomas”

  25. You mean all of those bans on interracial marriage…proposed by Democrats? 1871 – Rep. Andrew King (D-MO), 1912 – Rep. Seaborn Roddenbery (D-GA), 1928 – Sen. Coleman Blease (D-SC), a Ku Klux Klan supporter who had previously served as South Carolina’s governor…I’m sure he abhorred them.

  26. Patrick says:

    I mean the bans on interracial marriage that Uncle “Justice” Thomas seems to believe are perfectly appropriate based on his various “opinions”. No matter that what he did, would have been against those laws.

    Let no one say that he’s not a hypocrite (at best)

  27. Barbara says:

    Tom – great analysis. The Court has certainly shown us that we are living in a post-constitutional oligarchy. I slowly coming to believe the only solution, and it is a long shot, to reclaim our Republic would be an Article V convention to consider amendments to the Constitution such as term limits for Congress and the Courts, a repeal of the 17th Amendment, etc. I used to be against this fearing a “runaway” convention, but we have strayed too far from any rule of law that I don’t think it makes much difference now. The Founders put in place Article V just for this sitution I believe.

  28. nyp says:

    Do you believe that gay Americans should be able to marry?

  29. Steve says:

    Uncle “Justice” Thomas

  30. nyp says:

    You should watch the eulogy that President Obama just delivered.

  31. Barbara says:

    NYP – No I do not believe that gays should be able to marry. I believe that marriage was instituted by God and since God does not approve of homosexuality he would not approve of gay marriage.

  32. nyp says:

    Very well. At least you are forthcoming with your opinion than is Mr. Mitchell.

  33. nyp says:

    more forthcoming, that is.

  34. Patrick says:

    Uncle “Justice” Thomas lied.

    “I couldn’t understand the form”.

    Uncle “Justice” Thomas replying to allegations that he intentionally hid his wife’s more than $500,000 payments from those supporting the Citizens United plaintiffs.

  35. Barbara says:

    It’s his blog. Our personal opinion’s are really not relevant to the discussion. His analysis is on the legal reasoning (or lack thereof) of the Supremes.

  36. Steve says:

    Uncle “Justice” Thomas …

  37. nyp says:

    You are correct that in a forum discussing today’s decision declaring same sex marriage protected under the Constitution Mr. Mitchell is not legally required to state his opinion as to whether gay Americans should be permitted to marry.

    Still, his dodging and weaving on the subject is remarkable to behold.

  38. Steve says:

    That isn’t the subject he chose to write about, nyp.

    you are trying to make it personal by changing the topic to one which will allow you to make personal attacks a part of the “discussion”

  39. nyp says:

    Gosh, I thought Mr. Mitchell was writing about today’s decision on the right of gay Americans to marriage.

    Surely he has an opinion on the underlying issue. Query why he is so coy about expressing it.

  40. Barbara says:

    NYP – you need read his analysis. Nothing in it concerns whether gays shoud or should not have any right. Maybe he is trying to keep you from going down rabbit trails so you can focus on the real tragedy of the lack of sound reasoning our Supremes have exhibited.

  41. Steve says:


    Such innocence… are some crocodile tears for you, nyp…whaaa, whaaa he won’t talk about the thing I WANT HIM to talk about! Whaaa!

  42. nyp says:

    Yes, that is what is the key point about today’s ruling — not the fact that millions of our fellow citizens have finally been accorded the same rights that other Americans have. That’s irrelevant. What matters is the “real tragedy” of unsound legal reasoning.

    Of course, Mr. Mitchell was happy to respond to my question on his own terms. He gave what he thought was some clever argle-bargle about how the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage because marriage is nothing more than “a contract.” But he won’t go beyond that and respond directly — as you did — to the key question: does he believe that gay Americans should be permitted to marry?

  43. Steve says:

    “the key question”

    This is not your playpen, nyp.
    If you wish to direct the topic of discussion go make your own playground.

    The adults will discuss things on topic.

  44. nyp says:

    Do you think gay Americans should be permitted to marry?

  45. Asked and answered.

  46. Steve says:

    Deflect and attack, it’s the lib primary weapon of choice.

    Do you think the government has the right to decide?

  47. nyp says:

    Mr. Mitchell – do you think gay Americans should be permitted to marry?

  48. Steve says:

    Nyp, do you believe the government has the right to make that decision for the people?

  49. Stop badgering. I answered the question.

  50. Nyp says:

    No, I don’t think the government should force gay Americans to marry

  51. Nyp says:

    Stop dodging and weaving, Mr. Mitchell. No one can figure out what you think.
    Should gay Americans be permitted to marry?

  52. Steve says:

    “No, I don’t think the government should force gay Americans to marry”


  53. Steve says:

    Do you think the government has the right to “allow” or not “allow” anyone to marry?

  54. Nyp says:

    Your question makes no sense. The “government” does not have “rights”.

    If you are asking whether the People, through their elected representatives, are entitled to certain rules and conditions with respect to the civil institution of marriage, my answer is “yes,” although those conditions may not include a prohibition on the ability of gay Americans to get married.

  55. Steve says:

    Do you believe the government has the authority to allow or not allow anyone to marry?

  56. Winston Smith says:

    The United States takes another major step towards the precipice, all thanks to the SCOTUS:

    1. Removed prayer from schools
    2. Legalized abortion
    3. Approved federal socialized medicine
    4. Allowed government to take property for private use
    5. Legalized homosexual marriage

    What’s next on the Marxist agenda to destroy our foundational and Biblical principles?

    Making thought a crime?
    Forcing churches to perform all marriages?
    Making Bible preaching a hate crime?
    Normalizing pederasty?

    DARPA, c’mon, I’m sure you know the agenda, what can we look for next?

  57. Winston Smith says:

    Just as a reminder:

  58. Barbara says:

    Excellent radio show today on Mark Levin discussing this topic.

  59. Patrick says:

    1. Lots of prayer allowed in schools, from 1787 to present

    2. Nothing in Constitution prohibiting abortion since 1787

    3. Constitution specifically provides authority for federal government to provide for general welfare (if health isn’t included in general welfare then word welfare has no meaning at all)

    4. Constitution has ways provided for federal government authority to take private property

    5. Nothing in Constitution prohibiting gay marriage.

    Sounds like the founders were a bunch of liberals.

    Oh wait…..

  60. Winston Smith says:

    Nice try, Patrick, but I didn’t even mention Constitutionality. Disingenuous, as per usual…

  61. Patrick says:

    Well Winston, you did say:

    “The United States takes another major step towards the precipice, all thanks to the SCOTUS” the listed things I responded to.

    And as I pointed out, that list had nothing to do with anything the Supreme Court did or didn’t do.

  62. Patrick says:

    And bless you consider the founders “Marxist” then all those things couldn’t have been attributed to Marx (forgetting entirel that he wasn’t even born yet)

    The things right wingers will say.

  63. nyp says:

    I am actually pleased with the refusal of Mr. Mitchell — and others on this page — to give a straight [sic.] answer as to whether gay Americans should be permitted to marry. It reminds me of his refusal to comment on the racist statements made on this blog by “Athos” several months ago.

    What I glean from these episodes is that although some people retain their bigotry, they also have a sense of shame, and understand the justifiable social stigma that such attitudes attract.

    It is a sign of progress.

  64. Barbara says:

    NYP, NYP, NYP. Your gleanings are as usual completely off base. You cannot dictate how people answer. You received an answer, just not in the form you wanted or understood. Christians are used to “social stigma”, but I can assure you they do not feel a sense of shame for their religious beliefs.

  65. Steve says:

    “answer as to whether gay Americans should be permitted to marry”

    “permitted” by the government?

    I have my answer, you DO believe the government has the authority to allow or disallow people to marry.

    I don’t care who gets married and I think this whole thing shouldn’t even be under the purview of government in the first place. The ONLY thing government should have ANY say into WHO gets married is in seeing the contractual agreements of marriage are fully upheld and equitably settled in case of a breach of that contract.
    Other than the contract, government has no business in the act of marriage or who gets married.

  66. Winston Smith says:

    Patrick, I believe you are losing your grip on reality…or your attempted gaslighting has no affect on me.

  67. Patrick says:

    Winston, I see that you are a “Carolian”

    “My words mean only what I intend them to mean”

  68. Winston Smith says:

    Ahh, patrick, do I really have to enumerate with cases and dates how the SCOTUS overstepped its delegated powers, far beyond any Constitutional limits, in order to change our culture from our foundational precepts?

    Come now, you’re not some ignorant high schooler, so I’m not going to treat you like one. Once again, your disingenuousness is showing…


    “They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please…. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.” –Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791

    “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the “Articles of Confederation,” and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.” – James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson

    “…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” -James Madison

    “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one….” – James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792.

  69. Patrick says:

    And I will refrain from treating you similarly Winston.

    Because of the demonstrated weakness of the Articles of Confederation, it was done away with (behind closed doors I might add) and even contrary to what the AOC required as far as “amending or changing” (AOC required 100% agreement). But Constitution required only 9-13 states for adoption.

    The “father” of the Constitution wrote to Jefferson:

    “The evils suffered and feared from weakness in Government … have turned the attention more toward the means of strengthening the [government] than of narrowing [it].”

    The AOC contained the following language:

    “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. [Emphasis added.]”

    Note specifically the “expressly delegated” part.

    Madison understood this was at the heart of the problem with creating the stronger central government he, and others envisioned and so what did he do? Well, he proposed the following change:

    “A general and implied power is vested in the United States in Congress assembled to enforce and carry into effect all the articles of the said Confederation against any of the States which shall refuse or neglect to abide by such determinations.”

    This proposal failed, and Madison was left to, as his biographer Ralph Ketchum wrote, “more devious” means to achieve his goal.

    Once the Constitution was released to the public, its champions set out to sell it to a skeptical populace. Wilson sought to assure the people that the government’s powers were expressly limited by enumeration:

    The congressional authority is to be collected, not from tacit implication but from the positive grant expressed in the [Constitution].… [E]very thing which is not given [to the national government], is reserved [to the states].

    But this assertion was met with incredulity by many who read the document. Jefferson responded:

    To say, as Mr. Wilson does that … all is reserved in the case of the general government which is not given … might do for the Audience to whom it was addressed, but is surely gratis dictum, opposed by strong inferences from the body of the instrument, as well as from the omission of the clause of our present confederation [Article II], which declared that in express terms.

    After ratification, the first Congress, largely on Rep. Madison’s initiative, set to work writing a bill of rights. (Other nationalists would have just as soon broken their promise.) Twelve amendments made the final cut in the congressional committee. Amendment XII (later to become X when two failed to be ratified by the states) read,

    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.

    It was a pale reflection of the old Article II. On seeing this language, Rep. Thomas Tudor Tucker of South Carolina rose to amend the amendment by inserting the word expressly before the word delegated.

    According to the record, Madison objected that “it was impossible to confine a government to the exercise of express powers; there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the constitution descended to recount every minutiae.” (Emphasis added.)

    In Federalist 44 Madison had written that “No axiom is more clearly established in law or in reason than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included.”


  70. nyp says:

    I must say, it has been a pretty great week in America.

    And President Obama is now the most consequential President on domestic policy in the past 50 years.

  71. […] I noted before in comments, the ruling opens a new chapter in the interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First […]

  72. Barbara says:

    NYP I would add Obama is the most infamous President period. His foregin policy is about as disastrous as his domestic policy.

  73. Steve says:

    I must say, it certainly took a whole bunch of tugging and pulling to get nyp to admit he believes the government has the authority to “permit” who does or does not marry….I bet he believes the government has the the authority to “permit” many other things too!

    Rights do come from government and if it is allowed to continue this “permitting” process then rights will be few and far between.

  74. Steve says:

    Rights DO NOT come from government! Damned dyslexia!

  75. nyp says:

    Except I never said that “rights” come from the “government.”

    Instead, I said, in response to your question, that the People, through their elected representatives, are entitled to impose certain rules and conditions with respect to the civil institution of marriage.

  76. Winston Smith says:

    Scalia on the decision:

    “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 (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,” he added.

    Scalia was referring to what until now had been the right of states to set their own policies on marriage. He said that right was “American democracy at its best,” since it let people across the country weigh in and help determine state policies on marriage.

    The Court decided 5-4 that the 14th Amendment’s requirement of “equal protection under the laws” trumped those state rights. But Scalia said there is “no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text.”

    “This is a naked judicial claim to legislative — indeed, super-legislative — power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government,” he wrote.

    Scalia also slammed the “hubris” in the majority decision for discovering the right of people in the 14th Amendment that was overlooked by every state for decades.

    “The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic,” he wrote.

  77. nyp says:

    the 14th Amendment does not “expressly prohibit” the government from preventing black people from marrying white people, or Christians from marrying Jews. But the import of the equal protection clause obviously does so.

    Mere bigotry is not sufficient to justify a law that denies American citizens freedom to marry.

  78. Steve says:

    No Nyp,
    You made a clear statement that claimed Americans should be permitted….in reference to the government doing the permitting.
    See your own words

    I know you THINK you limited that to one subject, but the truth is you believe the government does the “permitting” not the other way around. You believe rights come from government.

  79. Barbara says:

    NYP – Was marriage instituted and defined by God?

  80. Steve says:

    That is a murky question Barbara.
    One thing is clear, once the government took control of Marriage things quickly went sour. Rights were handed out by the state….mainly the state of Massachusetts. Where this all began, at least for the US.

    Nyp is perfectly happy with rights being disseminated by government and I say he is wrong or a product of his generation. Either way the USA has lost something it may never get back.
    And I am not talking about as small a thing as who gets to marry.

  81. Steve says:

    And this is what the Catholics say:

    There is a good amount of overlap and keep in mind this is only one church. Others had and have, very different ideas and rules on the subject.

  82. Barbara says:

    I’m not asking about how man has practiced marriage or created rules surrounding marriage. My question is: Do you believe God established marriage as recounted in Genesis chapter 2.

    The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

    That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

  83. Steve says:

    You are asking if one religion has its faith in its definition of Marriage.
    This is not the topic.
    The topic is whether the government has the authority to allow or disallow people to marry…and I think that goes deeper to the point of whether the government controls the dissemination of rights (as nyp clearly believes) or whether rights are natural and belong to everyone with government only allowed to ensure that all have full access to their rights.

  84. Barbara says:

    No, I am not concerned with the establishment of religion or man’s defining or practice of religion.

    My question is fundamental to understanding why the Supreme Court does hot have the authority to redefine marriage and why it is a direct assault on our Constitution. In our Declaration of Independence it states:

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”

    The phrase “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them” refer to the body of laws that God as the acknowledged Creator of the universe established for the governance of people, nations, and nature. The Declaration goes on to enumerate the essential elements of nature’s law, namely equality, unalienable rights, and government by consent.

    Noah Webster’s 1828 definition of right states “conformity to the will of God, or to his law”. The Constitution sets forth how these rights are to be administered keeping in mind they are emanate from and are conferred by the Creator.

    The point is our very founding as a nation was based on the belief in God and his will for man.

    The Constitution establishes federalism and limited government by enumerating those areas which the national government is authorized to carry out “nature’s laws”. All other areas are left to the States to administer. Additionally the Constitution guarantees to every State a republican form of government.

    The Supreme Court’s decision to redefine marriage violated:

    1. the laws of nature and nature’s God by substituting their own definition of marriage, a definition explicitly not recognized by the Creator
    2. the authority granted them under the Constitution to resolve issues of law
    3. our Constitutionally guaranteed form of federalism granted to each State

  85. Nyp says:

    Boy, is that whacked out.

  86. Spot on Barbara…and that is one reason why the progressive socialist left is determined to banish those views from the public square and limit them to ones church building and home.

  87. nyp says:

    That is pretty much right. Feel free to live your bigotry towards gay Americans in your church and in your home. But you cannot impose it upon other Americans.

  88. But it’s just hunky dory to impose your little laundry list of favorite newly discovered rights upon everyone else huh?

  89. Steve says:

    You say they redefined marriage.
    I say they changed the governments definition of the law concerning how it governs the act of marriage.
    I say the government never had the authority to define marriage in the first place. Massachusetts was wrong.
    I say you are angry the government is trying to define your one religions definition of marriage and I have to ask what you think about all the other religions and their definition of marriage,,,,what would have the government do about them?
    There was even a time Catholics did not allow any other form of marriage to exist in their faith, not recognizing any other religion at all. Today, Catholics are marrying people of other faith’s all the time…how do you make that fit into your one religion view?

    We have freedom of religion in this country, the government must stay out of all religions, not just the predominate one.

  90. Freedom of religion? Is that why the florist in Washington State…and the bakers in Colorado are on the verge of losing not only their businesses…but their homes and savings as well. So much for the government staying out of religion…predominant, or otherwise.

  91. Steve says:

    My point, exactly.

  92. Nyp says:

    I’m very pleased that you guys have retreated all the way back to the level of the homophobic florist.

  93. Steve says:

    I am very pleased you have admitted to your beliefs regarding the source of rights in this country, nyp.

  94. Again the little nypper misstates the facts. The Washington state florist was NOT homophobic and faithfully served her gay customer for six years. It was only after he requested that she participate in his same sex wedding with all of the floral arrangements that she graciously declined and explained why she was unable to do so. She gave him a list of three other florists that would be happy to help. In fact seven other florists offered to do his wedding for free. But of course that wasn’t good enough…he wanted to force his beliefs upon her, force her to acquiesce to his demands…or pay a price. This isn’t about tolerance…it’s about forced acceptance, and if you don’t comply you will be sued into poverty or worse. And the hate displayed by the “sensitive” & loving Gay community has been despicable and on parade for all to see. Death threats, arson threats, defacing of her store property, people entering her place of business screaming bigot and threatening bodily harm. Seems like the heterophobes are the ones out of control here…trampling on HER constitutionally protected and enumerated rights.

  95. Nyp says:

    Should the florist be forced to provide flowers for an interracial wedding ?

  96. Nyp says:

    Gotta tell you , my heart bleeds for all those persecuted straight people

  97. She would have NO problem providing floral arrangements for an interracial wedding. (Another favorite red herring of the little nypper and the left, disregarding the fact that most laws forbidding interracial marriages were penned by racist segregationist Democrats). And it again it appears that the little nypper has no problem with bigoted acts of hatred and violence…as long as it is directed at one of HIS favorite targets.

  98. Steve says:

    The problem with bigots is they do not believe they have become prejudiced.

  99. Barbara says:

    Let’s cut to the chase. NYP has a problem with God. He wants to remove God and God’s laws from having anything to do with our founding. Since they cannot attack God directly, their ire is taken out on humans who recognize that marriage was established and defined by God and adhere to His definition, not a definition imposed by man. They obscure their disdain of God by injecting unrelated issues such as race. Race does not change the definition of marriage as proclaimed by God in Genesis chapter 2. Man’s prohibitions on inter-racial marriage did not change the definition of marriage just as man’s prohibitions on segregated schools did not change the definition of a school.

  100. Steve says:

    How does any of that apply to Buddha?

  101. Barbara says:

    Completely unrelated. God allows free will. Our Founders recognized that God does not force one to accept him, so our laws were written to accommodate free will. We had prohibitions on the forced belief in any government sanctioned religion. Now we have forced adherence to secularism.

  102. Nyp says:

    You can believe anything you wish. Just don’t impose your beliefs on the rest of we members of civil society by putting your religion into our laws.

  103. Barbara says:

    This nation as a constitutional republic does not exists without a belief and adherence to God’s laws and the laws of nature. This ruling removes that belief and takes away any foundation or pretense to liberty. The Supreme Court has demanded that we now adhere to a secular belief in marriage that they get to define. NYP you agree with this definition, but the bigger issue that has been established is that you are no longer guaranteed equality under the law because the fundamental belief that equality flows from “nature and nature’s laws” has been neutered. Government will forever more decided what equality and liberty mean, not God.

  104. Steve says:

    Our country was founded on more than one principle.
    This one principle is not supposed to be governed rather the government is supposed to be secondary to it. Al religions have the freedom to exist. Forcing people to live under the rules of one religion is as bad as allowing the government to disseminate rights.
    I think you are both off base.

  105. “You can believe anything you wish (same sex marriage). Just don’t impose your beliefs on the rest of we the members of civil society by putting your (lack of) religion into our laws.” (little nypper)

  106. nyp says:

    Sorry, Barb, but this country isn’t a theocracy. You must have America confused in your mind w/ Saudi Arabia.
    Or perhaps Iran

  107. Steve says:

    If this country is not a theocracy…why is polygamy outlawed?

  108. Barbara says:

    You are wrong NYP. You have made this nation a theocracy and it is called Secularism. We used to have freedom to belief as we wished, but this ruling does away with that freedom. Now we must adhere to your beliefs and you have indeed established a nation governed by secularism.

  109. “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.” — Clarence Thomas

  110. Barbara says:

    No one has been jailed, had their property taken, paid fines, etc for failing to participate in a wedding between one man and one woman. This has not been the case for those who declined to participate in the secular belief that marriage can be defined by the government as between members of the same sex. Hence no theocracy but certainly secularism and the denial of freedom flowing from “Nature and Nature’s God.”

  111. nyp says:

    Believe whatever you wish. Bar gay people and black people from your churches. Don’t invite them to your homes. Don’t let your children marry them (if you can so compel them.)
    Refuse to perform religious marriage ceremonies for them. Your religious beliefs and practices belong to you.

    But they have nothing to do with our government. And you may not use your particular religious beliefs to abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor to deny to any person the equal protection of the laws.

  112. Steve says:

    Then…. what about polygamists, nyp? OR do you insist they are to be ignored in this new found “equality” of yours?

  113. nyp says:

    Gee, Mr. Mitchell — I thought that on Friday the Supreme Court shielded the liberty and dignity of countless gay Americans from the hands of “the State.”
    Ought to be something you would celebrate.

  114. Barbara says:

    “Your religious beliefs and practices belong to you”. Not any longer. I no longer have equal protection of the laws. You have used the force of law to compel participation in your beliefs.

    No one is barred from attending services at my church (of course they may hear a sermon and be directed to scriptures that denounce sexual immorality). I have gay people and black people as guests in my home (I have a cousin who is gay and friends who are gay) (I also have relatives who are black).

    I wonder if companies and local government will now take away benefits from gays who are not married as they do for heterosexual couples who are not married.

  115. Nyp says:

    How is it that you have been denied the equal protection of the laws?

  116. Steve says:

    I see nyp is ignoring the eventual outcome of his trust in the state on this issue.

    I hope he likes the future he has chosen for himself (and others)

  117. Barbara says:

    Are the laws applied equally in this matter to all people of differing beliefs?

  118. Nyp says:

    Yes, they are. Any person. No matter what his or her religious belief, is now permitted to marry another person of the same sex.
    Or not.

  119. Steve says:

    There’s that word again;
    Nyp proves he believes rights come from the government….and those can be taken away.

  120. Barbara says:

    Very good article explaining the difference in legislating and court rulings and how we have lost the ability to self-govern.

  121. Rincon says:

    Isn’t prohibiting gay marriage bigger government than allowing it and thereby not interfering with individual freedom?

  122. Steve says:

    Rincon, it’s not about the type of marriage…it’s about where the authority to “permit” things really exists.
    Nyp insists it rests in the government. I say that is wrong.

  123. Barbara says:

    Sure. Just throw out all laws so we will have smaller government and more individual freedom. Seriously?

  124. Steve says:

    Big statist Barbara?

    Seems a bit contrary.

  125. Rincon says:

    By loosening the prohibition on gay marriage, government is merely getting out of the way in peoples’ lives. Government didn’t “grant” the right to marriage. Instead the court said that no one has the right to deny marriage to gays. Although the Constitutional arguments may hold water, the spirit of the Bill of Rights was to block the tyranny of the majority. This is in keeping with that spirit, Since it’s meant to defeat the will of the majority to inflict harm on a minority, the legislative process is impotent and a Constitutional amendment almost impossible in this case.

  126. Steve says:

    OK, what about polygamists?

  127. Barbara says:

    Genesis 2 recounts the union of one man and one woman. I do not find any examples of God approving more than this “one flesh” rule. The ancients engaged in polygamy and God tolerated it, but I do not find it to be his original plan. (He tolerates many instances of man substituting our own “wisdom” for His.) Indeed there are many examples of bad things happening because man engaged in polygamy. Under the new law, He specifically states that church leaders are to be the husband of one wife.

  128. Steve says:

    Again…that is only one religion.

    Must everything be subject to the beliefs of one religion?

  129. Barbara says:

    It has nothing to do with religion. The various religions exist only because of man interjecting or intermingling his own beliefs, feelings, etc into God’s plan.

  130. Steve says:

    Who’s god?
    I see, read and hear only human descriptions of God.
    It gets confusing trying to trust only one source.

  131. Rincon says:

    “OK, what about polygamists?” I’m not sure that polygamy would do all that much harm. We call ourselves the land of the free, but then we insist on controlling peoples’ living arrangements.

  132. Barbara says:

    I guess we’re going to find out as a District judge in Utah has struck down laws against polygamy. Israel wanted a King, so God gave them a King. Abraham laid with Hagar and had Ishmael. Look how these examples of substituting man’s thinking for God’s turned out.

  133. Steve says:

    You and Nyp need to confer before answering those questions, Rincon.
    Nyp’s headstrong against that!

  134. Rincon says:

    Barbara: Given your preference for God’s thinking, should we not make it illegal for divorced people to remarry? That is also forbidden by the Bible.

  135. How long and how much googling did it take for you to come up with that one?

  136. Steve says:

    Rincon, you and Barbara can argue theology all you like, this discussion is about the rule of law and where rights originate.

  137. Rincon says:

    Already knew, but I found it for you in about 10 seconds: “Jesus then answers, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matthew 19:7-9).”

    You can ignore the theology Steve. You still haven’t addressed the fact that prohibiting gay marriage involves more government control than NOT prohibiting it. I thought you were for LESS government control.

  138. Steve says:

    Yes I have…I stated several times the government should never have had any authority to say who may or may not marry. I have done so over and over on this thread. I maintain the government has yet to relinquish its usurped “authority” in this, and many other things.

  139. Steve says:

    OH…in this case it has actually taken more control and created more false “authority” for our government masters to exercise over us.|
    The next step is to try and control church weddings….thereby gaining control over religion, in spite of the constitutions guarantee of the separation protecting church from the state.

  140. Rincon says:

    I think we agree. The government should have never interfered with this in the first place. By asserting the authority to prohibit gay marriage, they have now also asserted the authority to sanction it. By extension, they may then begin to force individuals to “allow” it also. At that point, government will be overstepping its authority.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s