# Gay Marriage Upheld by Supreme Court in Close Ruling



## Josiah (Jun 26, 2015)

The final paragraph of Justice Kennedy's majority ruling is very moving:

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. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. 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. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 26, 2015)

Interesting result.

Some more here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...age-ruled-legal-across-the-United-States.html



> The Supreme Court today ruled that gay marriage should be allowed across the entire United States, settling once and for all one of America's most divisive social questions.  The landmark ruling from America's high court means that all states, even in the deeply conservative South, must allow same-sex couples to marry.
> 
> The decision was met with cheers and weeping from gay rights activists gathered on the on the marble steps of the Supreme Court.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jun 26, 2015)

A close call, 5 to 4, but it seems to have got the job done, according to legal scholars now talking about it...


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 26, 2015)

OMG!!!!  This is wonderful..   I'm so please with the outcome.. it's a long time coming..


----------



## Glinda (Jun 26, 2015)

This is wonderful!  I must say, Justice Kennedy seems to be wising up in his old age because, in spite of some very bad decisions in his past,  I agree that what he said was moving and eloquent.  This ruling and yesterday's on Obamacare give me hope, satisfaction, and extra pride in our country to celebrate this Fourth of July!  GOOD FOR US!!!!  
:torch:


----------



## Ameriscot (Jun 26, 2015)

:yes::thankyou::woohoo1:


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jun 26, 2015)

Bravo, another good decision for Americans!  k:


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 26, 2015)

Already, we've seen different reactions from the GOP presidential contenders on the court's gay-marriage decision.  


 There's anger and fight.

Mike Huckabee: "I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat."
  Rick Santorum: "The Court is one of three co-equal branches of government and, just as they have in cases from Dred Scott to Plessy, the Court has an imperfect track record. The stakes are too high and the issue too important to simply cede the will of the people to five unaccountable justices." 

 Bobby Jindal: "Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that." 

 Scott Walker: "I believe this Supreme Court decision is a grave mistake. Five unelected judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage."




 There's acceptance. 

 Ben Carson: "While I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, their ruling is now the law of the land." 

 Lindsey Graham: "I am a proud defender of traditional marriage and believe the people of each state should have the right to determine their marriage laws. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that state bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional, and I will respect the Court's decision."

 There's disappointment but resignation

 Jeb Bush: "I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision. I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments. In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side." 



 And there's the call for Republicans to appoint more conservative justices. 

 Marco Rubio: "This decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years. "While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law. As we look ahead, it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood." 
 Maybe the biggest test will come a year from now - when the Republican Party is holding its political convention in Cleveland. Does its platform accept the Supreme Court's ruling legalizing gay marriage? Or does it keep its position that marriage should exist only between one man and one 
woman.


----------



## NancyNGA (Jun 26, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Jeb Bush: "I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision. I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments. In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side."



:saywhat:

Is this waffling, or what?


----------



## Davey Jones (Jun 26, 2015)

but,but what if 3 people want to get married???


----------



## ~Lenore (Jun 26, 2015)

*Homosexual marriages are now declared legal in this country.  So now they need to hire lawyers just like the rest of us to get out of their marriages!  I guess common law marriages will count as legal, too.  Very interesting.  Another legal win and gold mine for lawyers!  They do seem to always win for themselves.    *


----------



## Glinda (Jun 26, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Already, we've seen different reactions from the GOP presidential contenders on the court's gay-marriage decision.
> 
> 
> There's anger and fight.
> ...



Interesting.  Where were they when "five unelected judges" betrayed the American people and undermined our Constitution by greasing George W. Bush into our White House?


----------



## Glinda (Jun 26, 2015)

~Lenore said:


> *Homosexual marriages are now declared legal in this country.  So now they need to hire lawyers just like the rest of us to get out of their marriages!  I guess common law marriages will count as legal, too.  Very interesting.  Another legal win and gold mine for lawyers!  They do seem to always win for themselves.    *



Each state has it's own law with regard to common law marriage.  In California it is not legal.  This ruling has nothing to do with common law marriage.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 26, 2015)

Glinda said:


> Interesting.  Where were they when "five unelected judges" betrayed the American people and undermined our Constitution by greasing George W. Bush into our White House?



Or the Citizens United ruling which has just about negated the democratic process.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jun 26, 2015)

Justice Scalia has proven himself unfit to serve.  He is almost, if not completely,  mental.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jun 26, 2015)

Davey Jones said:


> but,but what if 3 people want to get married???



They did not legalize polygamy.  Nor did they legalize marrying your dog, your pig, your child, or your sister.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jun 26, 2015)

Glinda said:


> Interesting.  Where were they when "five unelected judges" betrayed the American people and undermined our Constitution by greasing George W. Bush into our White House?



Excellent question.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 26, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Justice Scalia has proven himself unfit to serve.  He is almost, if not completely,  mental.




hahahaha   *OH APPLESAUCE!!!*


----------



## BobF (Jun 26, 2015)

As I see it the Supreme Court has just ruled against the courts of he states and rewrote those laws to include same sex marriages.    What the Supreme Court can not do is tell religions how they will respond to marriage rules.   Religions are protected but not controlled by our court system.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jun 26, 2015)

BobF said:


> As I see it the Supreme Court has just ruled against the courts of he states and rewrote those laws to include same sex marriages.    What the Supreme Court can not do is tell religions how they will respond to marriage rules.   Religions are protected but not controlled by our court system.



Just not having a good week are ya Bob.  Your Republican majority SCOTUS has just thrown a couple of wrenches into your theories about "the constitution", ehhhhh?


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 26, 2015)

BobF said:


> As I see it the Supreme Court has just ruled against the courts of he states and rewrote those laws to include same sex marriages.    What the Supreme Court can not do is tell religions how they will respond to marriage rules.   Religions are protected but not controlled by our court system.



I agree... Religions have a right to feel as they wish about Gay marriage.. but they should stay out of it.. Just has the Government can not tell them what to do.  Marriage is a legal contract no different than any other and is under complete juristiction of the State.. in this case being the Government.  Since Federal law supercedes all State laws... and since the Supreme Court trumps all lower courts.. marriage is a constitutional right for everyone and there can no longer be discrimination.

You just have to deal with that...


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Jun 26, 2015)

Davey Jones said:


> but,but what if 3 people want to get married???


Today's decision is all about the 14th Amendment... equal protection.  You can bring up all the red herrings you want.... polygamy, beastiality, etc.  This decision has nothing to do with your "3 people wanting to get married".  

Today's decision is most easily explained by the following.  Bill and Mary want to get married.  They go to the local Courthouse and are issued a marriage license.  Bill and John want to get married.  They go to the local Courthouse and are refused a marriage license because of their gender.  John does not have the same... equal... protection as did Mary.  If polygamy was legal in the U.S. and a man could have more than one wife, the 14th Amendment would grant equal protection to ladies.  Hence, if a lady wanted more than one husband that wish could not be denied.  Bigamy/polygamy is NOT legal for EITHER gender so that argument is not a valid one.

In this Country, two people who love each other can get married.  Up until today, in many states, those two people had to be of opposite gender.  Equal protection was lost.  

I do not hold with same-sex marriage.  Likewise, I do not hold with mixed-race marriage.  Our children chose spouses of opposite gender and same race.  However, just because my personal beliefs do not meld with some people's choices in spouses, the 14th Amendment guarantees that equal protection.  We should be proud of the work done by those who have gone before in crafting the Constitution and the amendments that have been ratified.  The 14th guarantees ME and MY family equal protection.  Today's decision was the correct one!!!


----------



## truespock (Jun 26, 2015)

This has been an awfully long time coming and is the very LEAST a society claiming to be 'civilized' can do.  NOW, perhaps we can all work on the disbanding of the obsolete and ineffectual two-party system of American government.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jun 26, 2015)

The irony here is one of the judges who was a no vote, Thomas, is black and married to a white woman.  Had the earlier SCOTUS not ruled Virginia law outlawing interracial marriage, he could not today be married to a white lady.  Can you say hypocrite?


----------



## Josiah (Jun 26, 2015)

truespock said:


> This has been an awfully long time coming and is the very LEAST a society claiming to be 'civilized' can do.  NOW, perhaps we can all work on the disbanding of the obsolete and ineffectual two-party system of American government.



Your comment reminded me of what we've heard so often recently from the GOP. You want to repeal and replace. OK what's your replacement plan for our current system of governance?


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Jun 26, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> The irony here is one of the judges who was a no vote, Stevens, is black and married to a white woman.  Had the earlier SCOTUS not ruled Virginia law outlawing interracial marriage, he could not today be married to a white lady.  Can you say hypocrite?



Isn't it Clarence Thomas, not Stevens, you are referring to?


----------



## BobF (Jun 26, 2015)

BobF said:


> As I see it the Supreme Court has just ruled against the courts of he states and rewrote those laws to include same sex marriages.    What the Supreme Court can not do is tell religions how they will respond to marriage rules.   Religions are protected but not controlled by our court system.



Jim, this Supreme Court ruling has nothing to do with what I said.   I have no problem with the SC ruling as it came out.   What I was pointing out was that if same sex want to get married they have full protection if they go to a court room and ask to be married, as I and my wife did over 50 years ago.   If they want a church to do so, they will need to search to find one willing to do so.   The churches are not under our federal rules.    If so, a number of very conservative churches of Christian and other religions will be very upset and this problem will never be closed.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jun 26, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> Isn't it Clarence Thomas, not Stevens, you are referring to?



Yes, Josh was kind enough to point the error out in a PM,. I have fixed it.


----------



## ~Lenore (Jun 26, 2015)

Glinda said:


> Each state has it's own law with regard to common law marriage.  In California it is not legal.  This ruling has nothing to do with common law marriage.




*So the federal court can over rule state laws and decide who can marry.  Who is to say they will not make each state consider common law, too?  How can they pick and choose which state laws they can change?  Evidently state laws no longer matter if the Supreme Court disagrees with them.     *


----------



## AZ Jim (Jun 26, 2015)

~Lenore said:


> *So the federal court can over rule state laws and decide who can marry.  Who is to say they will not make each state consider common law, too?  How can they pick and choose which state laws they can change?  Evidently state laws no longer matter if the Supreme Court disagrees with them.     *



There is nothing new here.  Federal law has always trumped state, county, city law.


----------



## Mike (Jun 26, 2015)

An interesting situation about "Same Sex Marriage" arose on
Pitcairn Island.

Pitcairn is where the Captain and Officers of The Bounty were
put ashore by the mutineers.

They have a population of 48 and no "Gay Couples" on the Island,
they do have a lot of "In-Breeding" though.

But they back "Gay Marriage".

Story Here

Mike.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 26, 2015)

And common law "marriage" is not marriage.. there is no license and there is no contract.  Most states do not recognize it I believe.


----------



## BobF (Jun 26, 2015)

truespock said:


> This has been an awfully long time coming and is the very LEAST a society claiming to be 'civilized' can do.  NOW, perhaps we can all work on the disbanding of the obsolete and ineffectual two-party system of American government.



This two party system is not part of our Constitution at all.   Don't like either party?    How would we get rid of them anyway as it is just personal decisions, not laws.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 26, 2015)

BobF said:


> This two party system is not part of our Constitution at all.   Don't like either party?    How would we get rid of them anyway as it is just personal decisions, not laws.



However... Majority rule IS part of our constitution.. Please explain to me HOW this is accomplished without a two party system..  Being that majority by definition means 51%..   With three parties..theoretically a party could win with 34%.. Not a majority...  Four parties?  26%  In order to seriously adopt more than 2 parties, we would have to move toward a parliamentary system... like the UK..   Ok with you?


----------



## BobF (Jun 26, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> However... Majority rule IS part of our constitution.. Please explain to me HOW this is accomplished without a two party system..  Being that majority by definition means 51%..   With three parties..theoretically a party could win with 34%.. Not a majority...  Four parties?  26%  In order to seriously adopt more than 2 parties, we would have to move toward a parliamentary system... like the UK..   Ok with you?



Just sounds like a vote off of ties would need to be done.   With no parties it would depend on who had the most votes to be a winner and if no 51%.    I will need to check the Constitution to see how that is handled.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 26, 2015)

BobF said:


> Just sounds like a vote off of ties would need to be done.   With no parties it would depend on who had the most votes to be a winner and if no 51%.    I will need to check the Constitution to see how that is handled.



You simply need to look up the definition of majority... It can be nothing else BUT 51%


----------



## AZ Jim (Jun 26, 2015)

None of that matters in a general election since the winner need not have the majority of popular vote to win on electoral votes.


----------



## Ameriscot (Jun 26, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> However... Majority rule IS part of our constitution.. Please explain to me HOW this is accomplished without a two party system..  Being that majority by definition means 51%..   With three parties..theoretically a party could win with 34%.. Not a majority...  Four parties?  26%  In order to seriously adopt more than 2 parties, we would have to move toward a parliamentary system... *like the UK*..   Ok with you?



Yes, and we had a coalition of two minority parties for 5 years.  And you see how well that worked out.  Not!


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 26, 2015)

The US constitution is based on majority rule.... WITH minority rights.... that got us the filibuster


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 26, 2015)

So far, to my recollection, At least in recent memory, Canada has not elected a minority federal govt. which relied on the goodwill (snicker) of the other parties. Should it happen, things will no doubt heat up in Canuckistan. There be daggers behind those smiles! Lol. Beware of courteous Canadians bearing gifts. Lol.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jun 26, 2015)

In 2000,  George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and  became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al  Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than  Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.


----------



## BobF (Jun 26, 2015)

As I promised I would look up how things go.    Such a confusing mess to look into.

One being the President is not elected by the people.   That is done by the Electoral College.

Some cities have very elaborate ways to vote and count.   Different state do use different methods.

Pretty difficult to find one method for all.

Read through this document and see the many ways for elections and counting.

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


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 26, 2015)

That's nice Bob... BUT you want another party... or no party..   I'm talking about congress,.. How would you do this and still maintain the majority rule that the Constitution outlines.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 26, 2015)

Interesting post Mike. Glad the islanders vote yes.


----------



## BobF (Jun 26, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> That's nice Bob... BUT you want another party... or no party..   I'm talking about congress,.. How would you do this and still maintain the majority rule that the Constitution outlines.



In Congress the items either pass or fail.   No in between.

http://www.house.gov/content/learn/legislative_process/

[h=1]The Legislative Process[/h]                                                                
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




                                    [h=2]“All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be  vested in a Congress  of the United States, which shall consist of a  Senate and House of  Representatives.”[/h]                   (Article I, Section 1, of the United  States Constitution)              


              [h=2]How Are Laws Made?[/h] Laws begin as ideas. First, a representative sponsors a bill. The     bill is then assigned to a committee for study. If released by the  committee,    the bill is put on a calendar to be voted on, debated or  amended. If the bill passes by    simple majority (218 of 435), the bill  moves to the Senate. In the Senate,    the bill is assigned to another  committee and, if released, debated and voted    on. Again, a simple  majority (51 of 100) passes the bill. Finally, a    conference committee  made of House and Senate members works out any    differences between  the House and Senate versions of the bill. The resulting    bill returns  to the House and Senate for final approval. The Government    Printing  Office prints the revised bill in a process called enrolling. The     President has 10 days to sign or veto the enrolled bill.


----------



## Glinda (Jun 26, 2015)

~Lenore said:


> *So the federal court can over rule state laws and decide who can marry.  Who is to say they will not make each state consider common law, too?  How can they pick and choose which state laws they can change?  Evidently state laws no longer matter if the Supreme Court disagrees with them.     *



Lenore, the Supreme Court selects cases it wishes to rule on based on what they consider important, relevant or controversial to the American people at that point in time.  Just because a case makes it to the Supreme Court doesn't mean they'll decide to hear it.  They selected this case because the rights of gays are very much in the forefront of American life at this time and those rights desperately needed to be clarified.  Now, as for common law marriage, I don't know that it's such a burning issue right now.  Since you're interested in it, perhaps someday a case involving common law marriage will reach the Supreme Court and they will decide to hear it.  And perhaps it will result in a federal law clarifying common law marriage for all 50 states.  But meanwhile, each state will have its own law regarding common law marriage.  My state, California, does not recognize common law marriage.  I believe your state, Texas, does.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 27, 2015)

I've said it before, BUT -- I will never understand why the Right gets its panties in such a twist about gay marriage.  If you don't approve, don't do it!  But that doesn't give you the right to disregard the civil rights of those who do.  All that stuff the Right spouts about gay marriage threatening traditional marriage is simply ridiculous horsepuckey.  I don't think a whole bunch of heterosexual people are going to wake up tomorrow and say "Hey -- gay marriage is now legal, so I think I'll do that instead."  Gimme a break!

All the legalization of gay marriage really does is to respect the  unions of those who choose to commit to another of the same sex, and  bestow on them the same legal rights to community property, inheritance,  etc., as heterosexuals enjoy.  What is so heinous about THAT, anyway??  It is NOT a religious issue, it is a civil rights issue.  


And someone please tell me how gay marriage "threatens religious freedom."  Religious freedom allows us to participate, or not, in whatever religion we choose.  It does NOT give us the right to force our views on others.


----------



## Linda (Jun 27, 2015)

I'm happy about the ruling.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jun 27, 2015)

Butterfly said:


> I've said it before, BUT -- I will never understand why the Right gets its panties in such a twist about gay marriage.  If you don't approve, don't do it!  But that doesn't give you the right to disregard the civil rights of those who do.  All that stuff the Right spouts about gay marriage threatening traditional marriage is simply ridiculous horsepuckey.  I don't think a whole bunch of heterosexual people are going to wake up tomorrow and say "Hey -- gay marriage is now legal, so I think I'll do that instead."  Gimme a break!
> 
> All the legalization of gay marriage really does is to respect the  unions of those who choose to commit to another of the same sex, and  bestow on them the same legal rights to community property, inheritance,  etc., as heterosexuals enjoy.  What is so heinous about THAT, anyway??  It is NOT a religious issue, it is a civil rights issue.
> 
> ...



The best one is that Gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage... I imagine millions of  married couples have decided to divorce because of this ruling... NOT


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 27, 2015)

That fallacy almost ranks with the precept that allowing gays to teach in the schools would somehow turn pupils from being hetero into gay and lesbian children. Pleez, ****** orientation is not a contagious disease. Lol


----------



## Jackie22 (Jun 27, 2015)

Butterfly said:


> I've said it before, BUT -- I will never understand why the Right gets its panties in such a twist about gay marriage.  If you don't approve, don't do it!  But that doesn't give you the right to disregard the civil rights of those who do.  All that stuff the Right spouts about gay marriage threatening traditional marriage is simply ridiculous horsepuckey.  I don't think a whole bunch of heterosexual people are going to wake up tomorrow and say "Hey -- gay marriage is now legal, so I think I'll do that instead."  Gimme a break!
> 
> All the legalization of gay marriage really does is to respect the  unions of those who choose to commit to another of the same sex, and  bestow on them the same legal rights to community property, inheritance,  etc., as heterosexuals enjoy.  What is so heinous about THAT, anyway??  It is NOT a religious issue, it is a civil rights issue.
> 
> ...



Well said, Butterfly, I'm coming in late on this one, but just wanted to say that this decision was the correct one and it restores my faith.


----------



## Cookie (Jun 27, 2015)

A happy and important decision, and good news to be sure and about time too.  Toronto's gay pride parade participants will be celebrating big this weekend.


----------



## Josiah (Jun 27, 2015)

First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win.


----------



## drifter (Jun 28, 2015)

Was anyone opposed to the Gay Marriage ruling on religious grounds?


----------



## Josiah (Jun 28, 2015)

The pictures of joy and happiness engendered by this ruling are so infectious that I drove into Cincinnati yesterday to watch some of the Gay Pride Parade and so that I could be a small part of the celebration.


----------



## Shalimar (Jun 28, 2015)

Well done America!!


----------



## BobF (Jun 28, 2015)

drifter said:


> Was anyone opposed to the Gay Marriage ruling on religious grounds?



Hi drifter.    Was there any other reason for objecting?   Well maybe just personal feelings.


----------



## Phillygal (Jun 29, 2015)

In ultra-conservative West Texas most counties are refusing to issue licenses to same-sex couples. Their reasoning is it goes against the "closely-held religious beliefs" of the county employees! 

Interestingly, they are completely comfortable filing divorces for hetero-****** couples. I'm no biblical scholar, but isn't Jesus against those?


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 29, 2015)

Unequivocably so.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 29, 2015)

Just goes to show the hypocrisy of the far right.

I was talking to someone yesterday and the subject of the Supreme Court decision came up and the person thought it was "disgusting."  I asked why, and she said "people shouldn't be homosexuals."  I asked her exactly how she thought allowing them to marry one another would make that worse, since they are who they are and are forming lifelong commitments without the civil protections of marriage anyway, and she had no answer, except that they "shouldn't be homosexuals."  It was like talking to a stump.  She also does not believe they gays should be allowed to teach in schools, etc., because they will "corrupt our youth."  It's NOT contagious, folks.  YEESH!


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 29, 2015)

Josiah said:


> The final paragraph of Justice Kennedy's majority ruling is very moving:
> 
> 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. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. 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. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.



Well said, Josiah!


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 9, 2015)

It looks like this Supreme Court ruling, and some of the other things that have been going on recently, has really upset the evangelicals.  They are going against the country, the constitution, and the American Flag, more on this here.  









Evangelical Republicans hate America with religious passion because the Founding Fathers and Constitution’s Framers did not create a Christian theocracy governed by biblical dogmata. In fact, the religious right has indicated in thousands of ways that not only do they hate America, they hate the Constitution even more in great part due to its guarantee of equal, civil, and due process rights for all Americans.

 Now it appears that the American flag is under attack from evangelicals. No matter one’s political affiliation, there is nothing that elicits greater outrage from Republicans, and most Americans for that matter, than disrespecting the American flag.One form of disrespecting the American flag, and violating 4 U.S. § 7, is flying a flag, any flag, above the American flag like a Baptist preacher did in Cleveland County North Carolina.

 The evangelical bigot, Pastor Rit Varriale, was sending an evangelical message that his kind are very, very angry that the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Constitution’s equal and civil rights guarantees apply to all Americans. To make his point, and reveal his hatred of America, Varriale raised a “_Christian_” flag above the American flag to show his blatant disrespect for the Stars and Stripes, America, the Constitution, and the rule of law.

In a rant on his website the Baptist bigot railed against LGBT Americans, the Constitution, the Supreme Court and America, the “_home of the cowards_” and called on Christians to  “_Stand up to the courts! The bravest thing Christians can do today is stand up to the Supreme Court of the United States and say, ‘No!_‘”

 As an aside, the Christian bible mandates that good Christians “_obey the government authorities_,” but since neo-Christians hate America there is no reason to expect them to acknowledge the government’s, or Constitution’s, authority and it is why they have to leave, form their own theocracy; there are plenty in the Middle East.The North Carolina preacher is not alone in hating a non-theocratic America. 

In Louisiana a state Supreme Court Justice claimed in a ruling that he is not obligated to follow the United States Supreme Court’s decision founded on the Founding Fathers’ intent that the U.S. Constitution is the law of the land. The justice, Jefferson D. Hughes, III, wrote that he cannot, and will not, follow the Constitution and inferred that LGBT people are child molesters in a case involving an adoption he said “_is a most troubling prospect_” because it was an “_adoption by same sex partners of a young child of the same sex_” even though that is not the case.
​Republican governors have displayed their disdain for America and its Constitution by labeling the High Court’s ruling “_judicial tyranny_” and the Obergefell v. Hodges decision incited Kansas Governor Sam Brownback to issue an emergency executive order preemptively protecting evangelicals who are intent on violating the Constitution and Supreme Court ruling. 

Part of Brownback’s executive order was all for show, and likely to distract attention from his catastrophic economic actions, but it also sets up Kansas for myriad lawsuits and court battles based on the bible as the law of the land; lawsuits and court battles evangelical Brownback will never win. 

What religious right Republicans like Brownback, Scott Walker, Piyush Jindal, and Texas AG Ken Paxton reveal is not their Christian bona fides, but their sheer hatred of America that they are unable to transform into a Christian theocracy. 

Obviously, since they do not love America, it is time for the lot of them to leave it.This un-American, and pro-theocracy, movement is not reserved to evangelical clergy and Republican governors, legislators, and presidential candidates. 

In Decatur County, Tennessee, the entire county clerk’s office resigned en masse to protest the U.S. Constitution as the law of the land “_for the glory of god_.” 

The elected county clerk, and staff, said the Constitution is wrong “_because it goes against the bible and everything god intended it to be_.” 

But the Christian bible is not the law of the land, the United States Constitution is; “_exactly as the Founding Fathers intended it to be_.”The religious right and their “onward Christian soldier” mentality has been anti-America and anti-Constitution since Ronald Reagan opened the theocratic floodgates and gave them keys to govern by theocracy. The level of rage in the evangelical movement is borne of having a high measure of success in inserting their bastardized version of Christianity into government without opposition, and with tax exemption. 

It is telling that when the Supreme Court gave evangelical employers the right to control women’s reproductive rights, the religious right cheered wildly. When the same Papal-5 on the High Court deconstructed the religious clauses of the 1st Amendment and allowed sectarian (Christian) prayers at government meetings, the evangelical right were ecstatic.

However, when the High Court ruled that all Americans were guaranteed equal, civil, and due process rights in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, the anti-America and anti-Constitution hatred erupted as expected. Why? Because the Constitution is the law of the land and the Court ruling affirmed that, at least for now,

 America is not a Christian theocracy and as Founding Father John Adams stated, it is not in any way a Christian nation.During the 1960s when millions of Americans protested against the Viet Nam War, and seeing their sons and daughters, brothers and fathers, sent to die, conservatives and Republicans adopted the mantra, “_America, love it or leave it_.” Nearly forty years later when Americans protested another senseless war of convenience in Iraq because their loved ones were being sent to die, 

Republicans and conservatives accused them of “_not supporting the troops, supporting the terrorists, being unpatriotic_,” and resurrected the sixties’ mantra, “_America, love it or leave it_.”Now because the nation’s highest Court confirmed that the United States Constitution is the law of the land, and applies equally to all Americans, religious Republicans and evangelical bigots have shown they hate everything about America. 

It is time, and long overdue, for all Americans that love the American flag and everything it stands for, and the U.S. Constitution as the law of the land to tell religious Republicans and evangelical maniacs that this is “_America; love it or leave it_.” For many, many Americans, the idea of evicting evangelicals and religious Republicans with their false “_Christian_” flag from a country they hate with religious passion is not a silly mantra; it is a very serious demand.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 9, 2015)

This does not surprise me at all..


----------

