July 3, 2012

I wonder, wonder

..if the Liberals who are praising Chief Justice John Roberts for his wisdom when he ruled that that it is not the job of the court to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices would be so effusive with their praise if he were to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act under the same grounds?

6 comments:

Fuzzy Curmudgeon said...

Heh.

Woodman said...

Conservative judges who vote left are courageous freedom fighters, liberal judges who vote right are evil and should be eliminated (Oh, wait, they don't do that).

Conservative judges who vote conservative are baad too.

Frankly, I think the Defense of Marriage Act is a crock anyway. Marriage hasn't been about procreation for ages, it's a legal contract between two people to act as a single entity. Separate the secular civil union from the religious marriage and who gives a carp? Right now homosexuals can get "married" at dozens of churches. Let them go ahead and share the marriage tax penalty and feed the divorce lawyers.

I've got more important carp to worry about than whether or not 2% of the population gets to marry each other. The whole survivor benefits portion of social security/Medicare/Medicaid needs to be dug open and blown up anyway, not like it makes sense for SS to assume that a woman needs her dead husband's social security check any more. You've come a long way baby. Slap a needs test on there at least.

Ed Bonderenka said...

You may not give a carp, Woodman, but a lot of us do.
We don't like our society sanctioning homosexual marriage. That's just us.
We don't care if they live together.

Galt-in-Da-Box said...

Ohhh how insensitive and unfeeeeeeling.
DOMA is as much bullshit as PPACA, but both will move forward as the whores in Washington bend to the will of their lenders & Rome learns the hard way you can't get to heaven on the LAY-away plan.

Fuzzy Curmudgeon said...

It's not society I care about so much as government. Why should government sanction marriage at all? Far as I can see, all having government involved in my marriage did was cost me a fee for a licence and double my taxes.

Woodman said...

Until the New Deal marriage was just a sacrament and a easy will.

Now, it's a doorway into a whole other world of shared benefits and rights.

"You may not give a carp, Woodman, but a lot of us do. We don't like our society sanctioning homosexual marriage. That's just us.
We don't care if they live together."

I'm sure people felt the same way about inter-racial marriages, or gentiles hitching up with Jews, or Baptists with Protestants, or Hatfields with McCoys.

I'm sick of what some fraction of a fraction of the population of the US wants taking over the national stage on a repetitive basis. IF the government is separate from religion then why shouldn't it sanction a private contract between two people?

Just like how the Roe v Wade argument has poisoned politics for decades. Abortion is a fact, and the numbers go down every year, why are we still arguing about this?

I know several conservative people that vote liberal because of gay marriage and abortion. We are in this specific situation because of those voters.

Consider everything here that is of original content copyrighted as of March 2005