Uh, no. Not really.

LiberalAdvisory

Justice Ginsburg Eviscerates The Case Against Marriage Equality In Just Five Sentences
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/30/justice-ginsburg-eviscera_n_7180044.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

“[Same-sex couples] wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.
There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.”

Seriously? Some idiot thinks this is evisceration?

“[Same-sex couples] wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible.”

Uh, what? For one, the United States didn’t exist 1,000 years ago, and for two, you have no business looking to the laws of other countries (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html?_r=0), nor bashing ours (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/ginsburg-to-egyptians-wouldnt-use-us-constitution-as-model/). You’re a disgrace to your ill fitting black robe.

“Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.”

Oh? And your evidence to this is what, precisely? Your worthless, politically tainted word? You’re confusing tradition with law, which shows you have very little grasp of what you’re talking about, further substantiating why the Constitution (that document that you disparage, every chance you get to foreigners) DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE AUTHORITY TO EVEN HEAR THIS CASE.

Article III.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

American law does not, and never did, grant any authority for either partner in marriage to have absolute authority – under color of LAW – to dictate where they “…would be domiciled”, nor was anyone obligated to take any such orders. Leftists (you know who you are) can make every excuse you want, but I’ll bet that’s just because you can’t find any American legal case law stating that you’re right in this, and I’m wrong.

“There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.”

Uh, I don’t seem to recall any changes in marriage laws, aside from those enacted in individual states (legally, or not) dealing with ‘egalitarianism’. A lot of you that support this say it’s about love. Whether I agree (or not) is aside from the point. The fact is, this is a nation founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and marriage is a product of that, like many other things (such as many of our other laws). If gays are looking to form some ‘legally recognized’ union, why is it that they demand Christian ceremonies? Why can’t they just go to a justice of the peace? Marriage, really, is just a state recognized contract of obligations. Well, why don’t they just do something like, oh, get a contract of their own, supervised by a bar certified attorney, stating what their obligations are to each other? No, they want the name, and it’s pretty much just for the satisfaction of the finger in the eye.

Furthermore, liberals complain about when Conservatives point to the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution, they point to the 14th, thinking it trumps the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th. For one, the 14th Amendment was made to protect SLAVES. You know. SLAVES. Those people you didn’t think it was wrong to torture and work to death, went to war to keep (laughably claiming states’ rights to enslave people), then fought to deport (unlike today’s illegals that you milk for votes). It has NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE. It states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This was a RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENT, and inapplicable to gay marriage. You seem to think you can reinterpret the Constitution to suit whatever mood you’re in, at any given moment, but the Framers wrote down what they meant, and they were quite clear about it. Your latest pet cause celeb is an issue meant for the States to deal with, not a federal government that has no jurisdiction. You just don’t learn. You’ve used the federal government to enforce slavery, deprive people of their civil and God given rights (and I didn’t see you crying “states’ rights”, then) and discriminate against people for their skin color. You’re no more right, now, than you were, back then. This is a matter for the People to decide, not legislatures, and not overreaching judiciaries that disenfranchise citizens out of criminal self interest, such as in California (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38560562/ns/us_news-life/t/judge-overturns-calif-gay-marriage-ban/).

Leftists seem to want the government (so called “democratic”) process, when they think things will go in their favor, but when it doesn’t, they can’t lie, cheat and steal enough. This is the latest case. This isn’t about discriminating against people. This is about an overreaching federal government. If the state VOTES it into existence (NOT a legislature or judiciary using non-existent authority to declare it, against the will of the People), so be it.

Ginsberg claims to be a Jew.  Well, Jews believe in G-d, and I’m pretty sure they’d agree that G-d never sanctioned something like this.  Allowing a Judeo-Christian rite to go toward this is covered in that same book leftists (that don’t know the Bible, but can cherry pick at it) use to try justifying it:

“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” -Matthew 7:6

Ben Shapiro (a real Jew, by the way) discusses the Ginsberg type of Jew, here:

great seal of virus x

Advertisements

~ by virusx on April 30, 2015.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: