7 Responses to “Supreme Court goes gay, Anthony Kennedy joins far left liberals in finding that a gay marriage is a constitutional right. Texas and other conservative states might leave the Union and form a new union.”

1. Paula Hoehn
   June 26th, 2015 @ 8:20 am

   Dear Orly,

   To fight same-sex “marriage” what can proponents of real marriage do? “Congress can immediately take action on a strategy to block the Obama Administration’s implementation of the Court’s decision through the use of RIDERS to appropriations bills which will come before Congress this summer and fall.” This information is contained in the following website:

   https://www.usjf.net/building-the-resistance-to-same-sex-marriage-article-12-the-congressional-appropriations-power

   Excerpts:
   “This approach is constitutional. It can be set in motion within days, if not on the very day of a Supreme Court decision, should the anomaly of same-sex “marriages” be blessed by the highest court in the land. And, if pursued by defenders of real marriage, this approach will require every 2016 congressional and presidential candidate to take a position on marriage.”

   “The Appropriations power of Congress can and must be used to block implementation of unlawful rulings by out-of-control federal judges. Members of Congress would simply ATTACH AMENDMENTS to pending Appropriations bills later this summer to prevent the Obama Administration from implementing any pro-same sex marriage decision.”

   “Some may question if it is “constitutional” to prohibit spending money to implement same-sex “marriage” if the Supreme Court finds that the Constitution requires recognition of same-sex “marriage.” President Andrew Jackson answered that question in his 1832 veto message of the National Banking bill where he noted, “[t]he authority of the Supreme Court must not … be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities.” President Jackson’s Veto Message Regarding the Bank of the United States; July 10, 1832.”

   “The appropriations amendments which will be required to BLUNT the effect of a Supreme Court decision mandating recognition of same-sex marriage must PROHIBIT the use of monies or fees administered by an executive agency, judicial agency or court, or presidential executive order, directive or guideline or similar agency action to IMPLEMENT any aspect of the ruling in the Supreme Court marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges, to PREVENT the following:
   · Removing the tax exempt status of any church, institution, university, school or non-profit entity declining to facilitate or participate in same-sex “marriage:”
   · Requiring any federal contractor or grantee to accommodate same-sex “marriage;”
   · Disciplining or fining any person who declines to participate in a same-sex “marriage;”
   · Requiring federal employees to undergo sexual attitude restructuring education to ensure their acceptance or accommodation of same-sex “marriage;”
   · Withholding any federal grant or contract money to any state, territory or possession declining to implement same-sex “marriage” in schools or other agencies of state government;
   · Withholding federal money from any state, territory or possession which does not change state, etc. legal codes to accommodate same-sex “marriage.”
   · Allowing federal courts to hear challenges to any state or federal law affirming that marriage is only a relationship between one man and one woman. (See Article III Power to Curb Federal Court Jurisdiction.)

   ———–
   Paula Hoehn

2. Judy
   June 26th, 2015 @ 9:13 am

   https://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/scott-walker-ban-gay-marriage-constitutional-amendment-119470.html?hp=l2_4

3. Mona Lola
   June 26th, 2015 @ 11:16 am

   I have to wonder whether the “conservative” justices (Roberts, in particular) aren’t protesting too much. They would have had an easier time stopping this if they had decided to hear one of the appeals sooner, before same-sex marriage had become legal in so many states. It doesn’t take a majority to hear a case. But they let things get out of hand. I have to wonder whether this outcome is what they wanted all along, but didn’t want to have to take responsibility for it.

4. js/js
   June 26th, 2015 @ 11:53 am

   Anyway, Mark Levin did warn that Kennedy would be the pivotal vote. How true.

   Mark Levin also said that Kennedy has had a
   gay male assistant (lover) for many years, too.

   What do you expect? The deck is stacked.

   Tell em, Danno!!!

5. Go House Members...
   June 26th, 2015 @ 2:36 pm

   If it can be arranged, this is another example of why we need to change the law/rule that the SC needs to lose their “lifetime” status!

   This would stop the B.S. and give America back to the people!

6. EARTHPLANET
   June 26th, 2015 @ 3:08 pm

   Remember Roberts sister already knew what the ruling was going to be..

   She told us way back when…

   So not a surprise when family already knows that Roberts in a dirty black robe had planned to allow this to happen in America.

   I wonder what blackmail they have on him..
   Must be amazing…

   Probably some fetish of some sort that would shock us all…

   I hypothesize..can only guess. i digress..

7. Don in Oklahoma
   June 26th, 2015 @ 3:46 pm

   I don’t really care what their “opinion” is. I will never recognize a queer “marriage” as being real.

   Every marriage should be gay. Look up the original meaning, not the current incorrect meaning.

Leave a Reply