Mark's Views, Perhaps — from behind my eyeballs
On this day, millions without natural affection (and millions of others) celebrate: enough Supreme Court “justices” figured out a woman can do what she wants with her body.
As a result of Roe v Wade, a girl or a woman in the United States may legally…
It’s her body, after all. Read it all
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
That’s what the Defense of Marriage Act, Section 3 claimed for almost 17 years.
And what God declared from eternity.
And what the Supreme Court of the United States today said isn’t so.
Well, what five members of that court said.
Actually, just one that mattered (if you want to look at it that way). If one of those five had voted differently, the outcome would have been different.
I wonder how those five propose to define marriage.
On what basis would they say these aren’t valid marriages:
And how is denying such arrangements not a manifestation of bigotry, hate, phobia, and so forth?
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil — God says so.
Well, here’s another book for your consideration: Reforming Marriage
Looking back on this day in 1972:
I just saw that the US Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare this morning.
Wasn’t it just a few days ago that I used their ArizonaScare™ ruling to warn you about what might be coming down the pike for the “Affordable Care Act”?
ArizonaScare™ — I made that up all by myself. Hmmm. I should go back and insert a trademark sign by that, just for the fun of it. (Hang on a bit while I see if I remember how to do it…)
ArizonaScare™ is my monicker for SB1070 (you know, Arizona’s infamous and/or noble immigration law). Don’t ask me why. 🙂
Might the Supreme Court’s decisions in the Arizona case lead us to correct conclusions about the ObamaCare case? Read it all
Who will indeed.
Will it be one of their own?
Will it be one of their own choosing?
Or may it be one imposed on them by some religious or political cartel?
I confess amazement at the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday: Read it all
Cal Thomas published yesterday,
Intellectually, I understand the Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision that the First Amendment protects the most violent of video games.
Well, I don’t understand.
Because I thought the First Amendment was intended to protect political speech.
But I can’t see that it says so expressly:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So we’re “stuck” with going by what it actually says.
I still say the modern-day usage of the First Amendment has become mangled, perverted, and distorted.
And inconsistent. For example, how does the government get away with fining broadcasters for using certain language on the air waves? And for another example, how come imaginary hate speech isn’t protected?
Politics.
Humanity.
Imperfection.
Oh well.
I must say, though, that I’m very thankful for the First Amendment.
And I’ll also say that I agree with Mr. Thomas’ closing statements:
In a perfect world, children would listen to, respect, and obey their parents. But this is far from a perfect world and parents could use occasional help from the state in preventing violent culture from undermining what’s in the best interest of the child, and the country. This ruling by the Supreme Court does not achieve that end.
