TheBlaze Books Give You More!

CommentsDisplaying MarineBrat's 10 most recent comments.

• President Obama Speaks at Newtown, CT Prayer Vigil: ‘We Will Have to Change’

  December 17, 2012 at 10:23am

  In reply to banjarmon.

  We have an umemployment rate of veterans at or above 25%! These are people trained and sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States. Their training would make them perfect for security of our schools.

• ‘Dehumanizing’ Gays? Justice Scalia Defends His Views on Banning Gay Marriage During Princeton Speech

  December 11, 2012 at 10:11am

  In reply to soybomb315_II.

  @ SOYBOMB; You stated, “If such a law were to be enacted – our entire society would collapse due to lack of privacy and unrestricted local and federal government – is that what you want?” These laws were enacted very early in our country and we did not collapse. In fact, we prospered. The sodomy laws were overturn in the late 20th century. Looking at history, I would say we are on the decline. What I want is for marriage to remain between a man and a woman with the roots in the Judeo/Christian church. I do not care what is done in private, but do not force me or my church to celebrate the marriage of gays. Leave our sacred ceremonies to ourselves. You have no right to them.

• ‘Dehumanizing’ Gays? Justice Scalia Defends His Views on Banning Gay Marriage During Princeton Speech

  December 11, 2012 at 9:42am

  In reply to APROUDVETERAN.

  @ JAY; actually you have it backwards. The 1st amendment keeps the government out of our religion. However, the past 20 or 30 years has turned that upside down. This nation was founded on the freedom of religion. Now the 1st amendment is used to promote freedom from religion. Not its original intentention. The 1st amendment text: “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.”

• ‘Dehumanizing’ Gays? Justice Scalia Defends His Views on Banning Gay Marriage During Princeton Speech

  December 11, 2012 at 9:36am

  In reply to FreeAmerica2013.

  @ SOYBOMB; Scalia was quoted, “My Constitution is a very flexible one,” he said. “There’s nothing in there about abortion. It’s up to the citizens. … The same with the death penalty.” He is disguinishing between Federal and State laws. Concerning Federal and State powers, his comment about flexibility is derived from the 10th amendment which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Ultimately it is up to the people within the states to enact moral laws based on the fact that the Constitution does not address what is moral or immoral!

• ‘Dehumanizing’ Gays? Justice Scalia Defends His Views on Banning Gay Marriage During Princeton Speech

  December 11, 2012 at 9:19am

  In reply to soybomb315_II.

  @ SOYBOMB; Murder is not a Federal crime. It is a state crime. A case of murder is not heard by a federal judge, it is heard by a state judge in a state court. The only time federal judges get involved is on appeals, not the original case. Secondly, Judge Scalia is a sitting US Supreme Court judge. When he talks, he brings the perspective of federal law (constitution) and the flexibility of it in regards to deferring to state laws. Finally, you are correct in stating it is not constitutional to jail gays. State laws do not allow for it and the US Constitution says nothing for or against it. However, equal protection (14th Amendment) does not apply to this. It was passed in the post Civil War era to ensure blacks were protected equally under the current state, not federal, laws.

• ‘Dehumanizing’ Gays? Justice Scalia Defends His Views on Banning Gay Marriage During Princeton Speech

  December 11, 2012 at 8:48am

  In reply to FreeAmerica2013.

  @ SOYBOMB; the constitution is designed to establish a functioning central government. The wisdom of the founders was to not get the central government involved in the decisions of the people within individual states. The constitution establishes individual rights and leaves to the states and the people of the states to enact the laws they deem appropriate for their state to function in a lawful society. The “laws” within the constitution dictating to states and individuals did not turn out to good; ie the 18th and 21st amendments.

• ‘Dehumanizing’ Gays? Justice Scalia Defends His Views on Banning Gay Marriage During Princeton Speech

  December 11, 2012 at 8:20am

  In reply to soybomb315_II.

  His point is; there is nothing in the constitution that permits or prohibits homosexual behavior. Likewise there is nothing in the constitution that deals with murder, beastiality, abortion, adultery, lying, or cheating. It is left up to the states and, thereby, the people of that state to enact moral laws. Read the 10th amendment. Prior to the 13 colonies approving the constitution, they insisted on the first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) that pertained to rights of individuals and states. They were extremely fearful of the concentrated power of a centeral government dictating to the states. That is being a strict constitutionalist.

• Christians Find ‘Creative’ Loophole in Atheist-Inspired Santa Monica Nativity Ban & Secure Permit for ‘Live’ Display

  December 3, 2012 at 11:39am

  In reply to MADDRICK99.

  what about states with indian names? Illinois, dakota, Wisconsin, Missouri, Delware, Maine, Ohio???

• Federal Judge: Hobby Lobby Must Offer Morning-After Pill

  November 20, 2012 at 9:24am

  We are arguing over the independence of a company that is mandated to provide insurance to their employees. Does that not violate all of our basic principles of this country?? If we really want to drive home the point of our individual freedoms, we need to turn Alinsky on the alinskites: OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM. As businesses begin to understand how to avoid the mandate, the number of people that will demand government health care will overwhelm the pitiful government agencies. Unfortunately, it will drive this nation to ruin. But the people have spoken and this is what they want! As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord and prepare the calamity.

• Federal Judge: Hobby Lobby Must Offer Morning-After Pill

  November 20, 2012 at 9:15am

  In reply to Winedude.

  You are correct. It is not the business of the employer to dictate the decisions between a woman and her doctor. Therefore, the government should not be able to force the employer to provide insurance for their employees. That would be the result of your arguement. If the buyer of the insurance (employer) has no choice in the matter, then they should not be required by penalty of law to provide the benefit. That would be a decision between the employer and employee! Keep the government mandate out of the decision. Problem solved; you are on your own to provide for your own healthcare. The company you work for has no business telling you what should or should not be covered. It is up to you to take care of yourself!!! Now that is independence!