Then, the majority of people are completely ignorant of the First Amendment, and that needs to be corrected.
 July 1, 2015 at 1:44pm
I unfriended, blocked in a few cases, or shut off updates from any and all I was connected with that put this idiotic filter on their profile.
 June 30, 2015 at 11:39pm
And it just keeps getting deeper and deeper, more and more corrupt, plus more and more despicable, etc.
 June 29, 2015 at 11:06pm
Shakedowns — er — fund raising…. :)
 June 29, 2015 at 10:59pm
Uh, yeah, who didn’t see this coming?
 June 29, 2015 at 9:38pm
Well, no. It takes a complete lack of brains. :)
 June 29, 2015 at 8:13pm
Most transparent Administration ever — oh, wait….
June 28, 2015 at 10:15pm
No one cares. No. One.
 June 27, 2015 at 10:37am
But where was she when a U.S. Ambassador was murdered? Yeah, wasn’t there, despite it being HER responsibility, she left her leadership in the trash heap.
 June 27, 2015 at 1:40am
It isn’t settled law. There will be more challenges related to the 10th Amendment, states rights, as the Constitution has absolutely NO statement nor amendment regarding the subject of marriage. The Supremes wrote it into law by tortured logic via the 14th Amendment, which was absolutely insane, no other way to describe it.
Equal protection under the law means exactly that...states cannot overrule the 14th Amendment with legislation
"states cannot overrule the 14th Amendment with legislation." Technically incorrect unless you consider a Constitutional amendment to NOT be legislation. You do grasp that one amendment can overturn an older one, a la prohibition and then the subsequent amendment overturning it.
Does any of this ring a bell to ya Lib? BTW, I am not arguing in favor of an amendment, merely pointing out the facts to correct your fallacious comment.
 June 27, 2015 at 12:42am
Well, that’s not really hard, Boehner and McConnell HAVE NO BALLS!
 June 26, 2015 at 6:07pm
Look, Obama, you evidently do not know a gosh darn thing about the history of nor the cause of slavery. The Confederacy *didn’t cause* slavery, you moron! Slavery existed for thousands of years before the Confederacy, or the Union, were even conceived. But, I’m sure you know that and, like your normal pandering narcissist self always does, you have to gin up some idiocy to make yourself look good and give yourself a self-induced ego stroke. You’re a despicable human being and an even worse President.
The Confederacy fought to protect the institution of slavery...but I don't recall the president claiming they started slavery...
Since we're trying to "heal the nation" perhaps we should start placing the blame where it belongs. Only 1.4% of southern whites owned slaves. 4.5% of free black men in the south owned slaves and almost 30% of those owned 10 or more. In fact, if a slave was abused it was most likely his master was a free black man
share the link, spread the truth, fight the lies, expose his deceit
[-1] June 26, 2015 at 1:10pm
Nope — court cases will fly as this would be a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution, 1st Amendment, and any and all such cases will win out, which will reverse this absolute nonsense from the Supremes.
June 26, 2015 at 1:08pm
Oh, there will be more court cases related to this, especially when it comes to the Federal government or states attempting to bully, mandate or otherwise charge various religious entities with performing such marriages or else — all in violation of the U.S. Constitution, 1st Amendment, of course.
This idea is ridiculous. You can’t get married at a catholic church if you’re not catholic, that’s clear discrimination. But no one goes after the church, because the law doesn’t FORCE any religious institution to recognize one marriage or the other, it only forces the government to do so. Similarly, no church is going to be forced to perform a gay marriage. What makes you think this will be any different?
Show me one mainstream pundit or politician calling for churches to be forced to conduct gay marriages. In fact, show me anyone, mainstream or otherwise, advocating for that. As far as I know no one is. Yeah I’m sure there’s some crazy person in their parent's basement yelling for churches to be abolished or whatever, but there are also crazy people still claiming the world is flat. There won’t be a mainstream movement to force churches to conduct gay weddings against their will, period.
I’ve never seen a group of people more desperate to feel oppressed. You’ll look for any reason to pretend that the government is coming after you, when in actuality, no one cares what you and your church do.
J: You are 100% incorrect. The government isn't FORCED to recognize "any" marriage. They do not recognize polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage, arranged marriages, or marriages between humans and objects.
The natural progression in this instance is to FORCE churches to marry gays. Here's why, and I'll use a linear analogy to prove it. Does the law FORCE restaurant owners to serve black people? Yes. And why? Because it is ILLEGAL to discriminate against a person based on the person's race (Civil Rights Act of 1964 says so).
Now that gays are a FEDERALLY protected class, why shouldn't a preacher be forced to serve a gay person? Why should a preacher be able to deny a gay person a "right" that is protected by this Supreme Court decision?
First of all, I didn’t say that the government is forced to recoginize ANY marriage. My exact quote was this:
“no one goes after the church, because the law doesn’t FORCE any religious institution to recognize one marriage or the other, it only forces the government to do so.”
It’s clear from the context of that quote (and the article that I was commenting on) that I was referring to gay marriage. No one is claiming the government is forced to recognize any other type.
As for your claim about “following the logic”, the difference between a restaurant owner serving a black person (or a gay person, for that matter) and a church being forced to marry a gay person is that there is a religious exemption that has been interpreted very broadly as applied to religious institutions. In fact, after Loving v Virginia, the case which required the govt to recognize interracial marriage, there were still many churches which refused to conduct an interracial marriage. The govt did nothing to force to them to do so. To this day if a church didn’t want to conduct an interracial marriage the govt wouldn’t force them to. In fact some churches still refuse to conduct interracial marriages! http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96577
It's totally legal. The govt doesn't force them to.
Also gays have been a federally protected class since the 2013 Supreme Court decision striking down DOMA, this decision does not affect that.
[-2] June 26, 2015 at 1:07pm
Such unions do not, and never have, forward the progress of and survivability of the human race. Any form of sanctioning such idiocy is factually curbing and impeding the survivability of the human race. If people want to “join together” fine, but no government agency or state is obligated to sanction or otherwise approve of such joinings.
June 26, 2015 at 1:01pm
The Supreme Court has, with this and yesterday’s ruling on ObamaCare, is now part and parcel of the tyranny that includes it, the Executive Branch (completely) and the Legislative Branch (mostly). Impeachments and constitutional amendments are needed to crush these betrayers.
 June 26, 2015 at 5:14am
I think anyone posting a picture of themselves posing in boxers, no matter the color or design on them, *on* Facebook, shows a complete lack of character and moral judgement. But, fire them over it? Pfft, that dog don’t hunt.
June 26, 2015 at 5:10am
Only 15? Come on, really? This number was trotted out to make it look like she turned “everything” over — but we all know has always been one big huge Hillary lie.
 June 25, 2015 at 7:07pm
Based on testimony and the e-mails that were already recovered (many of them “lost” or “destroyed already”), we know full well that “not even a smidgeon of corruption” is one big huge whopping steaming lie!
 June 24, 2015 at 7:10pm
Yeah, you got upset because that was exactly what you were doing (… taking their 2nd amendment rights…) and you got your sorry rear end called on it!