patrick.net

In related news:
“ Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”

Shaman says

In related news:
“ Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”

No fucking way - it has to be a troll. If not, then WOW!

Shaman says

In related news:
“ Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”

I was reading that part of the decision this morning, I wonder if the guy is on the spectrum? He’s not wrong in his reasoning, I just don’t think people have huge concerns about contraception or even gay marriage.

My main takeaway was that, yes, it is screwed up when the court legislates by find new rights under the 14th, but they really just want to fix the mistake of roe because it has remained such a divisive issue even after 50 years.

Came back to Santa Cruz being evacuated from fire in our other area. Overpass on Highway 1 had a BLM group grope with all the gay shit up there, too, and abortion protesters. It was a LibbyFuck buffet.

It's nice that the Constitution is being respected.

States have all rights not explicitly allocated to the Federal government.

pudil says

My main takeaway was that, yes, it is screwed up when the court legislates by find new rights under the 14th, but they really just want to fix the mistake of roe because it has remained such a divisive issue even after 50 years.

Divisive issues is what keeps the population that each other's throats, it keeps us all from killing the mother fuckers that call themselves "elected leaders".

Bingo!

Patrick says

It's nice that the Constitution is being respected.

States have all rights not explicitly allocated to the Federal government.

richwicks says

Divisive issues is what keeps the population that each other's throats, it keeps us all from killing the mother fuckers that call themselves "elected leaders".

That's a thought - devolve all divisive issues to the respective states, and let them legislate accordingly. If you don't like the laws in your state, GTFO and pick another one more in line with your politics/morals/religion.

And the leftie gaslighting and lying starts (note they think I am a Hispanic female). This is what I got today, clearly trying to rile up their supposed base for next elections

pudil says

Shaman says

In related news:
“ Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”

I was reading that part of the decision this morning, I wonder if the guy is on the spectrum? He’s not wrong in his reasoning, I just don’t think people have huge concerns about contraception or even gay marriage.

My main takeaway was that, yes, it is screwed up when the court legislates by find new rights under the 14th, but they really just want to fix the mistake of roe because it has remained such a divisive issue even after 50 years.

It's an issue. The court had no right to impose Gary Marriage at the federal level. Why wait 50 years?

richwicks says

Divisive issues is what keeps the population that each other's throats, it keeps us all from killing the mother fuckers that call themselves "elected leaders".

SCOTUS has no authority to invent new rights. Gay marriage was not rooted in the constitution or in precedence.

California couldn't pass it by referendum, yet it was imposed on the whole country by judicial fiat without a shed of precedence in all Common Law history

Immediately the cultural war, a real thing that exists to destroy natural relationships and order, pivoted to drag queens and gender bending. It now demands prepubescent surgery and drugs in the power of teachers and social justice workers over the parents.

AmericanKulak says

It's an issue. The court had no right to impose Gary Marriage at the federal level. Why wait 50 years?

Marriage is an exclusively religious institution, it shouldn't even be recognized by the state.

The state should only recognize contract law.

Marriage, from the point of the state, should be limited to a contract to create and raise children. There should be no economic benefits or deterrents to doing this but it's well beyond this, it's now inheritance rights, visitation rights, and power of attorney. Any person should be able to go into those agreements with anybody they wish, their brother, their child, their friend.

The government just fucks everything up in my opinion. Get them out of marriage, and that will fix a lot of shit in my opinion.

richwicks says

The government just fucks everything up in my opinion. Get them out of marriage, and that will fix a lot of shit in my opinion.

States and localties have always regulated marriage. At some point its necessary, for example between two agnostic people or to determine who can visit in historians or execute wills/ inherit.

The family is the basic building block of society. Powerful actors prefer atomized individuals to bully

Marriage is the ultimate "You fuck 'em, you bought 'em" social contract. Maybe in some instances "You gonna fuck 'em, you bought 'em unseen, sucker." Being brought to ground is the great peril of being attached to the 'dumb stick'. It's also why women celebrate marriage so intently as getting a big game trophy head on their wall.

This decision will reshape American politics. Bad day for the corporatists and Wall Street crowd who told working class & social conservatives for years to shut up and go along with their policies if they wanted the chance to overturn Roe. That leverage is gone. - Josh Hawley

The RINOs just lost social con leverage. Everybody knows they lie on immigration .

No more movie stars smearing fetus foreskins and baby guts on their faces while sipping adrenochrome cocktails? Awwww.

Looks like the left knows what a woman is today.

AmericanKulak says

richwicks says

The government just fucks everything up in my opinion. Get them out of marriage, and that will fix a lot of shit in my opinion.

States and localties have always regulated marriage. At some point its necessary, for example between two agnostic people or to determine who can visit in historians or execute wills/ inherit.

The family is the basic building block of society. Powerful actors prefer atomized individuals to bully

No, they have not, and thankfully are not just recently. The state of Alabama does not regulate marriage any longer, as they do not issue or require marriage licenses for issuance and recording of a marriage certificate.

All that is needed for marriage associated legal proceedings is the public recording of some sort of marriage certificate between the two individuals. This is a big win for liberty minded individuals.

Yes they have. Throughout the history of common law, They've defined marriage. Even down to making a widow who wanted to remarry ride backwards on an ass to keep her widows portion.

Libertarian wishes can be tried on Ganymede when everybody knows what they're signing up for. Every colonial government regulated marriage and attendant inheritance, widowhood, p
Orphan support, etc.

Civil courts can't avoid ruling on marriage. Example: two 14 year old wanting to elope. Somebody wanting 3 wives, and then maybe applying for welfare.

Also, if thry ain't gonna grill it, thry can't kill it.

I call this the Ted nugent rule.

BREAKING: Outfitter Patagonia says will provide bail for employees arrested while “peacefully” protesting for abortions. - election wizard

Patrick says

States have all rights not explicitly allocated to the Federal government.

And it is we, the people, that give the state the right to govern us.

I feel disrespected by our state government, but can mostly ignore them.

TRUMP WAS RIGHT AGAIN.

stereotomy says

Patrick says

It's nice that the Constitution is being respected.

States have all rights not explicitly allocated to the Federal government.

That's a thought - devolve all divisive issues to the respective states, and let them legislate accordingly. If you don't like the laws in your state, GTFO and pick another one more in line with your politics/morals/religion.

This does sound like a good way forward.

I hate LinkedIn... it is now facebook. I don't care about your political opinions, let's talk business.

the so well organized riots remind me of blm.

so convenient in election year, so well funded

DooDahMan says

AmericanKulak says

SCOTUS has no authority to invent new rights. Gay marriage was not rooted in the constitution or in precedence.

Nor was inter-racial marriage - not mentioned anywhere in the constitution

You're just flinging crap at this point for the sake of arguing. It says it's between a man and a woman, that means no gay shit but black and white ok. So yes the court has zero authority to redefine marriage. If someone wants to change that they need to introduce constitutional amendments which need 2/3 and 3/4 of votes and thus are hard to pass for good reasons.

I’m in favor of a female having access to an abortion, but I am constantly amazed at how few women use contraception.

DooDahMan says

AmericanKulak says

SCOTUS has no authority to invent new rights. Gay marriage was not rooted in the constitution or in precedence.

Nor was inter-racial marriage - not mentioned anywhere in the constitution

What is your point? Or do you just blurt out words at random?

DooDahMan says

Nor was inter-racial marriage - not mentioned anywhere in the constitution

Marriage isn't mentioned in any Constitution, Federal or State. Government should have no authority over it, or any right to recognize it.

richwicks says

DooDahMan says

Nor was inter-racial marriage - not mentioned anywhere in the constitution

Marriage isn't mentioned in any Constitution, Federal or State. Government should have no authority over it, or any right to recognize it.

While this is true in the literal sense - and I fully support states autonomy to regulate or not - there is no doubt what the definition of marriage was for the founding fathers, and there has been a marriage amendment for the constitution - which failed to get enough votes - to clearly define marriage between a man and a woman. Furthermore states introduced their own legislation / referendums all in similar fashion which leaves no doubt about the intentions of marriage for the average American, even CA voted to define it as a union between man and woman. So by striking down that will of the people and correct interpretation of the foundation of the US (the nuclear family) SCOTUS de facto invented/injected a new "right" into the constitution which the founding fathers would have been clearly and 100% opposed to. Let states regulate it if they want, similar to abortion, but don't compare this to inter-racial marriage - clearly protected by the constitution - which it has nothing to do with.

mell says

don't compare this to inter-racial marriage - clearly protected by the constitution

Marriage in any form is not protected by the constitution.

We'd be better off with a Federal government 1/10th its size. The Federal government is involved in a ton of things they have no right to be involved with.

I'm glad this happened, even though I have never been strictly anti-abortion. You could see where the Moloch loving subversives were taking this, just like the canard of 'gay marriage' was the true first step toward the grooming and molestation stuff.

The Molochs wanted to allow post birth term slaying of children to industrialize their stem cells and body parts, and call it a 'woman's right to choose'. Just have your kid, and sell it to the Moloch slaughter industries for profit. Forget about adoptions.

They kept pushing the 'abortion window' further and further out.

richwicks says

mell says

don't compare this to inter-racial marriage - clearly protected by the constitution

Marriage in any form is not protected by the constitution.

We'd be better off with a Federal government 1/10th its size. The Federal government is involved in a ton of things they have no right to be involved with.

Depends. Literally yes, but the 14th amendment was interpreted to include the right to marry, have a family and raise children. Plus many states have introduced rights strengthening marriage and there is a marriage amendment. So I disagree on the absolutism of your premise unless you're just talking literally only. I agree that Federal government should get out of the business, shrink in size, and leave it up to the states. This was a good decision and should.be followed by leaving gay marriage regulation up to the states and many more

DooDahMan says

mell says

this to inter-racial marriage - clearly protected by the constitution

Senator Braun of Indiana has a difference of onion especially since Interracial Marriage was not the law of the land until the passage of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that legalized interracial marriage

Question: Would you apply that same basis to something like Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that legalized interracial marriage?

Answer: When it comes to the issues, you can't have it both ways. When you want that diversity to shine within our federal system, there are going to be rules and proceedings, they're going to be out of sync with maybe what other states would do. It's a beauty of the system, and that's where the differences among points of view in our 50 states ought to express themselves. And I'm not saying that rule wou...

No because 14th Amendment. Race has nothing to do with this as it is protected. Until another amendment overturns the 14th this is not a valid comparison nor a debate

Just sort of another thing to consider.

I was adopted at birth as was my brother…different biological parents.

I thank God every day and my biological parents as well that they had the compassion and selflessness to give me up for adoption. I believe I’ve had an oversized influence on the lives of friends, family, and coworkers. I enjoy this, helping and encouraging to build others up and make their lives better as a result.

A lot more people than myself would have been deprived had my biological mother opted for an abortion.

FWIW, I don’t really share this much in my personal life and I don’t think I’ve ever stated this here. But it stops ardent pro abortion people in their tracks. The only have two choices which is to play the sympathy card, for which exceptions already exist where the vast majority of the US population lives, or they can get mean. And you all have already seen how damn mean I can get.

As another aside one of my cousins was also adopted under the same circumstances. Him and his wife have absolutely had an oversized influence on life. They’ve adopted or fostered older children including teens…the ones no one wants…and seen them all the way through college. That is one helluva influence. Literally have directly made the lives of others exponentially better. We’re he aborted instead of being given up for adoption, the lives of at least 8 other people…well they’d likely be on the street.

A final note, and I’m pretty sure if I could directly talk to her and be around her, she would change her mind. I have a school mate that I maintain contact with on Facebook. She is a good person, still posts about her mom who used to work or volunteer in the classes I was in during elementary school, and has a daughter with a rare and crippling genetic defect. I can see the love her and her husband have for the child and the joy that the child brings them. The child will need continual and constant supervision throughout her life and even into adulthood as well as medical care. My classmate made this decision….and it is totally consistent with the person I knew growing up(we essentially lost contact during school for several years and then had a class during our senior year where we reconnected). Yet despite this she is staunchly pro choice. I find her decision and her point of view to be quite inconsistent and I’m not sure what the mentality is that drives that.

I could pretty easily find support for no abortions past 3 months except in cases of health risk to the mom and rape and incest. But the Dems and the leftists don’t want that and won’t agree. They want anything goes including post birth murder and that’s absolutely a moral wrong.

original link

According to cdc fewer than a couple hundred deaths a year due to self attempts to commit abortions each year prior to Roe. At 7 minutes in the video above according to Shapiro.

Interesting bust of a lie perpetuated by Democrat politicians and gulped down by utterly infuckable “feminists” like a $5 crack ho guzzling jizz.