patrick.net

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.

https://slaynews.com/news/joe-biden-supported-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-and-allow-states-to-choose-in-1982-the-single-most-difficult-vote-ive-cast-as-a-u-s-senator/

Joe Biden Supported Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Roe v Wade And Allow States To Choose In 1982

mell says

You're just flinging crap at this point for the sake of arguing.

Yes, I'm sure that's what's going on.

How to make a rule against trolling? I suppose I could just say it, but it's a bit subjective.

The ignore button is beautiful. Why waste time with trolls?

Guess we know who is going to miss their baby guts facials, stem cell therapies, and adrenochrome smoothies:

LOL! How about those little pills that keep you from going preggo, you lazy psycho slut?

https://bioclandestine.substack.com/p/its-always-about-the-money

Now that we have had some time to celebrate the win, let’s analyze the situation. The Dems are pissed, but WHY are the Dems so angry about this ruling? Well many reasons, but its mostly about MONEY.

With the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, many States immediately cancelled all scheduled abortions, and shut down all Planned Parenthoods across the state. This will continue across every red state. This is a massive hit into campaign funding and slush money the DNC generates from Planned Parenthood.

Look at Planned Parenthood’s campaign donations. They are 100% to DNC candidates. The DNC are running their campaigns on the revenue from slaughtering babies.

They spent $45+ million on the 2020 elections alone. Every penny was given to Democrats.

The Democrat politicians are not concerned about “women’s rights”, they are upset because they just lost $20+ million in campaign funding per year.

I'm wondering if the timing of RVW is simply to distract the masses and explain the drastic decline in the birth rate due to the jab.

By outlawing abortion in half the country, the govt can then say that people aren't having sex anymore due to lack of abortion access.

While normal thinkers will think "uh, families are gonna keep having kids and abortion access wouldn't affect birth rate" the rest of the NPCs will just be like "people won't screw anymore because of abortion access.

Here's an article on the decline in pregnancies: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1540914383349395456.html

Anyone else think the left would lose their shit worse if gay marriage was revoked vs revoking roe?

Ceffer says

This is the real issue isn’t it? Mentally ill females raging on against something they have zero hope of reaching logical conclusions on.

Booger says

Oh honey, sorry to tell you, but you’re too fat for love.

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/blue-states-double-down-on-abortion-extremism/

In states like Maryland, non-physicians can perform abortions and receive no penalty for the death of an infant up to 28 days old.

It's bad enough to kill a viable baby at 8 or 9 months in the womb, but the killing of infants who have already been born openly violates laws against murder.

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/fall-feminism-roe-wade-abortion-apologies/

The apologetic turn in feminism is at least a decade old but ramped up in the past couple of years. In the summer of 2020, the progressive zeitgeist abruptly shifted from #MeToo, which presented sexually abused young women as society’s great victims, to Black Lives Matter, and an insistence that no, actually racism was the most pressing concern.

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/fox-news-canceled-matt-drudge-too-pro-life/

Drudge wanted to use a photo of a twenty-one-week-old fetus reaching out from its mother’s womb to grasp the surgeon’s hand on his show. (The famous photo is called the “Hand of Hope” and can be seen here.) Fox said no.

I had not heard about this baby's hand reaching out of the womb:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_of_Hope

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/thinking-seinfeld-roe-v-wade-falls/

Later, after Elaine declares herself madly in love with her latest beau, Jerry sees a chance for revenge. “And what is his stand on abortion?” he asks. Elaine is sure he’s pro-choice because “he’s just so good-looking,” but Jerry has gotten under her skin.

Cut to Elaine in the car with this guy. She assumes a faraway look. “I’m just thinking about this woman I know,” she says. “She got impregnated by her troglodytic half-brother and decided to have an abortion.” She turns her eyes hopefully to the hunk.

“You know,” he responds, “someday we’re gonna get enough people in the Supreme Court to change that law.”

That comment was funny because it seemed "impossible" at the time.

Maybe we can get a ban on the dangerous and worse than ineffective vaxx, and new Nuremberg trials for those who forced it on the public at the threat of job loss and exclusion from travel and public life.