Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead at 87

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Would the founding fathers support gay marriage?

They literally wouldn't even understand the proposition. The concept would be totally alien to anyone living before 1900, at the earliest.

[DiverseSegregation]

They literally wouldn't even understand the proposition. The concept would be totally alien to anyone living before 1900, at the earliest.

Are you saying homosexuality is a new phenomenon?

[devil21]

They most certainly would not.

Some probably would have, others not. Franklin was well known to be rather "sexually adventurous" while also being an advocate of personal liberty and not religious, for example.

[Anti Federalist]

They literally wouldn't even understand the proposition. The concept would be totally alien to anyone living before 1900, at the earliest.

The term "Boston Marriage" meaning two bitter, elderly, man hating, lesbians living together was coined around 1880.

[osan]

Best news I’ve had in years.

The mooing over this from the left is amusing in a very schadenfreude way... their Schade, my Freude .

[Swordsmyth]

Are you saying homosexuality is a new phenomenon?

Some probably would have, others not. Franklin was well known to be rather "sexually adventurous" while also being an advocate of personal liberty and not religious, for example.

The term "Boston Marriage" meaning two bitter, elderly, man hating, lesbians living together was coined around 1880.

Sexual perversion and granting it the status of marriage are two different things.
"Boston Marriage" was meant to mock the perverts and the city of Boston for having so many not to grant the status of marriage.

The founders would not have favored qweer marriage, even those who were less moral would have known that it would destroy society and that the public would not accept it. (even in modern times it was imposed from above rather than accepted by the public after so many generations of brainwashing)

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Are you saying homosexuality is a new phenomenon?

Certainly not. But gay marriage, even as a concept, is. There have been societies like ancient Greece where homosexuality (and even pederasty) was normalized. But the idea of gay marriage would be totally alien to them. That's purely a concoction of the modern age.

[dannno]

Are you saying homosexuality is a new phenomenon?

State marriage licenses are.

[Voluntarist]

Per registered decision, member has been banned for violating community standards as interpreted by TheTexan (respect his authoritah) as authorized by Brian4Liberty Ruling

May God have mercy on his atheist, police-hating, non-voting, anarchist soul.

[DiverseSegregation]

Did they support it at the time? No, probably not - at least not publicly. But at the time, state-licensed marriage was a foreign concept. George and Martha Washington never had a marriage license. Marriage was something that religion was in charge of - so, form a gay church and form gay marriages through those churches. You might just as well ask, "Would the founding fathers support the government licensing of any marriage (heterosexual, homosexual, polygamous, etc.?"

Other questions, in the same vein, that you might pose:
- Would the founding fathers support the abolition of slavery?
- Would the founding fathers support African Americans having the right to vote?
- Would the founding fathers support women having the right to vote?
- Would the founding fathers support inter-racial marriage?
... if your founding father ancestor set aside property for you to live upon, does that obligate you to live on it?

And it's not like homosexuality didn't exist at the time:
- William King, first senator from Alabama, is rumored to have been gay.
- Benjamin Franklin recruited strategist Baron Friedrich von Steuben to provide his expertise to the rebellion, despite knowing the soldier’s homosexuality (Franklin's letters indicate that part of his motivation was the knowledge Von Steuben could face prosecution for sodomy in Europe).
- Gilbert du Motier, the Marquis de Lafayette, had a very close relationship with George Washington - despite being a known homosexual.
- and on and on and on.

The real question is, "Why is marriage any business of the government?". Why are they over 1,400 federal laws/statues/regulations that have the word "marriage' in them?

All very good points!

[Swordsmyth]

Did they support it at the time? No, probably not - at least not publicly. But at the time, state-licensed marriage was a foreign concept. George and Martha Washington never had a marriage license. Marriage was something that religion was in charge of - so, form a gay church and form gay marriages through those churches. You might just as well ask, "Would the founding fathers support the government licensing of any marriage (heterosexual, homosexual, polygamous, etc.?"

Other questions, in the same vein, that you might pose:
- Would the founding fathers support the abolition of slavery?
- Would the founding fathers support African Americans having the right to vote?
- Would the founding fathers support women having the right to vote?
- Would the founding fathers support inter-racial marriage?
... if your founding father ancestor set aside property for you to live upon, does that obligate you to live on it?

And it's not like homosexuality didn't exist at the time:
- William King, first senator from Alabama, is rumored to have been gay.
- Benjamin Franklin recruited strategist Baron Friedrich von Steuben to provide his expertise to the rebellion, despite knowing the soldier’s homosexuality (Franklin's letters indicate that part of his motivation was the knowledge Von Steuben could face prosecution for sodomy in Europe).
- Gilbert du Motier, the Marquis de Lafayette, had a very close relationship with George Washington - despite being a known homosexual.
- and on and on and on.

The real question is, "Why is marriage any business of the government?". Why are they over 1,400 federal laws/statues/regulations that have the word "marriage' in them?

All very good points!

Not really very good.

There are many legitimate reasons for the law to deal with who is married and who is not and you don't need licenses to do it, just definitions, those who want to officially record the marriage can do so without requiring everyone to do so.

And the founders would not accept a qweer church having qweer marriages in the law, marriage is between a man and a woman by definition and always has been.
Trying to compare qweer marriage to things the founders were wrong about is ridiculous as is the implication that we can change the definition of such things.

[DiverseSegregation]

Not really very good.

There are many legitimate reasons for the law to deal with who is married and who is not and you don't need licenses to do it, just definitions, those want to officially record the marriage can do so without requiring everyone to do so.

And the founders would not accept a qweer church having qweer marriages in the law, marriage is between a man and a woman by definition and always has been.
Trying to compare qweer marriage to things the founders were wrong about is ridiculous as is the implication that we can change the definition of such things.

Do you think God has changed his views on homosexuality? What do you think is his present stance on it?

[Anti Globalist]

Do you think God has changed his views on homosexuality? What do you think is his present stance on it?

That depends entirely on which God you're talking about.

[Swordsmyth]

Do you think God has changed his views on homosexuality? What do you think is his present stance on it?

GOD does not change his views on abominations, he is the same yesterday, today and forever.

[DiverseSegregation]

GOD does not change his views on abominations, he is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Would God get nominated for SCOTUS?

[Swordsmyth]

Would God get nominated for SCOTUS?

He does not stoop to such worldly offices, he has all power in heaven and on earth.
Whether or not someone would nominate him if that was a reasonable concept would depend on the person doing the nominating, the wise and well informed would seek to be ruled by him, the foolish would not.

[DiverseSegregation]

He does not stoop to such worldly offices, he has all power in heaven and on earth.
Whether or not someone would nominate him if that was a reasonable concept would depend on the person doing the nominating, the wise and well informed would seek to be ruled by him, the foolish would not.

I guess I was being more hypothetical. A person that had the morals of God. Could they be nominated? Would Democrats embrace God for SCOTUS?

[69360]

Do you think God has changed his views on homosexuality? What do you think is his present stance on it?

The Pope just recently said the church loves homosexuals to a gay parents group and has previously said if if a person is gay and loves God, who am I to judge?

[Swordsmyth]

I guess I was being more hypothetical. A person that had the morals of God. Could they be nominated? Would Democrats embrace God for SCOTUS?

They could be nominated depending on circumstances, Demoncrats would hate them.

[Swordsmyth]

The Pope just recently said the church loves homosexuals to a gay parents group and has previously said if if a person is gay and loves God, who am I to judge?

The Pope is apostate, the scriptures are clear on the subject.

[Anti Globalist]

I guess I was being more hypothetical. A person that had the morals of God. Could they be nominated? Would Democrats embrace God for SCOTUS?

Probably not since Democrats hate Christianity.

[Voluntarist]

Per registered decision, member has been banned for violating community standards as interpreted by TheTexan (respect his authoritah) as authorized by Brian4Liberty Ruling

May God have mercy on his atheist, police-hating, non-voting, anarchist soul.

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/ASavageNation/st...09640899518466

They still haven't buried Lenin.

Huh, that seems pretty logistically improbable for the average person these days, I guess they have a system worked out though.

https://www.shiva.com/learning-cente...ls-and-burial/

Saw them moving RBG's casket today, and it dawned on me, that casket is probably empty and she was already buried. I'd bet money on it.

[Anti Globalist]

Is Trump announcing his SCOTUS pick today or is it tomorrow?

[dannno]

Is Trump announcing his SCOTUS pick today or is it tomorrow?

Tomorrow, probably first thing in the morning.

[devil21]

State marriage licenses are.

All those are is a power grab to voluntarily hand legal jurisdiction of a marital union over to the state so the state can legally meddle and dictate terms and so the attorneys can milk cash out of the marriage if it later dissolves. Since when does anyone need the approval of some courthouse bureaucrat to live, love and share life with one's chosen partner and call it whatever they want, marriage or otherwise? Absurd what people put up with.

[enhanced_deficit]

STAYING STRONG Bizarre moment Ruth Ginsburg's personal trainer performs push-ups in front of casket

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dmmGJBaMbg

[dannno]

All those are is a power grab to voluntarily hand legal jurisdiction of a marital union over to the state so the state can legally meddle and dictate terms and so the attorneys can milk cash out of the marriage if it later dissolves. Since when does anyone need the approval of some courthouse bureaucrat to live, love and share life with one's chosen partner and call it whatever they want, marriage or otherwise? Absurd what people put up with.

It's something men agree to so that they can procreate, unless they are lucky enough to find the <1% of women who are ok with not being married by the state.

[DiverseSegregation]

It's something men agree to so that they can procreate, unless they are lucky enough to find the <1% of women who are ok with not being married by the state.

It doesn't matter if you find that 1%. When the relationship dissolves, the person with less or nothing goes after everything. I remember reading years ago about an elder care attorney that prepared living wills and every legal paper necessary to see their wishes fulfilled. When one got sick a healthcare facility challenged the designated person and got the courts involved. All the guys wishes were thrown out and overridden by a judge. Point is it doesn't matter what you want or agree to what matters is what the robed person mandates.

[osan]

...bitter... man hating lesbians...

Department of Redundancy Department x 3.

I've been acquainted with a fair number of lesbians and of all of them only two can I say for certain were not lesbian because they hated men. The rest were all of the "kill all the men" religious denomination.