If You're An American in a Family Loving Relationship, Heads Up!

Birth Control, the current court would pass it, probably unanimously. Abortion, the current court would strike it down along party lines.

 

Bet you thought Scalia ruled based on the Constitution too. Including his actually writing the words "My Catholic Values" multiple times. But I am not arguing this further with you. because every response will be nothing more than "Conservative values will save us, Liberals evil".

 

I am pretty sure that, as I pointed out to Neo? The Originalist "hero" Scalia constantly admitted he ruled based on his "Catholic Values" not just "the Constitution".

And here is the case they will present, will be from a state that passes a total ban. "Any Medical Birth Control violates our law as our law states life begins at conception, not at implantation. So anything that stops implantation violates THAT law.". And I am convinced it will be 5-4. Just don't know which direction. It could easily be Sota, Brown, Roberts, Kagan losing. Because they already ruled that "abortion can be totally banned by a state if they choose".

We need to recognize that many medicines are used for things other than what you know them for. Viagra was a heart pill, not a boner one. Female Birth Control? Used to stabilize periods and for ACNE TREATMENT. Should they be allowed to ban it because it also "Violates their abortion laws"?

But again, it comes back to this. Can a state regulate another state? Can a state ban importation of something from another state because they say so? Can a state set unilateral laws for their residents everywhere? I will use an example. There is a town on the MO/TX border (there are many towns like this in the nation). Where one side of main street is MO and the other is TX. TX law states X. MO does not. Can TX prosecute someone who lives on the TX side for stepping over the median into MO, taking a BC pill every morning then stepping back over? Or reverse it. The court really needs to get a case on this to clarify.

Finally, on a total other note? I would love to see a Federal Lawsuit over the following. Jack Daniels is the ONLY people in that "DRY COUNTY" who can sell or let people drink. One specific company was given an exception, a defacto MONOPOLY.

 

Thomas all but invited them to create laws and file a case to challege Griswald as "States Rights". The funny thing is this. If they challenge another ruling he mentioned, and they dont rule that another case is also invalid now? They proved to be hypocrites. If they challenge Obergerfeld as "State's Rights"? They better also rule that Loving, the literal precedent used for Obergerfeld, is "States Rights" again. Notice Thomas conspicuously said that "Gay Marriage" should be states rights? But HIS interracial one should be legally protected?

As to Abortion? The House and Senate should push to pass the following soon. "Ectopic pregnancies, abortion in the case of Incest, Rape or Danger to the Mother are federally protected." watch it get filibustered as "It already is" (is not, there are a few "no exception" laws already). The response should be "If it is never going to banned anyway? What is harm in enshrining in law?".

Mind you? I would ABSOLUTELY want "danger to the mother" defined. Not at blind "I felt it was". Rape? Was there a rape kit and a police report? Then she is clear to abort in REASONABLE TIME (defined in the law, I would prefer at 50% or more of fetuses born Premie at that week survive with help WITHOUT MAJOR ISSUES). Incest is tricky. But usually those incest would fall under Stat Rape anyway.

 

I agree. I also feel that the VICTIM of a Rape should be forced to carry either, and I objected to EVERY attempt to make a RAPE VICTIM seem at fault in court and refuse to take rapist cases unless they can prove with time cards. GPS. Etc. That they were elswhere.

 

THe problem with that is, unless the law ALSO STATES that the States have no say in whether they CHOOSE to offer it. It is a FEDERAL contract that supercedes the "will of the States", "State Roghts" or "Home Rule". Otherwise it is nothing more than a Federal Law that is allowed to be superceded by the money from Mega Churches and the Mormon Church. They POURED money into that California ballot initiative. The Mormons have pretty tight control over Utah and some influence in others.

All "Marriages" should be Civil Unions and you can go get "married" at your local religious place. Why do we need to split it into "Separate But Equal" different terms?

 

I went to a wedding in Mexico where they had a public wedding in the cathedral and after that wedding, the bride and groom went behind the curtain and had their civic wedding. After that, we all went to the reception.

 

For decades there were people arguing that being married was just a piece of paper so they chose to just live together. Now there agenda's has changed and they are demanding that everyone has a Right to a marriage.

 

I think it would have caused less disruption if they fought to have a Civil Union recognized as a valid union rather than forcing others to change their definition of marriage.

In Mexico a Religious Marriage is not recognized as a valid government contract so therefor a State Marriage is also performed. There you can have the State Marriage and forego the Religious one.

 

As long as the religious clergy has the license? Sure. But being a Priest/Rabbi/Imam (not going to address every religion) should not convey that alone.

 

Dont forget the other way. "Or if the religious did not want to push that two people of the same sex not of their religion or of their religion getting married violates THEIR freedom of religion". All the religious had to do was say the one thing that would fall within that. "But we should not be bound to hold the ceremony".

That is a larger problem with that. You have the right to practice your religion personally. Not make others practice it too. Two men or two women getting married does not violate religious freedoms. People outside your religion doing things outside your religion? Does not violate your religious freedoms. The overarching Christian does not even say it is wrong. We HAVE forced religions to comply to others in the past. Mormons. Like it or not? They DID believe in Polygamy. But that was "illegal" because the government chose to enforce "One man and One woman only". Still does. Tell me who it hurts outside of "tradition" and "THE BELIEFS OF THE CHURCH"?