Today's ruling in Berwell essentially says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is a State. I'm not sure what the word for this form of government is, but it clearly isn't what the design used to be.
Justice Scalia wrote:
[T]he court “accepts that the ‘most natural sense’ of the phrase ‘Exchange established by the State’ is an Exchange established by a State” but then “continues, with no semblance of shame, that ‘it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal.’”Tomorrow or Monday, I expect them to rule that gay marriage is the law of the land. Right behind that, I expect freedom of religion to be rescinded, along with the freedom of conscience.
...
Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.” It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words “established by the State.” And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words “by the State” other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges. (Scalia's dissent, page 28 of pdf)
Yeah, we're rumbling down a rough road headed for Bad Times....
ReplyDeleteThe parallels are obvious:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/fallofromanrepublic_article_01.shtml
It's been gone for some time now. We are just seeing the afterburner kicked in due to Barry's term coming to an end ... maybe. We will see.
ReplyDeleteKeep looking. I'm sure they found this in the constitution right next to where they found the right to kill unborn babies.
ReplyDeleteI think we passed the Point of No Return some years back; now we're just waiting for the momentum to cease so we can discover where we come to rest. It'll be no place good, I'm afraid.
ReplyDeleteI'm not really clear on how allowing two consenting adults to sign a legally-binding marriage contract wrecks the nation and naturally follows into repeal of the 1st Amendment. Aren't we FOR rights, FOR freedom, and FOR fewer laws?
ReplyDeleteI don't understand.
ReplyDeleteWhy did gay people go to the State.
Now, they can "pay a tax", apply for a "license", basically begging for the "Permissions" to get married like straight people do.
I would have been all on board had they gone the other way, to get The State out of the whole Marriage business entirely.
Erin said: I'm not really clear on how allowing two consenting adults to sign a legally-binding marriage contract wrecks the nation and naturally follows into repeal of the 1st Amendment."
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of people see this issue exactly like that. But it has never really been about love and marriage but rather about control and revenge. Why in the world would two gay women go to a Christian bakery to have them bake a wedding cake and insist that the owner put a pro-gay marriage statement on the cake??? THEN they went to a great deal of effort to bring a case against the Christian baker and essentially took her life savings and business from her. Does this sound like they simply wanted the right to marry?????
If you are a professor, a politician, work for government, in public life and hundreds of other jobs and decide to voice an opinion opposing gay marriage they will come for you and force you to be fired, punished or both. Does that sound like all they want is the right to marry?? It is more like 20th century Russia where someone voiced an opinion, no matter how mild, that was interpreted to offend the communist and the secret police would come for them in the early morning hours, drag them out of bed and they would be sent to a gulag in Siberia.
If you doubt me, watch and see how these consenting gay adults who ONLY want to live in holy matrimony use this court decision to hunt down and destroy those who don't bow down and approve of their lifestyle.