Well, let's talk about "the decision" shall we?

As you've no doubt heard, SCOTUS has approved Same-Sex marriage for all 50 states here in the USA...Highlights of the dissent are here:

As I've stated before, if marriage is a fundamental right, then by it's very nature no one (government, religion, person) can deny them this. Now SCOTUS by virtue of this decision has made marriage a right....

Okay, so now that marriage is a right, I can propose to a girl, and if she doesn't say yes, I can sue because my rights are being hindered, and then play the race card, and the courts would have to side with me. Logically, it stands to reason because marriage is now a "fundamental right of man"

The funny thing is, there are probably legal means to deal with inheritance and property rights which did not need marriage to function. (Lawyer friends, you know what to do)

If one does not affirm the new law, expect persecution...things are going to get ugly....Lord have mercy (x 600)

The Hobby Lobby case

As I've mentioned before, the argument for "religious liberty" is quite a slippery case and would eventually lead to the undermining of particular things. Now that said, the victory for Hobby Lobby is a good thing for the hopeful destruction of Obamacare. I do however have some thoughts.

1. Why should an employer pay for the moral license of anyone? A company pays an employee to do work for them, not for their time off the premises. (When not functioning in a work capacity)

2. With an entity the size of the government, considering how competent we know certain places to be, what would have happened if HL decided to not provide them anyway?

3. Is not the fact that we're depending on SCOTUS to save our behinds both a symptom and a part of the problem?

Lord have mercy

Pax Vobis