CNN doling out marriage advice

Really now, taking advice on marriage from CNN is probably about the last thing most sane people would think of. And yes, it is every bit as bad as it sounds.

Dailywire

CNN, the network known for providing hard-hitting, always-truthful stories about the current political climate, took a day off from combing the White House halls for anonymous sources Thursday to issue a bit of marital advice. And as expected, it’s just as fantastic as their reporting.

According to CNN, perhaps the best thing to do for your relationship is to let your partner sleep with another person.

Read at Daily Wire

Wow, the things they can put out when the Fake News cycle gets a little slow behind the curtain. Looks like they are trying to make an apple out of a pineapple.

CNN could sponsor the next internet site launched to connect people. Ad campaign: “Hey couples, if your marriage is not already totally destroyed, there’s hope. You could consider this and give it the parting shot it needs.” – NADA; National Ass. of Divorce Advocates.

Anyway, you might scratch CNN off your list for marriage advice. (if it was ever on it)

Spinfest of 2015

If this year be known for anything remarkable, so far anyway, it should really be for spin. And everyone is in on the party, it’s fashionable — news, politicians, law, science, history.

We have riots they spin them into civil disobedience. Prosecutors spin their oath. Politicians spin their promises. We have Supreme Court decisions(spin in themselves) spinning the outcome in whichever direction they want. Supremes spin their decisions based on telepathy rather than words.

We got lectured from SCOTUS that words don’t matter in legislation anymore. It’s up to their divine interpretations to rewrite legislation according to some ESP intent. With words and meaning out of the way, things will be so much easier. What should any law mean if you cast off the meaning of words? Should it mean the same thing in the future it meant at a given time when they decided it? Why should it? Move on. Of course that fits that philosophy of evolving interpretations of everything. Thinking evolves too.

So we also evolved to same sex marriage. We’ve evolved even since the nineties. Remember the Defense of Marriage Act? But perhaps Bill Clinton was being prophetic when he said “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” So whatever it means at the moment.

The evolution works well with the spin trend. They go together. Then why not just go out and spin your own reality? Gee thanks, Supremes, for the new “law of the land”.

Supreme decision marks the territory

The Supreme Court Ratifies a New Civic Religion That Is Incompatible with Christianity

by David French June 26, 2015 | National Review Online

The most striking aspect of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which created a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, was its deep emotion. This was no mere legal opinion. Indeed, the law and Constitution had little to do with it. (To Justice Kennedy, the most persuasive legal precedents were his own prior opinions protecting gay rights.) This was a statement of belief, written with the passion of a preacher, meant to inspire.

Consider the already much-quoted closing:

” As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

[…/]/

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420376/marriage-christians-religion-love?

Love substitutes for logic and the Constitution. They needed a trump card and they found one with love. Love is also kind, and you don’t see much of that from the LGBT lobby. But then what does love have to do with a lawsuit? When emotion is the basis for decisions, then how much further do we have to go?

Well, it sounds a lot more like the Woodstock decision

Right behind you, I see the millions
On you, I see the glory
From you, I get opinion
From you, I get the story

Holes in Olson’s case

Ted Olson goes to media in defense of SCOTUS and same-sex marriage. He may be the next Att. General, who knows?

He claimed this (SCOTUS dictate) is a prescribed Constitutional process. This is judicial supremacy. Where exactly is judicial supremacy spelled out in the Constitution?

Then he stood on the old claim this is a protection from majority rule. But where is that minority rule in the Constitution? We go to the ballot to elect our Representatives, and now Senators. What if you told them that the loser wins the election – minority rules? They have overturned the voice of the people in elections.

And Dems stood against the rights of the minority by killing the filibuster for presidential nominees in Congress. Remember Fili the Filibuster was their hero of Democrats under Bush. It was a necessary Constitutional protection, then.

What they have done and argued for is no boundaries on marriage. Morphed into whatever the individuals want it to be. So now any boundary they claim there is can be argued against in the same way. If someone wants to marry a child then what? You can say there should be age restrictions but why?

So we need an age of consent, that is a limitation/restriction to someone. For that matter why does it have to be human beings? Aren’t you, then, denying someone their relationship? The point is, of course, there has to be some limitations or boundaries on marriage. There are limitations on many other things. There sure seems to be a limitation on the will of the people.

RightRing | Bullright