Thread: SCOTUS Justice John Roberts’ Cousin Says He’ll Rule In Favor Of Same-Sex “Marriage”

16 hours ago by Tim Brown
SCOTUS Justice John Roberts’ Cousin Says He’ll Rule In Favor Of Same-Sex “Marriage”

The same Supreme Court Chief Justice that ruled Obamacare Constitutional, as a tax, has a cousin saying that he will rule in favor of same-sex “marriage.” Chief Justice John G. Roberts’ lesbian cousin, Jean Podrasky, 48, of San Francisco wrote in an op-ed, which is posted on the National Council for Lesbian Rights that she believes he will support the homosexual agenda in redefining marriage, usurping the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear a case on California’s Proposition 8 regarding the state’s voter-approved ban on gay marriage. On Wednesday, the high court hears arguments about the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the Clinton-era law that recognizes marriage as only between one man and one woman for federal government purposes.
“I know that my cousin is a good man,” Jean Podrasky, 48, of San Francisco wrote. “I feel confident that John is wise enough to see that society is becoming more accepting of the humanity of same-sex couples and the simple truth that we deserve to be treated with dignity, respect, and equality under the law.
“Everyone in this country has a family member who is part of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community,” she wrote. “And that includes Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.”
Whether one has one of these perverted people in their family is irrelevant to the issue. Lots of people have adulterers, thieves, liars, murderers, rapists and all sorts of people who behave badly. That does not justify calling such behavior normal, nor do we look to establish it as a constitutional right.
“Tomorrow, my cousin, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, will begin considering the fate of two of the most important cases impacting the rights of the LGBT community ever to go before the Court—the challenges to California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA),” she wrote.
“As a Californian, I want nothing more than to marry my wonderful girlfriend,” Podrasky wrote. “And as a tax-paying citizen, I seek basic fairness. In over 1,000 ways, the government penalizes our relationship because it is not recognized under federal law. There are obviously many more reasons I want to get married, but there’s nothing more important to me than being legally recognized as married to the person I love—just like heterosexual couples.”

What would be fair is for Podrasky to recognize that her paying taxes does not indicate that she can claim a perverted behavior as “basic fairness.” In fact, she would be basically breaking the law in many states by engaging in homosexual activity. There is not a penalty for her relationship under Federal law any more than there is a penalty for a single person. In fact, the Federal government shouldn’t be deciding this issue in the first place. This is a state issue and the state of California has spoken and said they don’t want it. It is unnatural. It is an abomination.
Podrasky tried pointing out Ohio Senator Rob Portman’s “change of heart” over the matter of homosexuality in light of his son’s failure to clean the closet and instead come out of it. Portman wrote that he has “come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married.”
He also wrote that “the process of citizens persuading fellow citizens is how consensus is built and enduring change is forged.”
Sorry that isn’t how it works in the real world. Parents that love their children, love them enough to tell them when they are behaving badly and Christian parents definitely take time to love their children enough to correct their sinful behavior to the glory of God. My friends, the very definition of love is dismissed by these people by allowing others to wallow in a lifestyle that is destructive both to them and society at large. It is not a demonstration of love to allow it to continue uncorrected, but rather is a demonstration of hatred.
The LA Times reports,

Podrasky lives in San Francisco and usually sees Roberts only on family occasions. His mother is her godmother, whom she adores. She said Roberts knows she is gay and introduced her along with other relatives during his Senate confirmation hearing. She hopes he will meet her partner of four years, Grace Fasano, during their Washington visit. The couple flew to Washington on Sunday.
Podrasky obtained the highly coveted courtroom seats by emailing Roberts’ sister, Peggy Roberts, and then going through his secretary. Roberts knows she is attending, she said. She, her partner, her sister and her niece will attend Tuesday’s arguments on Proposition 8. On Wednesday, her father will take her niece’s place for the hearing on the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act.

“I believe he understands that ruling in favor of equality will not be out of step with where the majority of Americans now sit,” Podrasky writes. “I am hoping that the other justices (at least most of them) will share this view, because I am certain that I am not the only relative that will be directly affected by their rulings.”
Well Jean Podrasky, John Roberts was wrong on Obamacare and if he rules in your favor on this, he’ll be wrong on that. Apparently the majority of Californians disagree with you and so do a majority of Americans. From my perspective you can cry me a river about how you won’t be the only relative that will be directly affected by the ruling all you want to, there are tens of millions of us that will be affected by that same ruling should it go your way, including our children and their children as you and those like you will continue to push a homosexual agenda to “normalize” something that is not normal.
The charge to those engaging in homosexuality is not “special rights,” but rather repentance and turning from their sin to the only One that can save from sin, the Lord Jesus Christ. Until they are ready to close their mouth and stop offering excuses for their behavior though, they will never be ready to hear the gospel of grace. I pray God would stop their mouths and give them ears to hear and true repentance.

Read more: John Roberts' Cousin Says He’ll Rule In Favor Of Same-Sex “Marriage�



Sounds like they want to keep the payoffs in the family, well ruling it doesn't make it so...2x2 not 1x1 it is what it is!!!!

Yo, Goofy. There were gays in my day and I said Marriage is between a man and a woman.

By Clash Daily / 26 March 2013 / 2 Comments



Read more: Yo, Goofy. There were gays in my day and I said Marriage is between a man and a woman. :: Clash Daily

Starbucks Sucks: Their CEO Has Zero Tolerance for Tradional Marriage Supporters

By Clash Daily / 24 March 2013

At the Starbucks annual shareholders meeting on Wednesday, CEO Howard Schultz sent a clear message to anyone who supports traditional marriage over gay marriage: we don’t want your business. After saying Starbucks wants to “embrace diversity of all kinds,” he told a shareholder who supports traditional marriage that he should sell his shares and invest in some other company.


According to a report by Forbes, Schultz seemed a bit intolerant of any Starbucks shareholders who opposed gay marriage for moral or religious reasons. During the meeting, shareholder Tom Strobhar (who founded the Corporate Morality Action Center) pointed out that after the company voiced its support for a referendum backing gay marriage in Washington state, a boycott by traditional marriage supporters caused a drop in sales revenue. Schultz told him “You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company” if he did not agree with the company’s pro-gay marriage stand.


Read more: examiner.com

Read more: Starbucks Sucks: Their CEO Has Zero Tolerance for Tradional Marriage Supporters :: Clash Daily

Starbucks CEO Schultz Lashes out Against Pro-Traditional Marriage Shareholder

Tuesday, March 26, 2013
According to a report by Forbes, since having announced its financial support for Washington state’s referendum backing gay marriage, Starbucks has experienced a highly unusual decrease in national sales and earnings.
Last Wednesday at the Starbucks annual shareholders meeting, when an investor dared to challenge CEO Howard Schultz by suggesting that perhaps Starbucks’ advocacy for gay marriage legislation just might be contributing to declining profits in the first quarter, Schultz lashed out:
“If you feel, respectfully, that you can get a higher return than the 38% you got last year, it’s a free country. You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company. Thank you very much.”



Post Continues on theblacksphere.net



Starbucks CEO Schultz Lashes out Against Pro-Traditional Marriage Shareholder

Culture 31 comments



According to a report by Forbes, since having announced its financial support for Washington state’s referendum backing gay marriage, Starbucks has experienced a highly unusual decrease in national sales and earnings.

Last Wednesday at the Starbucks annual shareholders meeting, when an investor dared to challenge CEO Howard Schultz by suggesting that perhaps Starbucks’ advocacy for gay marriage legislation just might be contributing to declining profits in the first quarter, Schultz lashed out:

“If you feel, respectfully, that you can get a higher return than the 38% you got last year, it’s a free country. You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company. Thank you very much.”

Schultz’s intolerance and contempt for an opposing opinion was on full display in his disdainful response to a shareholder who supports a biblical view of marriage. Based on this very public scolding in front of hundreds of fellow shareholders, one can only surmise that Schultz holds similar contempt for Starbucks customers who also recognize marriage as a sacrament between one man and one woman.
Schultz’s public bullying of a Starbucks shareholder sends a loud and clear message to Americans who believe in traditional marriage: we are second-class customers.

While jumping on the same-sex bandwagon has become the cause du jour for politicians, when companies make the conscientious decision to enter the political fray by advocating for controversial policies, they inevitably tend to pay a heavy price. Both JC Penney and Abercrombie and Fitch have suffered from declining sales since choosing to side with causes rather than customers. Is Starbucks willing to risk the same demise?
Instead of berating his shareholders, and by extension all customers who may disagree with his stance on same-sex marriage, it would behoove Schultz to emulate his Chick Fil-A counterpart, Dan Cathy, on how to deal with opposing beliefs in a more tolerant and kind fashion.
Who can forget the throngs of Americans lining up outside of Chick Fil-A last July to show support for Dan Cathy’s remarks regarding his views of traditional marriage?
To refresh your memory, Cathy had stated in an interview with the Baptist Press that he believed marriage is a relationship ordained by God and exclusively designed for one man and one woman. The liberal media didn’t hesitate to pounce on Cathy’s remarks (which by the way are completely within mainstream evangelical thought) – characterizing the Chick Fil-A President as an anti-gay bigot while launching a full assault on his character.
Predictably, however, the media’s overreach became their shame as millions upon millions of Americans stood in line to patronize Chick Fil-A in support of Dan Cathy’s freedom of speech.
Yet even after the Chick Fil-brouhaha blew over, Dan Cathy never attempted to retaliate against the unjust character assassination or try to defend his core values to an unforgiving media. He didn’t lash out at the journalists who launched a full assault on his organization, nor did he go after the activists who ginned up protests on the blogosphere.
Instead, Dan Cathy allowed his past actions to speak volumes to his character as stories emerged regarding the charity and generosity of the entire Cathy Family.
And if remaining silent before his accusers wasn’t enough to endear the American people to Chick Fil-A, store owners demonstrated unusual hospitality by offering free food and drinks to protesters who took to the sidewalks in front of Chick Fil-A establishments with their anti-Cathy placards. Talk about heaping burning coals on your enemy’s head!
Clearly there is a stark contrast between the manners in which these two organizational leaders choose to engage those with whom they disagree.
Schultz, coming across as terribly thin-skinned when asked to defend Starbucks’ response to the marriage debate, has resorted to bullying and berating while Cathy has sought to reach out to his accusers with love and kindness.

For those of us who believe in the sanctity of marriage, the next time you sit down to enjoy your overpriced cup of elitist java, think about the words of Howard Schultz and reconsider if you are comfortable supporting an organization that is willing to publically bully into submission those who believe in the sanctity of marriage.
You may discover that Starbucks coffee is just too dark and bitter to swallow. May I suggest some refreshing sweet ice tea instead?

http://theblacksphere.net/2013/03/starbucks-ceo-schultz-lashes-out-against-pro-traditional-marriage-shareholder/

Joe the Plumber
I see a few of my pro-gay marriage friends sporting a new profile pic, so I decided update mine.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...-redefining-it

The Supreme Court Has Already Ruled on Homosexual Marriage

In the nineteenth century, the courts agreed that it was necessary for the State to acknowledge the biblical requirement of monogamy over against polygamy (many wives). Marriage is by definition a union of one man and one woman.

The courts justified their rulings because of moral absolutes found in the Christian religion. What was true of polygamy was equally true of homosexuality since homosexuality was illegal in all the states, including the Mormon-populated state of Utah. The arguments against polygamy applied to homosexuality with little or no debate.

In The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States (1890), the court determined that “[t]he organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity had produced in the Western world.”
If the Supreme Court rules to strike down the decision of the voters of California to prohibit homosexual marriage, there won’t be anything standing in the way of people who want to have multiple husbands and wives.

In his dissent in the Romer v. Evans (1996) decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the following:
“Has the Court concluded that the perceived social harm of polygamy is a ‘legitimate concern of government,’ and the perceived social harm of homosexuality is not?”

The legal door will be open for the next minority group to argue for their marriage rights. Don’t be surprised if NAMBLA (The North American Man/Boy Love Association) becomes more public with its claim that sex with children is just as valid as same-sex sex and multiple marriage partners.

In Davis v. Beason (1890) the Supreme Court came to a similar conclusion using a religious argument:

“Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman, and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society, and receive more general or more deserved punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community. To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind.”

Without any way to account for making laws other than judicial or legislative fiat, anything goes if there is no outside reference point for judgment. What’s legal today could, on the judgment of five of nine justices, be illegal tomorrow.

There has been an almost universal prohibition of homosexuality, condemned by both church and State for thousands of years. “When the first great book on the English Legal system was written — [William] Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England — its author referred to sodomy as ‘the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast . . . the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature.’”^[1]

As in England and the rest of Europe, sodomy was illegal in the thirteen American colonies. Nothing changed with the drafting of the Constitution in 1787. No supposed “right to privacy” was put in the Constitution that legalized the practice. These early Christian politicians, lawyers, and statesmen saw no problem in mixing religion with politics in the case of sodomy.

A ruling by the Supreme Court to legalize homosexual marriage will place a moral burden on 97 percent of the population that does engage in homosexuality. Once homosexual marriage is legalized, every American citizen and business will have to submit to the ruling. And I can assure you that any resistance will be met with severe retribution by lawyers representing the powerful homosexual lobby.

Read more: The Supreme Court Has Already Ruled on Homosexual Marriage