Gay Marriage Upheld by Supreme Court

[Roy92040]

I don't really give two good ***** what they do as long as I don't have to watch two guys swapping spit on TV. That's disgusting.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Truly, gays getting married is going to oppress us all. And the confederate flag not being flown on state property, how is that a bad thing?


Yeah, right-wingers have been crying "this is melting down around us" since the beginning of time.

You continue to turn this into a right-wing hate thing, because your narrow view will only allow you to see as such.

Gays getting married doesn't oppress anyone. When my preacher is led from church in cuffs on hate speech charges for speaking about homosexuality being a sin, explain to me how that is not oppression? When the Government can infringe on my free speech and tell me which flags I can fly, and which I cannot, how is that not oppressing my Rights to Free Speech?

Stick to the basics Tibs and answer the questions.

 

[Troglodyte]

Somewhere Putin is laughing

If you look closely, you can see the words "Remember us in November!"

 

[Sarge]

Gay marriage is not the problem. The problem is in how the court arrived at their decision. If they can do that with Obamacare and Gay Marriage, where does it stop?

A bigger problem is that folks who follow politics are more interested in "their side" winning. Doesn't matter what it is. Doesn't matter the consequences. Just have to be "right."

 

[Tibs]

When my preacher is led from church in cuffs on hate speech charges for speaking about homosexuality being a sin, explain to me how that is not oppression?

Has this happened to your preacher? When, and in which city?

When the Government can infringe on my free speech and tell me which flags I can fly, and which I cannot, how is that not oppressing my Rights to Free Speech?

Has the government told you which flag you can fly and which you cannot? When, and in which city?

 

[Spike]

The Supreme Court has gone rogue. It's now creating new laws, instead of interpreting laws.



Ted Cruz: Constitutional Remedies to a Lawless Supreme Court

This week, we have twice seen Supreme Court justices violating their judicial oaths. Yesterday, the justices rewrote Obamacare, yet again, in order to force this failed law on the American people. Today, the Court doubled down with a 5–4 opinion that undermines not just the definition of marriage, but the very foundations of our representative form of government.

Both decisions were judicial activism, plain and simple. Both were lawless.

If the Court is unwilling to abide by the specific language of our laws as written, and if it is unhindered by the clear intent of the people’s elected representatives, our constitutional options for reasserting our authority over our government are limited.

The Framers of our Constitution, despite their foresight and wisdom, did not anticipate judicial tyranny on this scale. The Constitution explicitly provides that justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,” and this is a standard they are not remotely meeting. The Framers thought Congress’s “power of instituting impeachments,” as Alexander Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers, would be an “important constitutional check” on the judicial branch and would provide “a complete security” against the justices’ “deliberate usurpations of the authority of the legislature.”

The Framers underestimated the justices’ craving for legislative power, and they overestimated the Congress’s backbone to curb it.
But the Framers underestimated the justices’ craving for legislative power, and they overestimated the Congress’s backbone to curb it. It was clear even before the end of the founding era that the threat of impeachment was, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, “not even a scarecrow” to the justices. Today, the remedy of impeachment — the only one provided under our Constitution to cure judicial tyranny — is still no remedy at all. A Senate that cannot muster 51 votes to block an attorney-general nominee openly committed to continue an unprecedented course of executive-branch lawlessness can hardly be expected to muster the 67 votes needed to impeach an Anthony Kennedy.

The time has come, therefore, to recognize that the problem lies not with the lawless rulings of individual lawless justices, but with the lawlessness of the Court itself. The decisions that have deformed our constitutional order and have debased our culture are but symptoms of the disease of liberal judicial activism that has infected our judiciary. A remedy is needed that will restore health to the sick man in our constitutional system.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420409/ted-cruz-supreme-court-constitutional-amendment

 

[Spike]

Sign of the times...

The Religious Wars


‘Black Lives Matter,’ pastors collide with new rainbow America: ‘We will not obey an unjust law’

Coalition of African-American Pastors Threaten Civil Disobedience

Conservative African-American religious leaders stand with their white counterparts to oppose same-sex marriage—at any cost.

“If they rule for same-sex marriage, then we’re going to do the same thing we did for the civil rights movement,” said the Rev. Bill Owens, president and founder of CAAP. “We will not obey an unjust law.”

"God created marriage between a man and woman and no Supreme Court jurisdiction can define this," said Welch. "We stand clearly saying we will acknowledge God's law no matter what the cost, no matter what the price. If they want to fill jails with pastors across the nation of every color, denomination and every size who will stand for the laws of God and His truths."

"If it comes down to declining to perform same-sex weddings, that we will be charged with a civil or criminal penalty, then we will accept the penalty," said Welch. "But this isn't just about the wedding ceremony itself. This is a core, fundamental issue of our First Amendment freedom that the court is toying with right now. Either we have the right of freedom of conscience and religion and the freedom to practice it, or we don't."

http://www.theroot.com/articles/new...obedience_if_supreme_court_approves_same.html

-----------------------------

I'll wait to see what the Pope says


Statement from Michigan's Catholic Bishops

"The Catholic Church teaches that marriage is and can only be the union of one man and one woman. This union brings two persons together and, because of their natural biological composition, each bring qualities to the marriage that differ from one another. Man and woman complement each other; they then become united as one in marriage and together are unique in their ability to create new life based on sexual and reproductive differences.

Going forward, the Supreme Court’s decision to redefine marriage will have a significant ripple effect upon the first amendment right to religious liberty. It sets the Church’s teaching about marriage in opposition to the law and will create inestimable conflicts between the state and religious persons and institutions. As the impact of the decision plays out over the coming weeks and months the Catholic Church will continue to preach the truth about marriage and will promote, in the public square, this truth as what is good for society and our world."

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Has this happened to your preacher? When, and in which city?


Has the government told you which flag you can fly and which you cannot? When, and in which city?

Is my preacher protected from this happening in the future? Does he have Religious protections that his religious teachings will be protected under Religious Freedom or will Gay Rights, now guaranteed by the Constitution, trump his rights? Do tell.

Do you not have a problem with 5 people, unelected, changing Constitutional provisions?

If the next President is Conservative and stacks the court and the court decides to write into the Constitution that marriage is not a protected right and that abortion is illegal, you'll say those abuses of powers are just fine?

 

[Steelr4evr]

Is my preacher protected from this happening in the future? Does he have Religious protections that his religious teachings will be protected under Religious Freedom or will Gay Rights, now guaranteed by the Constitution, trump his rights? Do tell.

Do you not have a problem with 5 people, unelected, changing Constitutional provisions?

If the next President is Conservative and stacks the court and the court decides to write into the Constitution that marriage is not a protected right and that abortion is illegal, you'll say those abuses of powers are just fine?

Oh yes. He'd howl and moan. It would be epic. It's only good if they do it.

 

[RollRed]

Maybe now the homos will finally shut up about it.

I love comments like this.... Conservatives say **** like this and then get their panties in a bunch when they get accused of being bigots or racists....

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Yeah, right-wingers have been crying "this is melting down around us" since the beginning of time.

Depends on how forward-thinking one is.

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/yeeha...y-marriage-ruling-will-make-liberals-explode/

YEEhaw! This side-effect of the gay marriage ruling will make liberals EXPLODE
Written by Allen West on June 27, 2015
shotgun_wedding
Yesterday, as you know, five justices on the SCOTUS redefined what marriage is in America and also found the time to violate the concept of federalism. They decided that an individual’s behavioral choice was grounds to create a new “right” in the U.S. Constitution. Now of course there are those of you who are somewhat despondent, but just know that in every storm there is a rainbow — quite sure y’all get my tongue-in-cheek comment. Yep, since now the SCOTUS has determined it can bequeath a right to marriage across all 50 states, there is an interesting point to be made.

As reported by BearingArms.com, “If you’re following any of the various media outlets this morning, you’re probably aware that the U.S. Supreme Court has just extended gay marriage to all 50 states. The Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry nationwide, in a historic decision that invalidates gay marriage bans in more than a dozen states. Gay and lesbian couples already can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court’s ruling on Friday means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage. The outcome is the culmination of two decades of Supreme Court litigation over marriage, and gay rights generally.”

The Court used Section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to justify its argument, which reads: Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now here is the kicker, as the writer articulately brings to light: “By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice. The vast majority of states are “shall issue” on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states. My North Carolina concealed carry permit, for example, was recognized yesterday as being valid in 36 states, which just so happened to be the number of states in which gay marriage was legal yesterday. But 14 states did not recognize my concealed carry permit yesterday. Today they must.

Using the same “due process clause” argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.“

Yes folks, there is a standing right called the Second Amendment, which grants the right to keep and bear arms, and that specifically granted right shall not be infringed. So, the SCOTUS does not need to have a court case and prolonged legal, judicial activism — that right exists.
So, since I have moved from Florida to Texas, my concealed weapons permit is not only transferrable here, but all across the country, in all fifty states — or fifty-seven if you are President Obama. Yeehaw! Thanks to the LGBT community for making it very clear, my constitutionally declared right MUST be recognized in every state. Not only is it my right to keep and bear my arms (weapons) but that personal choice is central to my individual dignity and autonomy — the protection of the unalienable rights granted to me by the Creator, the first of which is life. Hot doggone, I just cannot wait to hear the liberal progressive socialist anti-gun argument against this premise — which is now established!

Perhaps I should probably remind folks of some of the quotes of the Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment:

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” — Benjamin Franklin

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” — George Mason

“No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” — Richard Henry Lee

“[W]hat country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” — Thomas Jefferson

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military, supplies.” — George Washington

“An armed person is a citizen, and unarmed person is a subject” — Allen B. West…I know, I’m just a regular fella, but just thought I’d sneak this one in.

Now, I suppose someone will say the words of Franklin, Mason, Lee, Jefferson, and Washington are invalid because of some lame excuse like — “ya know they owned slaves.” But the point is simple and easy to comprehend. If the SCOTUS could create a right that is truly non-existent in the Constitution using the 14th Amendment, then it seems reasonable and logical to use the same Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and equal protection to extend the concealed carry right to all 50 states.

So here is the call to action: since we are coming up on our 239th Independence Day celebration, let’s all call the White House and inform them that we CCL owners are going to be traveling for the Independence Day holiday and we plan on carrying our weapons wherever the heck we please. And if anyone decides to stop an American citizen and challenge his or her Second Amendment right, then let’s discuss the violation of federalism by the SCOTUS mandating same-sex marriage. As a matter of fact, we expect the ATF to start issuing NATIONAL CCL cards to all of us who are current holders of valid CCLs — heck, we know the DHS is planning on printing ID cards for illegal immigrants.

Therefore, celebrate your 4th of July knowing that the SCOTUS just solidified our right to keep and bear arms — and that no state has the “right” to infringe upon our Second Amendment right. If the violation of federalism works ok for LGBTs — then it works well for gun owners!

Yeehaw!

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Truly, gays getting married is going to oppress us all.

Canada went this route 10 years ago. Yes...yes it will oppress us all. Let us learn from our northern neighbors. The writer grew up in a gay family. She's no homophobe, so don't try that angle please.

http://www.aleteia.org/en/society/a...ge-erodes-fundamental-rights-5794749092986880

A Warning From Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights

I want to warn America to expect severe erosion of First Amendment freedoms if the US Supreme Court mandates same-sex marriage. The consequences have played out in Canada for ten years now, and they are truly Orwellian in nature and scope.

In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is taking place in the United States could not legally exist in Canada today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.

Over and over, we are told, “permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.” That is a lie. When same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada in 2005, parenting was immediately redefined. Canada’s gay marriage law, Bill C-38, included a provision to erase the term “natural parent” and replace it across the board with gender-neutral “legal parent” in federal law. Now all children only have “legal parents,” as defined by the state...

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that men and women are anatomically, biologically, physiologically, psychologically, hormonally, and neurologically different from each other. These unique differences provide lifelong benefits to children that cannot be duplicated by same-gender “legal” parents acting out different gender roles or attempting to substitute for the missing male or female role model in the home.

In effect, same-sex marriage not only deprives children of their own rights to natural parentage, it gives the state the power to override the autonomy of biological parents, which means parental rights are usurped by the government.

In Canada, it is considered discriminatory to say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that every child should know and be raised by his or her biological married parents. It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so; you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and forced to take sensitivity training.

Anyone who is offended by something you have said or written can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. In Canada, these organizations police speech, penalizing citizens for any expression deemed in opposition to particular sexual behaviors or protected groups identified under “sexual orientation.” It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.

The plaintiff making the complaint has his legal fees completely paid for by the government. Not so the defendant. Even if the defendant is found innocent, he cannot recover his legal costs. If he is found guilty, he must pay fines to the person(s) who brought forth the complaint.

If your beliefs, values, and political opinions are different from the state’s, you risk losing your professional license, job, or business, and even your children. Look no further than the Lev Tahor Sect, an Orthodox Jewish sect. Many members, who had been involved in a bitter custody battle with child protection services, began leaving Chatham, Ontario, for Guatemala in March 2014, to escape prosecution for their religious faith, which conflicted with the Province’s guidelines for religious education. Of the two hundred sect members, only half a dozen families remain in Chatham.

Parents can expect state interference when it comes to moral values, parenting, and education—and not just in school. The state has access into your home to supervise you as the parent, to judge your suitability. And if the state doesn’t like what you are teaching your children, the state will attempt to remove them from your home.

When same-sex marriage was created in Canada, gender-neutral language became legally mandated. Newspeak proclaims that it is discriminatory to assume a human being is male or female, or heterosexual. So, to be inclusive, special non-gender-specific language is being used in media, government, workplaces, and especially schools to avoid appearing ignorant, homophobic, or discriminatory. A special curriculum is being used in many schools to teach students how to use proper gender-neutral language. Unbeknownst to many parents, use of gender terms to describe husband and wife, father and mother, Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, and “he” and “she” is being steadily eradicated in Canadian schools.

Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian citizens were supposed to have been guaranteed: (1) freedom of conscience and religion; (2) freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (3) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (4) freedom of association. In reality, all of these freedoms have been curtailed with the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Wedding planners, rental halls, bed and breakfast owners, florists, photographers, and bakers have already seen their freedoms eroded, conscience rights ignored, and religious freedoms trampled in Canada. But this is not just about the wedding industry. Anybody who owns a business may not legally permit his or her conscience to inform business practices or decisions if those decisions are not in line with the tribunals’ decisions and the government’s sexual orientation and gender identity non-discrimination laws. In the end, this means that the state basically dictates whether and how citizens may express themselves.

Freedom to assemble and speak freely about man-woman marriage, family, and sexuality is now restricted. Most faith communities have become “politically correct” to avoid fines and loss of charitable status. Canadian media are restricted by the Canadian Radio, Television, and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which is similar to the FCC. If the media air anything considered discriminatory, broadcasting licenses can be revoked, and “human rights bodies” can charge fines and restrict future airings.

An example of legally curtailed speech regarding homosexuality in Canada involves the case of Bill Whatcott, who was arrested for hate speech in April 2014 after distributing pamphlets that were critical of homosexuality. Whether or not you agree with what he says, you should be aghast at this state-sanctioned gagging. Books, DVDs, and other materials can also be confiscated at the Canadian border if the materials are deemed “hateful.”

Indeed, it appears gays getting married may well oppress us all. I mean, we're all wearing tin foil hats right? It's happening in Canada as we speak. We're next.

 

[Troglodyte]

15 million children in the U.S. don't have a father, but children being raised by two gay parents is what's going to **** everything up?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

15 million children in the U.S. don't have a father, but children being raised by two gay parents is what's going to **** everything up?

Please reference my article above your post. The entire article. See what's coming.

 

[oneforthebus]

If the next President is Conservative and stacks the court and the court decides to write into the Constitution that marriage is not a protected right and that abortion is illegal, you'll say those abuses of powers are just fine?

Don't expect an answer to this. Expect more "right wing bigot hater redneck Christian" rhetoric in answer to this very important question.

 

[ZonaBurgh]

Has this happened to your preacher? When, and in which city?


Has the government told you which flag you can fly and which you cannot? When, and in which city?

Here you go...


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/20/idaho-citys-ordinance-tells-pastors-to-marry-gays-/

 

[Yinzerlyn]

Has this happened to your preacher? When, and in which city?


Has the government told you which flag you can fly and which you cannot? When, and in which city?

Have you NOT seen the Confederate flag uproar?

 

[RollRed]

Canada went this route 10 years ago. Yes...yes it will oppress us all. Let us learn from our northern neighbors. The writer grew up in a gay family. She's no homophobe, so don't try that angle please.

http://www.aleteia.org/en/society/a...ge-erodes-fundamental-rights-5794749092986880

A Warning From Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights











Indeed, it appears gays getting married may well oppress us all. I mean, we're all wearing tin foil hats right? It's happening in Canada as we speak. We're next.

So the point here is that there maybe some negative consequences to giving gay folks the freedom to marry. Let's suppose this is true. Is the argument that the consequences are severe enough that this freedom should be denied? If it is then I can think of one freedom that should be rescinded tomorrow. The freedom to possess firearms. I'm not for a minute saying this right/ freedom should be taken away, but if we're denying others the right to do something based on the possibility of negative consequences... guns should be first on the list. The rights granted in the 2nd Ammendment have led to an ease of accessibility by people that should never in a million years be in posession of a firearm. Yet I don't hear anyone on the right saying they should be outlawed. The possible negative outcomes that may arise from allowing gay people to marry are no where near as horrible as the negative outcomes of allowing the general public access to firearms. Again I'm not saying we should outlaw ownership of guns... My point is that if you're going to argue against gay marriage or any other law that would grant rights or freedoms to folks that were previously denied them based on their potential for negative consequences, remember the right to own guns is the mothership of negative consequences.

 

[Troglodyte]

Please reference my article above your post. The entire article. See what's coming.

Yea, I'm not buying it. Political correctness preceded gay marriage in the U.S., if not in Canada.

 

[Troglodyte]

Have you NOT seen the Confederate flag uproar?

There's no law saying citizens can't fly the confederate flag. That's a lot different than state and local governments deciding not fly it.

 

[Rod Farva]

Does this set precedent to disallow states to independently decide at what age people can legally marry, if it's legal for first cousins to marry, etc.?

Don't statutory rape laws vary by state as well?

There are no more "states." See the AHCA ruling.

What bothers me again is this is not supposed to be the province of the Supreme Court. .

I guess the SC will tell you what is or is not their province, peasant.

We were at a tipping point where so many of the states accepted gay marriage that having 10-12 "dissenting" locations became problematic. What happens if a married couple recognized in California has an car accident in Texas and a "spouse" was refused the right to decide life support or medical care?

In the opinion of the liberal side of the Supreme Court it became more important to just take the leap and force this issue upon the country once and or all. They did it with many of the civil rights issues as well. The few states that wanted to hang on to Jim Crow laws had to finally be forced to "catch up" to America. And they did it with abortion in 1973.

In most instances when the court overreaches on it's power a bit, they turn out to be mostly "ahead of the time" and in 20-30 years we'll look back at the idea of arguing over a word like "marriage" as kind of silly.

But I do somewhat agree with the conservative justices that this is a somewhat abusive act by the judicial branch. That it is beyond what the founding fathers had intended the judicial branch to be doing in the 1776 "blueprint" of our country. But in many ways that original blueprint has to bend and morph a bit for the times. I'm all for states' rights. I'm all for leaning more towards a a true united states republic and less toward a one-nation democracy. I want larger state governments, more state taxes, more state programs and less federal government, less federal taxes and less federal responsibility.

But I also understand that on some issues having states do their own things causes more trouble than it's worth and on this issue I think I agree with the Supreme Court verdict.

What a confusing opinion?

I love comments like this.... Conservatives say **** like this and then get their panties in a bunch when they get accused of being bigots or racists....

And idiot liberals will rise to any bait like a stocked trout.

So the point here is that there maybe some negative consequences to giving gay folks the freedom to marry. Let's suppose this is true. Is the argument that the consequences are severe enough that this freedom should be denied? If it is then I can think of one freedom that should be rescinded tomorrow. The freedom to possess firearms. I'm not for a minute saying this right/ freedom should be taken away, but if we're denying others the right to do something based on the possibility of negative consequences... guns should be first on the list. The rights granted in the 2nd Ammendment have led to an ease of accessibility by people that should never in a million years be in posession of a firearm. Yet I don't hear anyone on the right saying they should be outlawed. The possible negative outcomes that may arise from allowing gay people to marry are no where near as horrible as the negative outcomes of allowing the general public access to firearms. Again I'm not saying we should outlaw ownership of guns... My point is that if you're going to argue against gay marriage or any other law that would grant rights or freedoms to folks that were previously denied them based on their potential for negative consequences, remember the right to own guns is the mothership of negative consequences.

Nope. The issue here is judicial legislation. Did you read the consequences of Canada's decision? In addition gun ownership is actually a very clearly guaranteed right in the Constitution .........gay marriage, not so much. You are either being deliberately obtuse or you really are dumb.

Yea, I'm not buying it. Political correctness preceded gay marriage in the U.S., if not in Canada.

Political correctness is more or less a socially "enforced" matter. There's a HUGE difference between that and governmentally enforced. Watch and see.

 

[Yinzerlyn]

There's no law saying citizens can't fly the confederate flag. That's a lot different than state and local governments deciding not fly it.

You're right.

However, I can foresee the gov't doing that in the not so distant future.

 

[Tibs]

However, I can foresee the gov't doing that in the not so distant future.

Abstaining from paranoia is a difficult choice, but a choice nonetheless.

 

[Yinzerlyn]

Abstaining from paranoia is a difficult choice, but a choice nonetheless.

Thanks. Dr. Phil. I'll remember that the next time I put on my tin foil hat.

 

[Troglodyte]

You're right.

However, I can foresee the gov't doing that in the not so distant future.

With or without repealing the 1st amendment?