Seriously, we've been warning you about the slippery slope, but proponents of different life styles, behavior controlling laws, and other inane policies have denied that there will be unintended consequences if their desired policies are put into place. How's that working out for you?
Mayor Bill de Blasio, aka Moonbat Crazy Man, signed a bill into law that will make it illegal for an employer to inquire into a prospective employee's background, at least the criminal history part of their background. "Today I see hope for people like me" said Marilyn Scales, 52, who claims to have never had a full time job because of her record for dealing heroin. I'd bet there's more to the story than just her criminal history. But why don't I have a right to know who I am hiring? They broke laws that we as a society put into place because that behavior is dangerous, wrong, immoral, etc. What about child molesters applying at a school or daycare? I have hired felons to work before, knowingly, but I had a chance to ask them about their past and ascertain why they did what they did and what they've done to ensure they aren't going to regress into bad behaviors. If someone is rehabilitated or just suffered bad luck, they deserve a chance, but I also have a right to protect myself and my property. At least, I used to have that right, but not in NYC anymore.
We said it was going to happen, but many of you said it would not. After the gay marriage decision was handed down by the Supreme Court, others living alternative lifestyles have come forward to demand their 'right' to marry. Nathan Collier and his legal wife, Victoria, have now applied for a license to marry Christine, legally. Nathan lives in Helena, MT and married Victoria 15 years ago. In 2007 Nathan decided he wanted to bring Christina into the relationship, with Victoria's blessing, they held a religious ceremony to recognize their commitment to each other. However they never signed a marriage certificate because MT, like all the other states, has made bigamy illegal. The county clerk initially denied the request but has backed off under threat of a lawsuit and is consulting with the district attorney as to how the latest decision from the Supreme Court affects MT law. Chief Justice Roberts said in his dissenting opinion that people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal arguments about not having the opportunity to marry disrespects them and subordinates them.
You may not be offended by a polygamous marriage but does pedophilia bother you? Sorry, that door is now wide open after being beaten on for years. Several news outlets are already reporting that pedophiles have begun clamoring for the right to marry children. They define their desires as sexual orientation which falls right in line with the wording used by the gay rights activists in fighting for the right to marry whomever they would like. Let's look at history to see if pedophiles have a legal leg upon which to support their argument. In 1973 homosexuality was removed from the list of mental disorders as defined by the American Psychiatric Association. It was then called a sexual orientation. In 1998 the APA issued a report saying the "negative potential" of adult sex with children was "overstated" and that the "vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences." So there, what you've seen on Law & Order is just made up hyperbole. In the Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, sexual orientation was defined as a protected class. So, now pedophiles are claiming that pedophilia is a sexual orientation and a number of psychiatrists are backing their claims. Now sexual orientation cannot be used to deny a marriage license. Using liberal logic, we must protect all of those with alternative sexual orientations... you see where this is going.
The simple fact is, the recent decisions of the Supreme Court have pushed us down a road no one intended to go down. More importantly, the Justices have twisted our Constitution beyond recognition and destroyed the rights of the states, aka the people, to make their own choices and decisions. I would argue, this is what the liberals wanted all along. Well, you've let them get what they wanted, how do you like them now?