breaking news top stories world news politics headlines conservative news liberal news fox news fake news economic news socio political government news updates political blogs editorials illegal immigrant racism terrorism trump trump biden obama clinton mueller investigation dossier russia china congress scandal fbi nas cia doj intelligence science news election news worldwide news invasion migrants republicans CDC WHO democrats, schumer pelosi cortez harris Ilhan omar tlaib Covid-19 pandemic
theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer
Friday, June 28, 2013
Pelosi: 'Who cares' what she thinks?
Dismisses congresswoman's concern for marriage
U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the former speaker of the House who lost her leadership position when the Democrats failed to obtain a majority in the U.S. House in 2010 and once spent tens of thousands of dollars on snacks as the taxpayers ferried her back and forth, apparently doesn’t have a lot of concern for someone else’s worries.
The evidence came after U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., released a statement on the Supreme Court’s actions today. The justices on a technical point allowed to stand a homosexual judge’s ruling benefiting homosexuals in California, and struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
The two actions ripped a chasm in the fabric of the United States, which was founded on the concepts of Christianity and the fundamental building block of society being the man-woman and children family, Bachmann suggested.
“Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted,” Bachmann said. “For thousands of years of recorded human history, no society has defended the legal standard of marriage as anything other than between man and woman. Only since 2000 have we seen a redefinition of this foundational unit of society in various nations.
“Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to join the trend, despite the clear will of the people’s representatives through DOMA. What the court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States,” she said.
Only a short time later, when pro-homosexual politicians were appearing before reporters, one reporter posed the question about what they thought about Bachmann’s comments.
Pelosi’s response? “Who cares?”
Others had a somewhat less abrasive tone.
Rep. Jerry Nadler said, “It’s very important to understand that people can believe what they want. They can go to what church they want, what synagogue, what they can believe what about temple, what mosque. Marriage or anything else they want. That’s a question of religious belief. We’re not dealing with religious belief in all these questions. We’re dealing with what the state or the federal government does. We have a separation of church and state in this country. So for government purposes, you can be married. The church may not recognize this. That’s their business. If you don’t want to recognize it from a religious point of view, it’s your business. No one is forcing anybody to get married. The point of the separation of church and state is that when we deal with public business and the consecration – not the consecration, but the celebration of marriage by the state, the recognition by the state of who’s married is not a religious question.”
Barack Obama seemed to try to reassure the faithful he wouldn’t be demanding churches submit to his homosexual agenda immediately, too.
“How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision – which applies only to civil marriages – changes that,” he said.
But other members of Congress joined Bachmann later in a news conference, where the theme robustly blasted the Supreme Court justices for being out of their league.
“The Supreme Court has not yet risen to the level of God,” Bachmann said then. “They attack something they have no jurisdiction over whatsoever. Marriage is something created by God, and it is something God will define.”
She pointedly noted that while the court was claiming to be acting on “equal protection,” the judges actually were denying equal protection to voters who elected the representatives and senators, and President Bill Clinton, who voted for and signed DOMA.
Also, the judges were trashing to voting rights of Californians who voted for a one-man-one-woman marriage definition.
“What the Supreme Court is saying is they are asserting the supremacy of the court over all three branches of government,” she said.
Joining Bachman was Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, who said, “It’s a sad day when unelected judges turn their backs on the will of voters and their elected representatives.”
Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana said, “The Supreme Court got it wrong.”
And Rep. Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania added, “People acted through the democratic process to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Now they see their decision invalidated. [The court] got it wrong in both cases.”
Rep. Tim Wahlberg of Michigan said, “Society itself is at risk.”