Why Use the Supreme Court?

Same-sex “marriage” was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, and was decided by judges in many states before. Self-determination would not have worked.

There is, oddly, a pro same-sex “marriage” writer for Red State: Leon H. Wolf. And he has written about how much he disagrees with the Supreme Court’s decision: “Obergefell Reaches the Right Result via the Wrong Process.”

For understandable reasons, most of my fellow front pagers at RedState are opposed to same sex marriage in principle, and are thus dismayed by today’s Supreme Court opinion in Obergefell. For reasons I have set forth before here, I’m in favor of same sex marriage in principle, but I am equally or more dismayed by what the Supreme Court has done today. Many, many shortsighted people who are in favor of same sex marriage are rejoicing at today’s ruling, either because they are unfamiliar with the inherent mischief in allowing the courts to decide policy arguments that are better left to the legislature or because (if they are liberals) they view this as a feature, not a bug. It is especially injurious to the rule of law as a whole that today’s opinion was authored by Anthony Kennedy, unquestionably the dimmest Supreme Court judge and least well-reasoned author on the Court since at least Justice William Douglas.

I have no real knowledge about Kennedy to confirm or deny that judgment, though I am certain he is making bad decisions. It is quite sickening that Kennedy was appointed by Ronald Reagan. Same-sex “marriage” is being imposed on us as part of his legacy.

But back to Wolf’s argument: I won’t rehash his reasons for disliking the Supreme Court interfering in the culture and legislative processes of the state governments. I want to take issue with one claim he makes:

Same sex marriage is and was gaining in popularity throughout the country. Given another five or at the most ten years, it would likely have been legal by legislative action in all fifty states.

It is true that same sex marriage was gaining popularity. But it wasn’t at all clear that it was going to continue to do so. “Diminishing returns” may well have been setting in. Before the Supreme Court ruling, almost all states where same sex “marriage” was recognized, did so because a Federal judge over-ruled the state’s laws. Remember, even California voted against same sex “marriage.” New Hampshire stands out as one of the rare states that actually passed a law recognizing same sex “marriage.” There were one or two others, I think. But the majority of changes came from the courts, not the legislatures or other forms of local self government.

The homosexual lobby clearly used the Supreme Court in order to circumvent popular feeling on the issue.

the Federal Appellate system – and the Supreme Court in particular, tends to be composed of a remarkably narrow slice of the American population, which makes them temperamentally ill-suited to make policy for the entirety of such a large and diverse country.

Exactly right. The culture of a few Ivy League schools is given dominion over the entire country. But there was no other way same sex “marriage” could be invented.

<> I won’t rehash his reasons for disliking the Supreme Court interfering in the culture and legislative processes of the state governments.<>

Scotus didn't just interfere last week. Not only did it rewrite law once again, it overturned dozens of state statutes and constitutional amendments.

Folks, Scotus repealed republican, free government. Our national government is 100% arbitrary. It shook itself free from any constraints to its power.

Reps and "senators" do not make law; that has been assigned to the exec and judiciary.

Why do we even have a Congress anymore. The President and his Supreme Court buddies can just make all the laws.

Why do we even have a Congress anymore

To fool the People into believing they still rule themselves.

Joined FR on 9 June 2015 and have posted two articles on same-sex marriage, without posting a single comment.

Do you wish to discuss these articles, or do you just have an agenda to sorta "rub-it-in-the-faces" of Conservatives?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.