Posted on 03/30/2005 6:21:32 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
It was a shocking—yet not unexpected—decision by the Supreme Court. Speaking for the 5-4 majority, Justice Kennedy wrote that laws barring same-sex “marriage” infer “that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.” Thus—by the stroke of a pen—the Court struck down state laws banning gay “marriage.”
Okay, it hasn’t happened—yet. But if the words sound familiar, it’s because they come from Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Romer v. Evans. That’s the ruling in which the Court overturned a democratically enacted Colorado law barring special civil rights protections based on sexual orientation. While the Supremes have not yet imposed gay “marriage” on America, they will the minute they get the chance. That’s why the Congress must act immediately on a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.
The stage is already being set. In a recent California case, Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled that laws barring gay “marriage” impermissibly deny the constitutional right to equality. That case could soon reach the high court. Or challenges to one of the thirty-eight Defense of Marriage Act statutes that have been enacted across America could come before the Court at any time. It is not a question of if; it is a question how soon.
At that point, does anyone think that the Supremes will not declare gay “marriage” a constitutionally protected right on the very grounds that Kennedy has already stated in Romer? Or they might choose to rely on Justice Kennedy’s reasoning in Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Court struck down a Texas anti-sodomy statute on the grounds it denied the rights of “two adults who [engage] in sexual practices common to homosexual lifestyle.”
Or the Court could instead invoke the “emerging international consensus” ploy. In the recent Simmons decision, the courts held that executing juveniles—even those who commit premeditated, heinous murders—violates the Constitution. Kennedy, again writing for the majority, referred to a fashionable new basis of constitutional interpretation: that is, determining what more sophisticated judges in Europe—or in Jamaica, India, or Zimbabwe—think. “It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty,” intoned Kennedy. Proper? What does international opinion have to do with the American Constitution? Justice Kennedy and company appear to be relying on everything except our own Constitution.
That is why I’m becoming increasingly impatient with politicians who say we don’t need a constitutional amendment. Let the states do it. But remember, the Supremes did not allow the states to work out their own laws regarding abortion, protection for homosexuals, or the death penalty: They’ve simply imposed their will.
It’s time for Christians to say “enough is enough.” The handwriting is on the wall. Our robed masters will impose gay “marriage” on America unless we marshal our forces and pass a constitutional amendment.
A vote is expected in the Congress this summer. If we cannot muster genuine outrage over this issue, then we will deserve the consequences: the almost certain “constitutional” protection of same-sex “marriage”—and the destruction of marriage itself.
I've heard it pointed out several times since the Massachusetts decision that passage of gay marriage in one state will not force any other state to allow gay marriage. That is true. It's also true that no state that had a ban on abortion was forced to allow them when other states decriminalized it.
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Nothing would surprise me when it comes to the American judicial system.
When the hell are the politicians going to stand up and take back the authority they are elected to exercise?
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
The decision will be written by Justice Kennedy and will be based on "International Law", "International Public Opinion", and "Evolving American Morality".
Our black robed masters will do as they like.
Just as George III and Lord North did...
They will do it with sleight of hand. They'll uphold the gay marriage law in MA and VT, and that will set the stage for a cramdown on the rest of the nation. They've already ruled that states are bound to recognize each others marriages.
Call me skeptical, but I don't think they have the "courage" to do it. After how anti-gay marriage amendments fared in November, I think the Justices may realize they could lose bigtime if they invalidated all the state constitutional amendments.
Does anyone know how many state constitutions specifically forbid gay marriage?
I think he means Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned Romer.
We need congress to declare some things are outside of court jurisdiction. Marriage, restrictions on public displays of religion, etc.
was it 34 or so?
its a majority of the states in any case I believe....
How so?
Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1 & 2 of the Constitution of the United States
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
No, there is nothing that will prevent them from changing the law in the future except our hot breath breathing down their necks.
Time for a star chamber overlay system? Tribal elder model.
BTTT
I hope some good Congressmen and Senators are reading up on impeachment and trials of Justices. It's about time to put them in their place.
When the First Amendment was gutted, it was a serious wake-up call. If they overturn a 70%+ opinion of the electorate, it will be time to throw a few out.
re; "...and the destruction of marriage itself."
Last August I attended a very traditional HETERO m@rri@ge here in the Great White North and NOWHERE did I see any sign that the happy couple, their parents, peers or wellwishers felt THAT m@rri@ge was in any way diminished, denigrated, degraded or "destroyed" in that joyous moment by the thought that someone ELSE of homosexual persuasion was ALSO entering into Matrimony with THEIR chosen partner.
Though I had no reason to ask them I suspect if it had been appropriate to inquire "Could somehow your Bliss at this happy event in YOUR life be diminuated by the thought that someone else 'different' to you is ALSO entering into Matrimony? they would have said that they would hope that EVERYONE could experience the Joy they were sharing in that blessed moment.
Certainly NO ONE there felt that THEIR m@rri@ge was 'destroyed' even though doubtless 'gay marriages' were also going on nearby that day. I suspect no one even thought about the fact gays were also marrying...I certainly didnt, just wished Sam and Laura well.
Fear of new and unfamiliar social change is understandable...and not only to conservatives...remember how the liberals were terrified that 'shall issue'/'right to carry' handgun carry-permit legislation if enacted widely by US states [now about 2/3 isnt it?] would lead to 'bloodbaths on the streets'.
Well it didnt happen...and neither will 'Traditional m@rri@ge' be 'destroyed' if OTHER forms of NONtraditional m@rri@ge [including gay m@rri@ge] that FREEmen and women CHOOSE for themselves are recognized by the High Court as their equal Right under Law in the Land Of The FREE and the Home Of The Brave.
Have some of that COURAGE; gay m@rri@ge is NOT the end of anything for those of us who would dearly love to choose the traditional kind...its simply a beginning for those who might choose otherwise. God bless Liberty.
Traditional m@rri@ge WASN'T 'destroyed' HERE last August when Sam and Laura entered into it and it WON'T be destroyed for y'all either [if the thought that gays might be married could make you feel YOURS is suddenly worthless methinks you have bigger problems than gay m@rri@ge LOLOL] if the Courts recognize and protect gays equal rights to m@rry under Law.
Okay y'all can 'attack' the Ol Canucklehead now ;-) ;-)
Two separate decisions,actually. Romer v. Evans struck down a voter referendum while Lawrence v. Texas struck down sodomy laws in every state in the union.
I think Colson is correct that the Council of Grand Ayatollahs will impose gay marriage by a stroke of the pen shortly - three years at the outside. Grand Ayatollah Kennedy will likely author the decision. The amendment would be wonderful, but I think that an Article 3 law that forbids judicial review would be the best route short term.
That is such a sick thought I had to laugh.
ping.
Take your homosexual advocacy back to DU.
I don't think anyone who can't spell marriage is worth attacking.
If you can't understand that undermining an ancient institution by redefining it into something it is not (and never has been...) won't damage society as a whole, its not worth the effort to argue with you.
You may be on the wrong Forum? What Free Republic is all about:
Statement by the founder of Free Republic
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.
We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.
I cant take anything BACK to DU since I've never been there...in fact until I came HERE I'd never heard of it.
I can spell it and many other words including ones like Honour, Valour etc that those like Mr. Webster who believe there is actually such a thing as a dictionary of 'American' [which is NOT a language, sorry Mr. Webster; OXFORD did your job FIRST and BETTER] never seem to be able to spell CORRECTLY ;-)...I choose not to for my own reasons which if you knew me well you would find completely understandable but which are personal and therefore I will not disclose here.
I mostly like and AGREE with that AFFIRMATIVE statement since I am VERY pro-God, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and pro-America.
I am NOT however a drone who follows EVERY part of ANY 'party line' in blind lockstep.
My view on pro-life/pro-choice for example is somewhat too NUANCED to fit either side's dogma EXACTLY and I usually find people on both 'sides' partially disagreeing with me which is fine imo.
And I am VERY anti-communist ever since the 'Bad Ol Days' and am QUITE pro-Capitalism FOR NOW - but I dont see Capitalism as the BE ALL/END ALL of economics FOREVER either since I believe that in the FUTURE either NANOASSEMBLER replicators/omniproducers or VON NEUMANN-type replicating space habitat/omniproduction facilities WILL obsolete the basic underpinning of ALL supply and demand based EARTHBOUND economics including Capitalism which is the soon-to-be obsolete notion of FINITE supply on Earth. Some may believe that Capitalism will continue to be accepted by Humanity [or perhaps Posthumanity] once the production capacity of Humankind exceeds 100% growth per annum and accelerating exponentially with NO "Limits To Growth" but I think a PARADIGM SHIFT will then occur to create an economics that is ENTIRELY NEW and as different from industrial/post-industrial economic systems as bronze age agrarianism was from neolithic nomadism.
And on THIS particular issue of gay m@rri@ge I also respectfully beg to differ with those who I MOSTLY agree with.
You must also endorse marriage between same sex adult sisters lest you be a hypocrite OR a Liberaltarian.
Which is it oh pro-sodomy cheerleader?
Yeah sure...either DU or Liberaltarian troll.
I suspect the former.
If the Supreme Court does declare this, they will by default also be declaring that polygamous marriage is a constitutionally protected right based on the very same legal grounds.
So, based on your comments, I would assume that you are in favor of allowing polygamous marriage. Am I correct?
I think you addressed the wrong poster here. The pro-Sodomite from Soviet Kanuckistan's post was above mine. I'm a traditionalist, and have no sympathy at all for such idiotic arguments.
I am a very pro-life conservative stay-at-home Mom. I used to be against gay marriage. I certainly am against the fiat and tyranny of the Men in Black. I despise the "liberal gay agenda."
Yet I have changed my opinion on gay marriage or at least legal secular partnership with all rights of marriage. I have come to think that conservative gays (of whom I know a few) should be allowed to support and be a part of conservative family life. Monogamy is good, and I'd like to see less promiscuity among both gays and straights. Sex is so cheapened by what's out there on TV every day, and in public. Straights are pretty raunchy themselves, these days. I welcome anyone who wants to live a committed, conservative, family-oriented life.
I am therefore not of one mind with 99.9% of Freepers on this subject, either.
Good for you -discuss and debate the merits of state sanctioned depraved sexual activity somewhere where it may be permitted and appreciated as legitimate.
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
I agree with his assesment. But I would amend one part -
"It’s time for Christians to say “enough is enough.” The handwriting is on the wall. Our robed masters will impose gay “marriage” on America unless we marshal our forces and pass a constitutional amendment."
I would change that to "people of every religious faith". Note how in Jerusalem religious leaders from the Christian, Jewish and even Muslim communities are banding together to fight the radical "gay" agenda from trying to defile Jerusalem and the people of faith there.
Let DirtyHarryY2K and me know if you want on/off this pinglist.
Thank you for posting that. I like to post it now and again, but you know how to make some of it red and blue which is cool.
I don't think George III had nearly as much power. He had a very contentious parliament to deal with.
Agreed. Congress can rein in the court right now.
Tell me this though. What makes SCOTUS superior to state constitutions? I don't see any language in the federal Consitution that gives SCOTUS purvue.
My Apologies, you are absolutely correct. I was addressing the pro-sodomy troll from up nort.
Why not just start calling it what it is.
The Oligarchy of the Nine.
If someone had told you ten years ago that the Court would have the "courage" to declare certain kinds of child porn "free speech," while deciding that political speech was not free at a certain time of the year or if paid for in a certain way, would you have believed them?
I'm not sure of the number, but consider this: Ban referenda passed in eleven out of eleven states in November, in margins over 60% in all cases, and two of those states (OR and MI) were states that Dubya lost by a wide margin. Even libs think this is a bad idea.
It will be hard, but it is necessary. If we fail to reign in the judiciary, the historians will point to the session where the Court placed "virtual" child porn under free speech protection and endorsed CFR, and say, "That's where they should have done something."
Agreed, especially about the Article 3 method.
Indeed. Right after the Court ruled in Lawrence vs. Texas, a polygamous trio (husband and wife looking to add on another wife) attempted to obtain a marriage license and are now suing Salt Lake County, citing that L v. T's reasoning concerning consenting adults and state interest clears the way for polygamous marriage. Frankly, I agree with them. If the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of moral issues that they are setting themselves up as, L v. T legalizes any marital or sexual arrangement consenting adults desire, end of story.
Excellent point. Yes, and no. George did have a rough time with Parliament, and that's one reason he asked Lord North to be PM, because he knew he was an excellent parliamentary tactician and would be tough (ruthless, even). But George would also just do end runs around them. For example, when he and North first became aware of the aliance between the Americans and the french, they witheld that information from Parliament. George was afraid they'd insist on war with France and really ruin his day.
If we don't rein them in soon, this country will either have a Lexington and Concord/Fort Sumter moment (bad) or we will be too whipped to have a Lexington and Concord/Fort Sumter moment (horrible).
1. What's with the "m@rri@ge" spelling?
2. You wrote this...
Fear of new and unfamiliar social change is understandable...and not only to conservatives...remember how the liberals were terrified that 'shall issue'/'right to carry' handgun carry-permit legislation if enacted widely by US states [now about 2/3 isnt it?] would lead to 'bloodbaths on the streets'.
Now let me ask this...what if the libs had been able to point to another country that had experienced a bloodbath in the streets when it adopted shall issue permits? That would bolster their argument, wouldn't it? In fact, it would be the best kind of evidence, no specualtion, no tortured conclusions, just "They did the same thing and this happened."
Well, here's the problem: In countries that have already jumped off this bridge, we've seen more kids born out of wedlock, few homosexual marriages/civil unions and plenty of suppression of free speech and religious practice. Why should any conservative favor and initiative which led to more fatherless households and tyrannical restrictions, especially if the folks it was supposed to benefit won't take advantage of it?
3. Last time I checked, the same homosexual activists who are pushing homosexual marriage had bullied your country into restricting freedom of speech and religion. If Sam and Laura want to go out on the street corner with a bullhorn or on the radio and read Romans 1, do they get to? Will the Swedish pastor sent to jail for reading Bible passages about homosexuality in a church feel his freedom is undiminished because Sam and Laura had a nice wedding? Are you really going to lecture us about "fear" of social change from a country where the government is afraid of Christians reading things out loud?
4. Have you read any of these:
Results of gay marriage in Scandinavia.
Results of gay marriage in Holland
Where it will lead sociologically.
Let's be nice, live-and-let-live libertarian types, just like in Canada.
(In Sweden and Canada gay activists got parts of the Bible made "illegal." Do we want to encourage them in the USA?)
Well, you are on the opposite side from me for good reasons, but the problem is that the things you are expecting from homosexual marriage will not materialize. We know this because they haven't materialized in other countries.
Let's say though that they would: Is less promiscuity among homosexuals worth the effect on heterosexual families (see below)? Is that (or being "part of conservative family life") worth the degradation of basic freedoms that has followed in Sweden and Canada?
Check these out. Like I said, they deal with the experience other countries have had with these policies, and they have been a disaster, and I can't think of any definition of diminishment" that wouldn't apply to what these policies have done to hetero marriage in those countries.
Results of gay marriage in Scandinavia.
Results of gay marriage in Holland
Where it will lead sociologically.
Let's be nice, live-and-let-live libertarian types, just like in Canada.
(In Sweden and Canada gay activists got parts of the Bible made "illegal." Do we want to encourage them in the USA?)
well I will tell you what, I have 3 uncles up in Michigan. All 3 are very catholic and all voted for Kerry. But all 3 voted for the gay marriage ban up there.....
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.