Posted on 03/26/2013 10:05:42 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Today the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for about 80 minutes in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which is the lawsuit regarding California's Proposition 8. Two gay couples brought suit on the grounds that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Since the State of California refuses to defend Proposition 8, opponents of gay marriage sought to enforce it in Hollingsworth v. Perry. Generally, citizens do not have legal standing to enforce laws with which they agree. Several justices expressed doubt that gay marriage opponents have standing in this case.
"I don't think we've ever allowed anything like that," said Chief Justice John Roberts.
"I just wonder if this case was properly granted," said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
"Why is taking a case now the answer?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Addressing the merits of the case, Justice Anthony Kennedy focused on the "imminent injury" to children in California.
"There’s some 40,000 children in California that live with same-sex parents. They want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important."
Justices Alito and Kennedy raised the possibility that the court is moving too fast to address whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
"We have five years of information to pose against 2,000 years of history or more," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.
"You want us to step in and assess the effects of this institution, which is newer than cellphones and/or the Internet?" asked Justice Samuel A. Alito.
On the subject of how same-sex marriage harms traditional marriage, Justice Elena Kagan asked, "How does this cause and effect work?"
On the subject of procreation being the state's key interest in the insitution of marriage, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said, "There are lots of people who get married who can’t have children."
Kagen banned ROTC o we know here she stands.
Roberts has his fmaily right in front of him knwing his decision can help his own family
If those two reason alone are not grounds to recuse themselves then we ight as well as get rid of hte SCOTUS too, lets not forget we got here because a judge in CA said prop 8 was not constitutional and therefore the case went further on and then he later said he’s a queer and he wants to marry in CA
This has been a farce since the get go with activist judges making decisions which benefits themselves or their family
I just started listening on C-Span. Does anyone here have a feeling how this is going?
Gay marriage will be the law in CA the only question is will they write it for the country? Prop will not be upheld. There are not 5 votes for that. In the end the court has strongly signaled gay marriage is just a matter of time
if they re-define marriage then it;s anything goes and our side had better point that out plus point out how eevry argument can be used for any marriage
No, that’s not the reason they think Roberts should recuse himself.
It is because he has a gay relative (cousin or sister, I think...female definitely) sitting in the court watching the proceedings, and it is seen by some as a conflict of interest.
If it fits the rules of recusal, then he should recuse himself. If it doesn’t, then he shouldn’t.
If gay marriage becomes a “constitutional right” then we WILL have legalized pedophile relations within 5 years. Count on it
:(
Thanks for the update. I could just puke.
Exactly! Why aren’t the prop 8 attorneys showing what a slippery slope this is and give examples of-why have age discrimination for marriage-why can’t one year old children get married to 85 year old men?
Update?
Seems more like cjc drew his on conclusions about it and predicted final outcomes. That’s okay, except those are subjective opinions, not updates on what actually was said.
I have heard many talk radio types weigh in. Have yet to hear Levin but will listen to him. And the “update” you got doesn’t quite square with what other observers, that I heard, are saying.
IMHO, Cooper’s argument blew up when he failed to successfully answer Justice Sotomayor’s question on whether or not there is any other rational basis for a government to deny something to someone on the basis of their sexual orientation. She specfifically mentioned a job.
Cooper had his thumb up his @ss and said no.
There are still several states where it is legal for an employer to deny a job to or refuse to hire an individual on the basis of their sexual orientation. While that isn’t the government doing the denying, it is the government saying yes - denying on the basis of sexual orientation is fine.
This is where this is going. When a Chrisitan church denies performing a homosexual marriage, lawsuits will abound- and Christianity will NOT win.
Nevermind about Islam. Christians ARE the enemy.
that is a very interesting analysis
Roberts went right for the standing issue. If standing falls by the wayside what is the effect on the lower courts rulings?
If your state won’t defend the results of a public vote who can?
That makes your head spin.
This whole process is a joke. This may be held to be a newfound right, yet the words “shall not be infringed” are not understood by 100% of these robed people.
if they want a way out then this is easy, send it back to congress and let them try to get a federal constitutional amendment of which we know woudl never work.
The left understands that they would never get tat either even as they try and tell us polls say otherwise
If they deny standing, they can deny it for only SCOTUS or for all federal courts. The former means that the 9th Circuit ruling stands (gay marriage allowed.) The latter means that the CA Supreme Court ruling stands (gay marriage banned.)
exactly
we have a first amendment, freedom of religion and if this is imposed then all the lawsuits will go ahead and open the door for anykind of lawsuit to a church, adoption agency, Priests etc and lets not forget that this is about trying to make homosexuality normal and that the out and out attack on religious freedom has started.
Also this would pave the way for polygamy and if the liberal female judge wants to know how does this have a negative effect n kids etc then all she has to do is look at the poor kids today who have been taken into homosexual homes, suicides, depression etc
Wow, so the fight against standing has massive repercussions. Thanks.
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.