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."
It’s a win-win IMO if they deny standing to the petitioners in the federal system. LGBT gets to continue their movement and so do we.
In California, when the attorney general will not enforce a law, the proponents who brought the initiative to the ballot can legally defend it in court, which is why the CA courts rightly granted standing.
Read the portion of the transcript where Justice Breyer addresses public actions. It's close to the beginning of oral arguments - like 3-4 pages in. The link is in a previous ping I sent you today.
Roberts’ questioning shows how he will rule. Get ready for queer “marriage” in the US. It’s coming, courtesy of fag
John Roberts. Thanks George for another liberal appointment to the Supreme Court, another homosexual liberal appointment.
Roberts’ boyfriend has a ringside seat.
Stalling now by taking the “out” on standing would only kick the can down the road. Another case will be heard by SCOTUS in four or five years, after Obama has been able to make another couple of appointments.
You really think that’s a win?
What they should rule is no judge has the right to overrule the will of the people. Especially a faggot judge. What a joke.
Why didn’t the lawyer for REAL MARRIAGE demand that queer friendly Roberts recuse himself, pointing straight at Roberts’ bull-dyke cousin.
Yeah! A discriminating, anti-equality club, and it should be outlawed!
And one couple has ten children, another none -- that's unfair! Put them in state nursery, from birth!
Ridiculous now, but so was gay marriage 20 years ago. :(
For Christians and Muslims, marriage is indeed a religious institution. But if we take away the religious aspect for the sake of argument, we’ll find that secular cultures have recognized and promoted marriage for centuries. They never did so for same-sex couples. Why not? Because procreation, virginity, fornication, adultery, dowries, and consumation of a marriage contract were irrelevant for same-sex couples.
Sorry, lj. I didn’t mean to copy you on that.
You really think that’s a win?
I do think it's a win right now. It gives us time to put ballot initiatives up in the other states.
With respect to Obama appointing more justices to the SCOTUS, the impact of that will be a result of whom he is replacing. If Scalia, Alito, Thomas or even Kennedy resigns, we're screwed, but I'd still rather postpone it.
***********************
Those words can never be in the same sentence. :)
I’m glad you did. It’s a good comment.
Marriage is Natural Law. Even many animals mate for life - many birds, for instance.
It’s Mother Nature. They want to overturn the laws of nature and whenever that is attempted, the results are never pretty.
Well, all right then. I’m not sorry. :)
Oh my sweet geebus. I cannot believe I typed those words. I repent.
And in the rare case where animals procreate without a separate male and female, the animal has the ability to procreate on its own. As far as I know, God (or Nature if some prefer) has not granted that physical ability to humans.
Don’t expect much from justices that think it is Constitutional to stick sissors into the brains of babies and to tear their limbs off.
“If SCOTUS decides that the appellants lack standing, it can either dismiss the appeal (which will leave the 9th Circuit’s decision in place in California, but without any precedential impact on other states), or it can decide that there never was standing even in the lower courts (which will wipe out the lower court decisions ... and would leave the California Supreme Court’s ruling (which upheld Prop. 8, albeit only prospectively) in place. “
Thanks, now the questioning makes sense!
Tomorrow is the big one. Future libertarians (if the future welfare dispensers allow any libertarian expression) will be discussing the “tragedy of the common[s] rights” if SCOTUS forces the feds to recognize ANY state definition of marriage.
So I expect them to do just that.
My brother told me his FB page is covered with red and pink squares from liberal “friends” changing their Facebook picture to show their support for “marriage equality” and gay marriage. Luckily, I don’t have any or I would need to defriend them immediately. Has anyone else seen this?
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.