Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

High Court Split in Gay Marriage Questioning
Newser ^ | 03/26/2013 | Kevin Spak

Posted on 03/26/2013 10:13:22 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd

The Supreme Court has finished hearing the arguments in the Proposition 8 case, and prognosticators are busy reading the tea leaves for what they might be thinking. Here's what went down:


 


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: demagogicparty; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; nambla; scotus; sodomy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last
To: OKRA2012
In some cases a marriage between a man and a woman won't produce any children.

In NO case, zero zip none, will two queers produce a child!

Throughout time a natural marriage has always been man and woman.

21 posted on 03/26/2013 11:31:06 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OKRA2012

You are right...
Plenty of ways to argue this...
Procreation though should still be in the mix, I think.
I don’t think abandoning the idea that “raising children in a mom/dad situation is the best for them” is a good strategy...
Regardless of the “popular” discounting this in our present culture, it’s still valid....


22 posted on 03/26/2013 11:51:34 AM PDT by matginzac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Exactly. Since Obama blackmailed Roberts about his kids, Roberts is OWNED.


23 posted on 03/26/2013 12:01:29 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

“JUSTICE SCALIA: I’m curious, when -­ when did — when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Sometimes — some time after Baker, where we said it didn’t even raise a substantial Federal question? When — when — when did the law become this?

MR. OLSON: When — may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools.

JUSTICE SCALIA: It’s an easy question, I think, for that one. At — at the time that the Equal Protection Clause was adopted. That’s absolutely true. But don’t give me a question to my question. When do you think it became
unconstitutional? Has it always been unconstitutional? . . .

MR. OLSON: It was constitutional when we -­as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control, and that that -­

JUSTICE SCALIA: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen?

MR. OLSON: There’s no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle. “

I hate the “Living Constitution” of the feudalists- it obviates thinking.


24 posted on 03/26/2013 12:04:47 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
It was constitutional when we ­as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control...

Uh, what? I don't recall reading any decisions signed by "we as a culture". Nor do I think "we as a culture" have any particular scientific credentials to determine whether sexual behavior is controllable.

It is clear, though, that certain persons who style themselves as cultural leaders have decided to ramrod the thing through, but I don't recall them having any Constitutional standing either. Well, Lady Gaga maybe.

25 posted on 03/26/2013 12:15:38 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2; peyton randolph

Every Republican President since at least Eisenhower (not sure if Ford had any picks) has made abysmal, horrible appointments to the Sup Court.

But W should have learned from his father’s experience with Souter. His father could have selected Edith Jones, or Emilio Garza, or really anybody other than the ‘slam dunk’ for conservatives that he was told Souter would be.

Likewise W could have done better. Though to be fair to W (which isn’t easy for me since he wrecked conservatism and elected Obama), Roberts seemed like he’d turn out to be a solid conservative until last summer with obamacare and the Arizon immigration law.

Now though I think there is very little chance he’ll do the right thing and join an opinion that says this matter should be left entirely to the states for their own purposes, and to Congress for federal purposes.


26 posted on 03/26/2013 12:58:23 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

two people over 55 can raise a child as mother and father and be a normal family. a man and a woman can adopt a child and never tell the child.

society rewards the insitution of marriage not the orgasm.


27 posted on 03/26/2013 1:59:08 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Aetius

the way to address that is to: (on ALL FEDERAL JUDGES)

-no more judges from the Justice Department

-moratorium on LAW CLERKS from harvard or yale. (there are other law schools too)

-moratorium on judges who are from harvard or yale.

-require judges with lifetime appointments (remember magistrate and bankruptcy judges are not for life) actually CIRCULATE to other jurisdictions.

start shutting down state law schools.

-No more guarantee student loans for law school


28 posted on 03/26/2013 2:13:32 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and, perhaps surprisingly, John Roberts, peppered Charles Cooper, the lead attorney for Proposition 8, with questions about whether California voters had the authority to appeal a lower court ruling blocking Prop 8, USA Today reports.

Let me get this straight: an Act of the Whole People of the State can be blocked by the first judge the ACLU runs sniveling to?

My cash under the bench to a roundheeled political judge equals your Majesty of the Law and your Sovereignty of the People? These things mean nothing after the judge enters the room?

29 posted on 03/26/2013 2:37:21 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

“Perpetual swing voter Anthony Kennedy seemed focused on the harm banning same-sex marriage might have on the children of gay couples.”

“Harm?”

Irrelevant.

The question is the LAW, not “harm.”


30 posted on 03/26/2013 2:40:49 PM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
I hate the “Living Constitution” of the feudalists- it obviates thinking.

It's a con job, in the first place.

Did you get a load of Olson smart-assing Scalia? Where did he get that kind of cojones?

I'm starting to dislike this guy. Since when does he start lining up with the Sociopaths?

31 posted on 03/26/2013 2:43:37 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Hulka
Notice the way he framed it: Wrong way around.

He's already going to vote for the straight-haters.

32 posted on 03/26/2013 2:44:58 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Hulka

harm? how about all children have one mother and one father period. The fact a manufactured child via science or adoption is FORCED into a recreational sex fetish houshold can not be good in any way shape or form.

This is about adult fetishes not children. The homosexuals want to remove the future from marriage. The ABA has been pushing to declaure children as mere “accessories” to marriage for decades. (see feminists)


33 posted on 03/26/2013 7:18:28 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Its way too early to tell

Kagan and Ginsburg would like to redefine marriage I bet

And Scalia Alito and Thomas likely not

The rest of it

Who knows...


34 posted on 03/30/2013 11:51:30 PM PDT by wardaddy (wanna know how my kin felt during Reconstruction in Mississippi, you fixin to find out firsthand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson