This could be a case which ultimately goes to the Supreme Court, and have that Court decide there is indeed a constitutional right to homosexual marriage.
Remember, last year’s cases on marriage did not result in a ruling that there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. In fact, while last year’s case overturned the federal defense of marriage act, a key part of the ruling was that the states, not the federal government, are the governmental entities which will define marriage.
I know that the liberals, in their headlong rush to embrace homosexual marriage, don’t always understand these legal distinctions. But, legally speaking, as of today, states have the right to define marriage.
Of course, we know the liberals want to see 50 state homosexual marriage, and they may get it by Supreme Court ruling at some point. I’m just thinking about the legal reasoning which would be needed for the courts to come to that conclusion. As of today, there is nothing in federal law which deals with this whole area of sexual identity/sexual orientation. Thus, the LGBT peoples, in spite of liberal thought, are not a protected class under federal civil rights laws.
So, the courts have to be creative and make up the law as they go along, if they are going to conclude that the state of Utah has no right to define marriage, when last year’s case indicated that the states, not the federal government, have the power to define marriage.
Kennedy’s last year revealed him to be an ideologue and not a Supreme Court Justice who is faithful to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
My worry is that a group of people who once came up with legal reasoning to make the Roe v Wade decision, and is now populated by a Chief Justice who can find legal reasoning to make Obamacare "Constitutional", may get this case.
A state having legal gay marriage isn’t what worries me. It’s their funeral. The Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution is what worries me.
“This could be a case which ultimately goes to the Supreme Court, and have that Court decide there is indeed a constitutional right to homosexual marriage.”
Roberts and Scalia and the older liberals probably thought this would be politically unacceptable for too many people after giving the homos everything they wanted on the DOMA case. They also knew that they did not have the votes to rule Prop 8 was valid so they punted with the standing argument.
Kennedy wrote the dissent on the standing issue. But the leftists knew that they could take this up later and get their ruling.
This why I hold courts in great contempt. They create laws that the people do not get a chance to debate. Only ELECTED official legislators should make all laws and be answerable to the people for error, irresponsibility, or corruption.
Judges appointed for life are not answerable to the people.
The Federal injustice system has a rabbit’s hat of “constitutional rights” where anything and everything they could possibly fancy can be pulled out at whim.
If men can ‘marry’ other men then they should be able to ‘marry’ animals and many more men than just one. After-all if you make the foundation of marriage the capacity to love rather than family then logically there can be no more limit upon marriage than there is a limit upon our capacity to love.
That is to say we can all ‘love’ as many people, animals, and objects as we might like. Where is our ‘right’ to ‘marry’ them all ?