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

Skip to comments.

Let the voters decide the fate of same-sex marriage: The Supreme Court would be wise to do this.
American Thinker ^ | 02/17/2014 | Silvio Canto Jr.

Posted on 02/17/2014 10:47:43 AM PST by SeekAndFind

Another week and another judge telling us what he or she thinks of same sex marriage.

The latest is a judge that has found the Virginia ban unconstitutional.

First, how can something be "unconstitutional" that isn't in the US Constitution? Can anyone find the word "marriage" in the document? I only find that word in state laws. Unlike other countries, we do not issue a federal marriage license in the US.

Second, why are judges sticking their noses in anyway? Who said that federal judges define what marriage is anyway?

My position on same sex marriage is that it should be decided by voters and state legislatures.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; samesexmarriage; scotus; virginia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

1 posted on 02/17/2014 10:47:43 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It’s not in the Constitution - correct. There is also nothing in the Constitution which grants license to judges or anyone else to disregard the concept of language, yet these judges have done so.


2 posted on 02/17/2014 10:51:09 AM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It will never get to a popular vote, because the lefties know how it would go.


3 posted on 02/17/2014 10:58:48 AM PST by Wyrd bið ful aræd (Pope Calvin the 1st, defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Last night in Seattle went to Spamalot - the Monty Python musical based on The Quest for the Holy Grail.

In this version Lancelot turns out to be gay and marries a “princess” held captive by ...err...its...father who of course wants him/her to marry a girl. Towards the end of the show Lancelot, having just married this person, says “and just think in a thousand years this will be legal in Washington State”. The audience cheered loudly.

It was a great show, very funny, but I have to think that this gay marriage thing is here and not going away. And then this a.m. that guy broadcasting the Olympics...they’ve moved into the mainstream.


4 posted on 02/17/2014 10:59:07 AM PST by Aria ( 2008 & 2012 weren't elections - they were coup d'etats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aria

The audience cheering loudly indicates that many people either are in favor of homosexual marriage, or accept it as a fait accomplished, and thought it was a clever line to insert into the performance.

public opinion polls suggest that we have reached a tipping point on acceptance of homosexual marriage.


5 posted on 02/17/2014 11:03:11 AM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat

Changing the definition of a word and a legal term is troubling, in my opinion.

Last year’s Supreme Court decision on marriage indicated that the federal government had to recognize same sex marriages from states which allowed it. BUT THIS ACTION ALSO set up a situation in which the federal government is not allowed to define a legal definition of the legal term marriage.

Now it appears that only federal judges are allowed to define the legal term marriage.


6 posted on 02/17/2014 11:06:35 AM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd
It will never get to a popular vote, because the lefties know how it would go.

Yep. Lefty-progs want no part of real democracy, though they sure like using the name.

7 posted on 02/17/2014 11:11:58 AM PST by polymuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All
My position on same sex marriage is that it should be decided by voters and state legislatures.

I suspect that this author is not necessarily aware of 10th Amendment-protected state powers to decide such things, and is naïvely reflecting on such powers.

8 posted on 02/17/2014 11:19:32 AM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
"public opinion polls suggest that we have reached a tipping point on acceptance of homosexual marriage."

It's apparent the homos will have their way on this.

Out best hope is to ensure it's decided on a state by state basis, saving a few states rather than losing the entire nation.

That said, I don't believe this issues will survive a USSC decision. They are likely to rule the 14th Amendment dictates homo marriage wherever state sponsored and recognized marriage exists.

It won't be long.

We should all be asking ourselves: How does this harm me and mine? How do I protect me and mine?

9 posted on 02/17/2014 11:20:11 AM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

No need for a vote. It’s been decided already.


10 posted on 02/17/2014 11:21:52 AM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: polymuser
Proggies sold the snake oil of democracy 101 years ago with the 17th Amendment. Overnight, we changed spots from a federal to a democratic republic. Just as our Framers knew, progs know that excess popular participation in government will eventually lead to anarchy, followed by strong man totalitarianism. The wonder is that it took so long for an Obama to appear.
11 posted on 02/17/2014 11:24:18 AM PST by Jacquerie ( Obama has established executive branch precedents that no election can reverse. Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The counter-argument to the “marriage isn’t in the Constitution” argument is almost always, “sure, marriage isn’t there - but Equal Protection is.”

Whether or not we accept this line of argument (I think it’s pure B.S., and clearly not in keeping with the intent of the 14th Amendment’s authors), this is the argument we need to somehow counter.


12 posted on 02/17/2014 11:24:59 AM PST by MarkRegal05
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

I disagree. It only seems popular because the virus breeders and their psychophants are yelling the loudest.


13 posted on 02/17/2014 12:11:22 PM PST by Edward Teach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

Thanks SeekAndFind.


14 posted on 02/17/2014 12:13:34 PM PST by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/~mestamachine/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Americans, from their various states, already have decided this issue!

Even Oregon voted over 70% against gay marriage!

15 posted on 02/17/2014 12:26:26 PM PST by zerosix (Native Sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd
It has already gone to popular votes in most states and all voted against, redefining marriage or being forced to accept such unions when they had been performed outside those states!

Only non-elected judges have attempted either to override those votes or force something else upon the people.

In some blue states, liberal legislatures voted other things in favor of gay unions.

16 posted on 02/17/2014 12:41:09 PM PST by zerosix (Native Sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Liberal elites don’t trust ‘the people’ any more than any ‘thugocracy’ trust the people.

Elites want fellow elites to make the calls...

Our beautiful country is on the way to becoming a creepy banana republic.


17 posted on 02/17/2014 2:19:25 PM PST by GOPJ ( America's drifting into totalitarianism because the left's exploitation of social failures.Greenfi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Honestly I dont see how 51% of the voters can decide the laws of nature don’t apply. Two people of the same Sex can’t make a child, and therefore cannot be said to be married in responsibility for that child.

You might as well ask people to vote on the laws of gravity it really don’t matter what they say the apple still falls from the tree just as the two men are still sterile sodomites not husband & wife.


18 posted on 02/17/2014 2:25:19 PM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
You are absolutely right. FWIW, when I saw the show on Broadway a decade ago, the line was "in a thousand years, this will still be controversial." Can't imagine that original line being included today.

We keep relying on the "30 to 4" record (or whatever the first number is) without acknowledging that those 4 losses are the most recent, and the trend is going in decidedly the wrong direction.

Look at California. In 2000 the people overwhelmingly voted against it. In 2008 they voted against it, but by a much slimmer margin. And nobody seriously suggests that a ban would possibly pass today. Those same voters have completely flipped on the issue.

Even in reliably red states, opposition has dropped dramatically. All those bans approved ten years ago would be much shakier today. Our old arguments are failing.
19 posted on 02/17/2014 2:37:56 PM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mariner; SunkenCiv

My prediction is that if we ever come to the point where gay marriage is legal in the whole country, five years later the divorce rate among gays will be higher than that among straights.


20 posted on 02/17/2014 3:34:07 PM PST by Berosus (I wish I had as much faith in God as liberals have in government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next 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