Posted on 10/06/2014 11:52:38 AM PDT by markomalley
Today the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review appeals from Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana and Wisconsin on the definition of marriage. This means that lower court rulings that struck down state marriage laws now will go into effect, forcing the redefinition of marriage in these states and potentially in other states in the 4th, 7th, and 10th circuits.
This is an unfortunate setback for sound constitutional self-government and a setback for a healthy marriage culture.
The truth of the matter is that the marriage laws in these five statesas in many states across our nationare good laws that reflect the truth about marriage. Frequently they were passed with overwhelming democratic support. The Supreme Court should have reviewed these cases and should have upheld the authority of citizens and their elected representatives to make good marriage policy. Instead, the Supreme Court left standing bad rulings from lower federal courts that usurped authority from the people by striking down good laws.
The cases at issue involve lower court rulings that struck down state marriage laws, claiming that they violated the U.S. Constitution. But the courts never provided compelling arguments that laws that reflect the truth about marriage are unconstitutional. Indeed, as former Attorney General Ed Meese and I argued last week in The Washington Post, the Supreme Court should have reviewed these cases and declared the laws constitutional.
In a system of limited constitutional self-government, the people and their elected representatives should be making decisions about marriage policy. And there are reasonable arguments on both sides of this debate. Judges should not insert their own policy preferences about marriage and declare them to be required by the Constitution.
Some people argue that marriage is simply a committed relationship of two people. My co-authors and I have argued that marriage is a comprehensive union of sexually complementary spousesand that the state cares about marriage because it can unite a man and a woman as husband and wife to be mother and father to any children their union may produce.
A comprehensive union capable of uniting children with their mom and dad is something only a man and a woman can form. So enacting same-sex marriage would not expand the institution of marriage but redefine it. Finishing what policies such as no-fault divorce began, it would finally replace the conjugal view with a revisionist view of marriage as fundamentally an emotional union. This would multiply the marriage revolutions harms, making them harder than ever to reverse.
Citizens are, of course, free to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships, but so too should citizens be free to retain the historic definition of marriage as the union of a man and a womanas citizens in a majority of states have done. Nothing less than the future of our society and the course of constitutional government in the United States are at stake.
No one can say for certain why the Supreme Court declined to review these cases. Perhaps it is because it is waiting for the 6th Circuit Court to rule on Ohio and Michigans marriage laws (a ruling that even many who favor redefining marriage think will uphold those state laws) or perhaps because it is waiting on the 5th Circuit Court to rule on Texas and Louisianas laws (a federal judge recently upheld Louisianas law). Who knows?
Declining to review these cases does not speak one way or the other to the merits of the cases. But it does leave in place bad rulings from lower courtsand it will make it harder for courts to do the right thing in the future.
Nevertheless, as citizens, we must rally in support of our constitutional authority to pass laws making marriage policy. We must insist that law and culture promote the truth about marriage.
Nothing less than the future of our society and the course of constitutional government in the United States are at stake.
The elites have decided that the family unit is no longer relevant to society. They have likewise decided that the "constitution" is anything they prefer it to be. End of story. End of country.
Gay marriage is unconstitutional for the following simple reason imo. The states have never amended the Constitution to specifically protect so-called gay rights, such as gay marriage. This means two things under the Constitution.
The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitutions silence about things like marriage means that such issues are uniquely state power issues.
Since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage, gay marriage is not a constitutionally protected right.
Also, regardless what the corrupt media wants everybody to think about the Supreme Court's decision concerning DOMA, Section 2 of DOMA is still in effect. Section 2 is reasonably based on Congress's Article IV, Section 1 power, the Full Faith and Credit clause, to regulate the effect of one state's records in the other states, and gives the states the power to ignore gay marriages recognized in other states. But Section 2 is wrongly being ignored by both judges and justices imo.
DOMA Section 2. Powers reserved to the statesNo State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
So the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which discriminate against constitutionally unprotected gay rights, such as gay marriage, as long as such laws dont unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Again, the troubling question is why are legal professionals who are supposed to be protecting state laws prohibiting gay marriage evidently not arguing the above points in defense of such laws?
The vocal 3-4% now control how much we are going to be exposed to sodomites, trans-gendered, and easily confused.
Expect to see more GLGC and polygamy /polyandry on TV, and in your holiday parades, only much more blatant and outrageous.
This administration has no soul, no religion or spirituality, no culture, no core values, are hedonistic, narcissitic , and is enmeshed in self-agrandizement.
Instead of "Hope and Change" , we need more power of prayer.
What irks me is that a panel of 3 federal judges can overturn the votes of the people in a particular state. Same with the U.S. Supreme Court - 9 people decide the fate of millions.
Federal employees in black robes have been at the very heart of Federal lawlessness for 50 years. Why they should suddenly change direction and become lawful is beyond me. Theses men are anything but honest or accountable.
They are ideologically driven Dictators in black robes just as they have acted for over 50 years now. There is no law or justice among them, only the will of corrupt men. Hand picked by the very powers that most benefit from their unbridled corruption.
As for marriage, we may have to accept that what the State calls marriage is nothing more than an almost pointless contract, in so much that it represent nothing more than extremely expensive and ultimately non-binding bond. This isn’t marriage in any of its essencal respects.
No-falt divorce proved that this contract doesn’t even do the one thing you would expect of a contract. The Redefinition of its bounds further proves that it has nothing to do with marriage except the name for which it has userpted.
Marriage is dead so long as we define it as the Government defines it, an extremely expensive and ultimately pointless contract that no longer serves much meaningful propose.
I'm pretty sure there doesn't need to be one. If there is a conflict, they're almost obliged to take the case and resolve it, but imagine a case where only one circuit had ruled. If you lost in that case at the circuit level, would you accept that they're not going to allow you to appeal until some other circuit not only takes a similar case, but decides in the opposing direction? I'm sure there are tons of cases where SCOTUS has accepted a case absent any circuit conflict.
Keep putting the issue on state ballots. If the majority keeps voting it down, keep reminding the citizens that specific courts and the whim of judge are usurping the will of the people.
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.