Posted on 07/10/2015 6:11:33 AM PDT by wagglebee
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 9, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – After the Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex “marriage” is a constitutionally guaranteed right, many Americans have asked, “How did we get here?” Last month's opinion tells us the road stretches back more than 50 years.
Justice Anthony Kennedy's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges gave additional proof that the legal basis for same-sex “marriage” is inextricably tied up with abortion-on-demand and other aspects of the sexual revolution.
In his 5-4 decision, Justice Kennedy says the newly discovered constitutional right to enter into a homosexual “marriage” is granted, in part, by the “right to privacy.”
That right, first propounded by the court in 1965's Griswold v. Connecticut ruling, also conferred a woman's right to abortion-on-demand, according to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
“Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association,” Justice Kennedy wrote last month, in an opinion that quoted Griswold. “Like choices concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, and child-rearing, all of which are protected by the Constitution, decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make.”
“As far as the right to life is concerned, that is the most troubling line in the opinion,” wrote Kelsey Hazzard, a pro-life lawyer, in an analysis of the decision posted at the Secular Pro-Life blog. That sentence “can be read as polite legalese for killing preborn children.”
But Kennedy actually put the same-sex “marriage” case on stronger ground even than abortion. “Justice Kennedy was smart,” Hazzard wrote. “By writing an opinion that does not cite any abortion cases, he has assured that Obergefell will withstand the reversal of Roe and Casey.”
Instead, he based his argument in part on the case that granted Americans the right to use contraception.
That lawsuit was brought by Estelle Griswold, the former executive director of Planned Parenthood in New Haven, against the state of Connecticut. Lawmakers had passed a law forbidding anyone, married or unmarried, from using contraception. Planned Parenthood challenged the law all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On June 7, 1965, Planned Parenthood prevailed.
Justice William O. Douglas wrote that, while the “right to privacy” is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution – much less the right to birth control – the idea flows from ideas embedded in the Constitution.
“Specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance,” he wrote.
For the state to determine whether married couples used contraception would require an invasion of their privacy, Douglas wrote; thus, couples had an inalienable right to contraception.
“Griswold took a major leap for women’s health by removing state interference with one of the most important and private decisions an individual considers: whether and when to have a child,” wrote Elizabeth G. Taylor, the executive director of the National Health Law Program (NHeLP).
That ruling applied only to married couples. The right to privacy was then extended for unmarried individuals to use contraception in the High Court's Eisenstadt v. Baird decision in 1972.
And one year later, the right to privacy emanated further, to grant women the “right to choose” an abortion.
Over the last 50 years, the “right to privacy” has been used to cover every form of sexual practice, displacing the public's right to object on moral grounds – something contained in Kennedy's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling.
Finally, last month, that right – granted in Griswold and expanded in Eisenstadt, Roe, and Casey – demanded a nationwide legal recognition of homosexual relationships on par with heterosexual marriages.
Thus, Lauren Barbato could write in Bustle that “marriage equality may very well not be here on June 27, 2015, without Estelle Griswold and her fight to provide birth control to New Haven couples.”
“Specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance,” he wrote.
The left has used that single asinine sentence to push through their entire agenda.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Joe Biden
If abortion is Constitutional then so is anything else the Justices might dream up.
Humanae Vitae: http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html
Read. Contemplate. Repeat.
Paul VI saw all this coming decades ahead.
“If abortion is Constitutional then so is anything else the Justices might dream up.”
The campaign for euthanasia for the elderly is just getting underway. It will be approved by the Supremes for all states within 5 years. Within 10 years Rahm Emmanuel’s dream of ending people’s lives at age 75 may be federal government policy.
Exactly right. If you’re “fine” with abortion, you’ll find a way to twist anything to be acceptable - or more convenient...
Arcanum:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum.html
Pope Leo XIII saw what the secular civil authorities would eventually do to their version of marriage 130 years ago.
Freegards
Its as if he’s writing today.
Thanks!
same sexer’s can’t breed ,so they don’t want anyone else to or if everyone goes same sexer it will stop Global Warming ,LOL
> decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make.
Mr. Kennedy is not too bright. He fails to distinguish between persons’ personal commitments to each other, however intimate that may be, and legal recognition of persons’ associations.
There is no right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever purpose.
There is no right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever purpose: if a group of persons wishes to form a commercial venture they must comply the laws enacted by the elected legislature, laws which govern corporations; if a group of persons wishes to form a personal venture they must comply with the laws enacted by the elected legislature, laws which govern marriages.
These processes are defined by law.
There is a process defined in law for changing law.
Laws are created by Legislators. Their authority is exclusive. Judges do not create law.
There is no right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever purpose.
There is no right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever purpose: if a group of persons wishes to form a commercial venture they must comply the laws enacted by the elected legislature, laws which govern corporations; if a group of persons wishes to form a personal venture they must comply with the laws enacted by the elected legislature, laws which govern marriages.
Very well said.
I have been/am currently been involved in business ventures where partners and I have many millions of dollars at stake. These are very complex and involved relationships and there are many days where I spend far more time with business partners than I do with my wife.
Nevertheless, these partnerships ARE NOT marriages.
Marriage is a sacred union ordained by God. It is not simply a sexual relationship, it is far more than the total of a man and wife's possessions, it is a true union of two people.
Thank you.
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.