Posted on 09/23/2014 7:01:37 AM PDT by C19fan
The jockeying among the titans of the Supreme Court bar for a place at the lectern when the justices hear the next same-sex marriage case is as understated as it is unmistakable.
In a half-dozen briefs filed in recent weeks, some of the best lawyers in the nation spent many pages arguing that their case was the right one in which to establish a nationwide right to same-sex marriage. They pointed out the attractive features of their own cases and the shortcomings of others.
In legal jargon, streamlined cases without procedural pitfalls are said to be good vehicles. That made the fancy lawyers sound a little like car salesmen.
The case from Virginia, one brief said, is “an excellent vehicle.” The one from Wisconsin, said another, is “an ideal vehicle.” The one from Utah, perhaps the leading candidate, was said to be, with the swagger of understatement, “an appropriate vehicle.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
This is how the left forces its agenda on the country. If it wasn’t for activist judges and judicial tyranny, they would be consigned to the dustbin of history.
The New York Slimes is salivating for Sodom and Gomorrah.
We must have hit post at the exact same time. LOL
The fix is in, legally speaking, on the issue of homosexual marriage.
Last year’s cases on the subject showed us that there are five votes, out of nine justices, who are in favor of homosexual marriage.
Last year’s rulings were not sweeping “Roe vs. Wade” type rulings which invalidated marriage and family law in all 50 states in one fell swoop. But the next decisions from the court will probably do just that.
Considering that we know that 5 of 9 justices are clearly in favor of homosexual marriage, it’s just a matter of time and a matter of which cases they want to use to push the agenda.
Heck, would they even be considering which case these liberals want to place before the court, if they weren’t sure that they will have their five votes in favor of it, no matter what????
Because the thugish perverts in the Lawrence v. Texas were such historical role models, right?
Lover’s quarrel turned into to a false alarm police raid. The caller later had a pending abuse case against one of the men in the apartment (his ex-lover) but was murdered before the case came to trial. I believe all 3 are dead now.
Such an unhealthy lifestyle choice.
God invented marriage, not man. God designated marriage, not as a contractual agreement, but as a covenant. Governments may be able to regulate contracts, but a covenant is based on the laws of God and not man. Thus marriage is an institution outside of the bounds of government.
Government was happy to intrude into the marriage because when we gave tax exemptions based on marital status, or when we taxed a person’s estate upon their death, or when the State stepped in to direct the disposition of an estate, or when we used the State to enforce marital fidelity or grant divorces, we had to allow the State to define who was “married” and who was not.
As with all things Statist, the secular State’s definition of marriage and divorce has come to have more weight in society than God’s definition.
God defines marriage as being between men and women. While many men whom God called righteous in the Bible practiced polygamy, Jesus is quoted in Matthew chapter 19 that from the beginning of humanity, it was God’s intent that marriage would only be one man and one woman. In Mark chapter 10, Jesus stated that God, not man, joins the husband and wife and the two are “one flesh”, an act that by its very nature can only be heterosexual.
God defines sexual relations between people of the same sex as against His law, that is immoral. In Revelation 22:15, a book dictated to John by Jesus, God tells us that anyone who practices sexual immorality will not be granted eternal life.
These are ecclesiastical considerations that are outside of secular government, that is unless we want government to police sexual behavior between consenting adults based on the standards of the Bible, assuming we can agree what those are. Do we want Congress to have that debate?
Maybe it is time to get government out of the marriage business and to return it to the private sphere. The problem for me today is that people who want to call themselves “married” against God’s law (as I read it) are willing to use the State to force me to recognize that marriage, which I cannot do. The want to have the State’s public education system indoctrinate my children that homosexual marriage is “normal”. They want to force me to subsidize the homosexual marriage in the tax code just like the godly marriage is subsidized, and they will use state agencies to punish me for “discrimination” if I decline to accept their status in any way.
If the State must force me to acknowledge its power to declare two men to be “married”, then I must support efforts to remove that power from the State. If people who don’t want God defining their personal morality demand a separation of church and State then let us also have separation of marriage and State as well. If those people don’t want any displays of the Ten Commandments in government buildings, they cannot hide behind the Commandments that protect marriage when it comes to “marriage” that God cannot and will not sanction.
Where’s a big pot of tar, and a large bag of feathers, when we need them?
And Plural marriage will instantly follow. After that the age of consent will be lowered to 12.
“one in which to establish a nationwide right to same-sex marriage”
The verdict has already been decided. The courts are puppets
Boy ain’t that the truth.
And a lot will depend on if the Circuits are in conflict.
I don’t have high hopes.
The fascist Left will pressure the Church to accept, even facilitate these abominations. Some Church leaders will resist. Others will go along so as not to be "confrontational". Some will say "Bravo!"
Need new terms for same sex marriage. How about co-rectal?
Sadness in our nation.
Exactly. Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
Also not Adam and Eve and Dawn and ...
Heck, I think all churches should immediately start working on that: "We're all the Bride of Christ, so we're all married, and you're discriminating against our religion if you disagree!"
That aside, just wait for the divorce statistics. They should be a source of great fun as well.
I also suspect that once these same sex "marriages" lose their novelty, few same sex couples will bother pretending that they are getting married. Weddings are too expensive for a whim, and legal marriages are too expensive to end with divorce for them to bother getting officially married if there is little or no chance of any given fling lasting more than a few years.
A bisexual polygamist could marry an entire city/state.
That would make for a really cool form 1040 with millions of dependents, and a whopper of a rebate check!
Weddings are too expensive for a whim, and legal marriages are too expensive to end with divorce for them to bother getting officially married if there is little or no chance of any given fling lasting more than a few years.
...you are not taking estate tax ramifications into account...that’s what kickstarted the push for homo marriage into super high gear...
...can’t get the estate tax free without being a spouse in a lot of states...
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.