Supreme Court Decision Will Lead to Gay Marriage in Five States. Why That’s Wrong. [actually 30]

As evidenced by the Supreme Court's strange silence, imo, about the constitutionality of controversial gay marriage, I sometimes wonder what is actually going on behind closed doors in legal circles. I wonder if so-called anti-gay marriage states are actually working in cahoots with pro-gay activist justices, these states possibly making anti-gay marriage laws as pawns for judges to strike down and for activist justices to ignore, both sides of the fence actually wanting to promote gay marriage? (Isn't this a Marxist / Alsinki-type stategy?)

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 Constitution’s 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 states
No 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 don’t 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?

AppyPappy:" The one thing we have discovered is that there isn’t a big demand for same-sex marriage.
Right now, it is just a novelty."

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.

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.

Actually, SCOTUS had no choice: they come in when there is conflict between circuits, and so far, all of the delivered verdicts at the Federal Circuit level have come down FOR Gay Marriage.

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.

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.