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

Skip to comments.

The Supreme Court's Nonruling on Gay Marriage
Townhall.com ^ | October 9, 2014 | Cal Thomas

Posted on 10/09/2014 6:38:43 AM PDT by Kaslin

Three points need to be made about Monday's decision by the Supreme Court not to decide whether the equal protection clause of the Constitution grants people of the same sex the right to marry.

Point 1: While the court's liberal wing probably wanted to accept cases banning same-sex marriage in five states that have been overturned by three different federal appeals courts in recent months, the conservative majority, along with swing Justice Anthony Kennedy, apparently wished to see states resolve the issue. Perhaps they sought to avoid another Roe vs. Wade in which a previous court overturned all state abortion laws, creating a controversy that continues today. Even so, Kennedy waded into the deep again on Wednesday, blocking the appeals court ruling declaring gay marriage legal in Idaho and Nevada, but it's likely only a temporary delay.

Point 2: For strict constructionists, the nonruling allows the culture to sort out the arguments consistent with what clearly are changing social mores. Whether this is good or bad is not up to courts to decide, conservatives might argue, but it beats top-down judicial activism of the type conservatives hate when liberal judges do it. Point 3: The main arguments against permitting same-sex couples to marry are moral and biblical. The problem, especially for conservative Christians who oppose the legalization of gay marriage, is that they are speaking to people who don't accept their moral code, or biblical instruction. They cite Genesis 2:24

: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." That verse is also quoted by Jesus in the New Testament.

Here's why invoking verses from the Bible isn't working. In addition to the courts having abandoned such instruction, along with, in too many cases, the Constitution that is supposed to constrain government, a growing number of people no longer accept biblical teaching. Many, the products of liberal universities, also regard the Constitution as a "living document," by which they mean it, too, can be changed or ignored to suit the times.

There are at least two problems with using a moral and biblical argument. One is: How do same-sex marriage opponents persuade people who don't believe traditional marriage was God's idea and should remain as He intended? The answer is they can't. And so it becomes a political power play with one side quoting Scripture or history and the other side demanding "equality." Whoever gets the most votes -- at the ballot box or by judicial decision -- wins.

A second problem for same-sex marriage opponents is: "What's next?" What standard should be used to decide the legitimacy, even morality, of others who make similar appeals to equality for their behavior? If there is no longer to be a single standard for marriage, what other standards might soon be abandoned?

This is the most important point of all, because if there is to be no standard are we prepared for the social anarchy that will likely follow? Is the acceptance of everything simply a matter of conditioning, or are there some things that are true for all time, regardless of the age?

Are we willing to accept the consequences of being mini-gods, deciding what is right and wrong in our own eyes? Is this the ultimate triumph of the "If it feels good, do it" mantra of the '60s?

Those who regard same-sex marriage as more evidence of a decline in morality will see America following other great empires and nations that collapsed from within before they were conquered from without. Those working so diligently to attack structures that have preserved cultures for centuries have an obligation to at least tell us how far they intend to go and on what basis they would shout, "stop, no further."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: marriage; marriageequality; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

1 posted on 10/09/2014 6:38:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Really hard to respect the judiciary. The Federal courts are responsible for the carnage of abortion and the decadent permeation of homosexuality into American culture. Notice how tenaciously the black robed thugs defend and promote each of their evil interests.


2 posted on 10/09/2014 6:42:47 AM PDT by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
My guess is that the Obama puppetmasters, whoever they are, have told the Supreme Court that there are to be no more rulings benefiting those whom they consider their enemies, that is to say, benefiting traditional white America. The Progs probably had all they could take with Citizens United, Heller, and McDonald, affirming the First and Second Amendments against government infringement.

And yes, another Roe v. Wade on 'gay' marriage would energize the progs' "enemies", too.

3 posted on 10/09/2014 6:43:06 AM PDT by backwoods-engineer (Blog: www.BackwoodsEngineer.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Visualise a picture of a can being kicked down the road. It is the iconic image of our so called government.


4 posted on 10/09/2014 6:47:32 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Will the homosexuals on the court be required to recuse themselves?


5 posted on 10/09/2014 6:47:34 AM PDT by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed & water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; stephenjohnbanker; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; Gilbo_3; Impy; NFHale; GOPsterinMA; ...
RE:”Point 2: For strict constructionists, the nonruling allows the culture to sort out the arguments consistent with what clearly are changing social mores. Whether this is good or bad is not up to courts to decide, conservatives might argue, but it beats top-down judicial activism of the type conservatives hate when liberal judges do it. Point 3: The main arguments against permitting same-sex couples to marry are moral and biblical. The problem, especially for conservative Christians who oppose the legalization of gay marriage, is that they are speaking to people who don't accept their moral code, or biblical instruction. They cite Genesis 2:24 “

???? WTF is Cal Thomas talking about?

Federally appointed judges (mostly Dems) are forcing states to redefine marriage and marry same sex couples.

His arguments make no sense given that.

If social mores are changing then let the states democratic processes do that, not king-judges.

This is a bunch of state by state Roe decisions supported by the SCOTUS. Thomas sounds pro-gay here. Is he gay?

6 posted on 10/09/2014 6:52:26 AM PDT by sickoflibs (King Obama : 'The debate is over. The time for talk is over. Just follow my commands you serfs""')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Those who regard same-sex marriage as more evidence of a decline in morality will see America following other great empires and nations that collapsed from within before they were conquered from without. Those working so diligently to attack structures that have preserved cultures for centuries have an obligation to at least tell us how far they intend to go and on what basis they would shout, “stop, no further.”


The liberals keep moving the goal posts, and will lie about their true intentions.

At the time of the 2003 Massachusetts court decision on homosexual marriage, the attorneys in the case said that this was just about Massachusetts, and there was no intention of challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

At one time, the activists were working towards civil union or domestic partner type laws in various states, which would have side stepped the whole controversy about how marriage is defined. They then changed their minds and went all-in for marriage. They had said initially that all they wanted was to live their lives and have legal protections, and that civil unions would work for that purpose. But they lied, and then decided to force a change in the definition of marriage.

The liberals have lied and obfuscated throughout about their true intentions. Their intentions all along were to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, impose 50 state homosexual marriage, and then move on to polygamy and group marriage. But they refused to tell us their full intentions up front.


7 posted on 10/09/2014 6:52:32 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego (s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
". . . the conservative majority, along with swing Justice Anthony Kennedy, apparently wished to see states resolve the issue . . .

The problem here is, in at least some instances, the Federal courts are overruling the state courts and forcing sodomy on citizens who are opposed to it.

8 posted on 10/09/2014 6:53:10 AM PDT by Arm_Bears (Rope. Tree. Politician. Some assembly required.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Another reason they might have punted is they are waiting for the lower courts to rule on the MI case.

They may even know how that case will turn out, and they want a case where state voters put the queer marriage ban into their state constitution.

If that is the case they may be going to rule that marriage is a states rights issue.


9 posted on 10/09/2014 6:56:24 AM PDT by Beagle8U (If illegal aliens are undocumented immigrants, then shoplifters are undocumented customers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

And there will be a “next.” It might be polygamy or something else but there will be a next.


10 posted on 10/09/2014 6:57:59 AM PDT by armydawg505
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Somewhat, but not entirely, correct.

The Lib wing has already stated that they wanted to avoid ruling now if there was no conflict in the Circuits. The opposite of what is stated here. 4 Justices have almost assuredly given up on this issue.

When it is finally ruled upon (in either a FF&C or Cir conflict case) then it will be 5-4 approving gay “marriage”.


11 posted on 10/09/2014 6:58:33 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

It’s not that America is becoming just a secular nation like so many say, it’s that America is becoming a determinedly anti-Christian nation. One in which in my own lifetime I’ve seen transform from where all that was once deemed virtuous and good is attacked and maligned, and all that was once deemed vile and debased is promoted and celebrated.

If there is any symbol that America has totally crossed the line and embraced evil, it’s this degenerate slide towards homo-marriage. It convinces me more than anything else that America has no future.


12 posted on 10/09/2014 6:59:59 AM PDT by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arm_Bears

In almost all instances, it is now federal courts forcing the change in the definition of marriage.

32 states passed state constitutional amendments to their constitutions to define marriage. These state amendments prevent state judges from ruling for homosexual marriage. It is federal judges who are overturning these state amendments.

If I am not mistaken, all the homosexual marriage cases since the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 on marriage, have been in federal courts.

It is not intellectually honest to say that the Supreme Court wants the issue to be settled at the state level. An overwhelming majority of states already decided that marriage should be a man and a woman. How are we intellectually honest in saying that state after state is allowing homosexual marriage, when it is being forced on them by federal courts?

Then, will we see a future Supreme Court ruling indicating that since so many states allow homosexual marriage, that they will impose it on the remaining states? When it has been imposed by courts all along, not due to states own decisions???? And we are supposed to accept this legal logic???? Really????


13 posted on 10/09/2014 7:01:33 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego (s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The main arguments against permitting same-sex couples to marry are moral and biblical.

Nonsense. The main arguments are libertarian. There are three sources of authority in a society: Government, religion, and family. Judeo-Christianity exalts family. It produces structure for children of succeeding generations, a base upon which they can rely for guidance, instruction, and support. Families build confident productive future generations and that builds a society.

Family behavior cedes personal pleasure to the importance of child-rearing, building a future generation, while homosexuality exalts personal pleasure at the expense of all else, the next generation be damned. The latter breeds a culture of selfishness, greed, and therefore dispute. What does it take to settle dispute? Power. You can have power in the the family, the priesthood, and the king. If what you want is liberty, best it not be the king.

That is why Rockefellers funded Kinsey, to inculcate power to settle disputes for their use, because they want to own the king. The more strife the better as far as they are concerned, because there will then be more bureaucrats, judges, and politicians for sale. Buying influence is cheaper than buying the assets. Therefore the more influence for sale, the better.

There is absolutely no need to bring in religion, because as the author states flatly, it does not make a sale in the petulant and self-absorbed society we have today. The libertarian argument on the other hand is a clear pitch back to the principles of the founding, and makes a hash of the idea that homosexual license is a form of liberty. That is where we need to go in this debate: it is to get the public to understand why and how they've been had with this vicious gambit.

14 posted on 10/09/2014 7:03:25 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (Democrats: the Party of slavery to the immensely wealthy for over 200 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greene66

I’ve heard it said that, everything that used to be in the closet is now out of the closet. And things that used to be out of the closet and openly approved of are going into the closet.

Examples - homosexuality, pornography, drug use, out of wedlock parenting - all used to be underground closeted activities. Now they are openly celebrated or openly permitted.

On the flip side — values once shared and approved of by the culture, such as religious faith, are being forced out of public life, and practitioners of religious faith are being told to get out of the public square, and get in the closet, out of sight, figuratively speaking.


15 posted on 10/09/2014 7:05:11 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego (s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

The Republicans need to start highlighting what happens after these rulings. Schools ban words like father/mother, and Christian bakers/photographers/t-shirt makers get sued or run out of business.


16 posted on 10/09/2014 7:10:17 AM PDT by csivils
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: csivils

I hear you.

There was even a story, that a school was going to ban the words “boys and girls” because they didn’t want to offend the sensibilities of “trans-whatever” peoples. It is apparently now bigoted to assume that students are either boys or girls. Instead, we have to broaden the minds of children, that it is narrow bigoted thinking to think there are 2 sexes, male and female. Sheesh.........


17 posted on 10/09/2014 7:13:45 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego (s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Arm_Bears

The Supreme Court only needs to rule that the definition of marriage is a state issue and that the federal courts have no authority to overrule state legislatures and constitutions.


18 posted on 10/09/2014 7:14:30 AM PDT by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Indeed. Sometimes I look at America-2014, and it reminds me of that old “Star Trek” episode “Mirror, Mirror,” in which it seems I’ve slipped into some kind of deviant mirror-universe, in which good is now evil, and evil is now good. Everything has become the opposite.

It becomes impossible to look at my own country or my own fellow citizens the same way I used to. It saps all sense of connection or allegiance I ever maintained. I can’t stand by and support a country that has become so sick, ugly and morally depraved. That’s what this fag-marriage has ushered in, as far as I’m concerned.


19 posted on 10/09/2014 7:14:35 AM PDT by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: reg45

In theory you are correct.

But given the membership of this Supreme Court, I doubt they will rule that marriage is a state issue to be dealt with only by state courts or state legislatures. Not when federal courts have imposed homosexual marriage on so many states, and have declined to intervene, to prevent homosexual marriages from occuring.


20 posted on 10/09/2014 7:21:16 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego (s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 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