Posted on 01/16/2015 1:19:49 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Decision Later This Year Could Extend Gay Marriage to All 50 States or Cloud Existing Unions
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Friday said it would decide whether the U.S. Constitution gives same-sex couples the right to marry, signaling what could be the final chapter of a push by advocates to extend gay unions nationwide.
The court accepted challenges to same-sex marriage bans in four states—Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee—that a federal appeals court upheld in November 2014. The ruling by the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati departed from recent decisions by other appeals courts that found same-sex couples enjoyed a right to marry under the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection and due-process provisions.
The justices are taking up the issue in the middle of the court’s current term after having earlier rejected pleas by states to reinstate marriage restrictions that appellate courts had found unconstitutional. The Sixth Circuit ruling, the first to uphold the restriction of marriage to heterosexuals, created a split among the court circuits that didn’t exist in October, making it more likely the Supreme Court could get involved.
The court agreed to hear two specific constitutional questions on same-sex marriage laws and will hear extended arguments.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Thank you. It left me speechless.
This could push the Conventions of States to the center of the national stage.
There ought to be a law against it.
This is a lost cause (for Conservatives). The Judicial has foisted gay marriage on over 30 states so far, and I see no reason why that won’t extend to the SC.
“It’s not in there. Check it out!”
The ‘right’ to an abortion isn’t in there, either.
But, Hey! 60 million BABIES can’t be wrong - or can they? ;)
The supremes have made themselves irrelevant. Of course the Constitution does nothing of the sort. Anyone who ever read it knows that. The criminal government occupiers have gone completely off the deep end.
I'm sure it will. This decision will also be another example how fears that an Article V Convention would be a runaway convention are misplaced, because we already have a runaway convention: the Supreme Court of the United States.
It’s a State’s matter. SCOTUS shouldn’t even be involved with this cr@p.
On the matter of the SCOTUS announcement of hearing these cases? Those supporting traditional marriage should not be worried…
SCOTUS has 6, count them, 6 Roman Catholics on the bench. So we are good right?/sarc
The only thing the Constitution does is afford the rights of states to decide whether they want to endorse this travesty. If they don’t, the judiciary has no business butting in and saying that state laws against it are unconstitutional. On the other hand, if the states approve it, there’s nothing in the constitution that would make it illegal.
Well of course it does. It's in the same clause that made abortion a right, EPA taxing CO2, and the fining of people who refuse to buy insurance.
Yet...as we sit here sweating the details of “constitutionally defined marriage”, there is no full, state-to-state, reciprocity of the Second Amendment.
Buggery is a federally recognized activity while the ability to protect one’s own life (and by extension, liberty and happiness!) is selective and state-by-state.
Me thinks Mayor Daly’s rant [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfW0DDC1LGs] is more reflective of “États-Unis d’Amérique” than many on this board realize.
Guess the good news, for me is, my FOID is still valid for another year, even though I live in Texas.
The argument MUST be; what service of the Constitution does such legislation provide to the United States of America?
Does such legislation (a) foundationally-support; (b) re-structure; or, (c) defeat the Constitution? Will the USA and human liberty be served by such actions to create more liberty in our dealings with other sovereign entities (AKA: the gist of the Monroe Doctrine).
It’s a b***ch being the single source on Earth of human liberty. Such human endeavors [true liberty of man-kind] will always hear the nay-sayers that bleat, “we need government to protect us from ourselves.”.
Think about that, please.
Gotta go...
/snark
Can you provide those 60 million opinions?
/snark
(Just providing the traditional “progressive side” of the argument...)
No kidding. What a sad state of affairs. I sure wish OUR SIDE would fight as hard to SAVE America as the LefTards do, to destroy it! Even HALF as hard! Even 1/4 as hard! Yeesh!
Did you get to see my #133?
In essence, it is “Constitution for me but not for thee.”
Who has the legal right to redefine the legal meaning of words? And where is the enumerated power for the federal government to redefine words? New dictionaries, assuming they now accommodate ‘trendy’ concepts, do not have the power to redefine legal meanings. Clearly, a matter to be resolved via state legislation with no federal or judicial interference.
Thus, ‘man and wife’. Period. Wife being defined as female. Period. Empirical.
Might as well add this too. The meaning of marriage predates HISTORY itself. It predates the written word. Only a constitutional amendment would change the prehistoric defininition of antiquity and empower federal or judicial meddling. Otherwise, a tyrannical violation of the Constitution that I as a Christian am religiously required to deem an abomination.
But of course justices are educated in opposition to originalism. Only those who see through their professors' BS can shake off that indoctrination.
“...will vote ...”
Yep, their ‘votes’ tend to be the main legitimate court opinions while the others simply vote like oligarchs.
This is not about any ‘right to marry’. The bottom line is that this is about the right to have a wholesome society.
The Fed has no business forcing unwholesomeness on anyone, much less a state.
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.