Posted on 01/21/2015 1:33:49 PM PST by xzins
Will the Supreme Court Deal With Reality When It Makes Its Marriage Ruling?
Let's be blunt.
When a penis is inserted in a vagina there is a good chance that a new human being will result.
When a penis is inserted in an anus, there is a passable chance of disease or defect being the result.
This is reality and there is no escaping it. Only a real male and a real female can make babies. Put the two sexes together, and there's a good chance of babies showing up.
To deal with reality, cultures through all of recorded history have afforded to marriage a unique status specifically because of its reproductive potential. There is no historic example of any culture that recognized and treated same sex 'marriage' as the same as natural marriage. It is only in the past two decades, actually, that this notion of same sex marriage has heavily bombarded our airwaves, print media, and legislatures. In fact, it is so new that many very recent supporters of it were opponents of it (for political reasons) less than a decade ago. Barack Obama is a prime example. Despite whatever he might have actually wanted, he made a political calculation marriage in his first run for the presidency to appear to the public to oppose same sex. That is how new this supposed ‘public acceptance’ is.
And now, because of a mere two decades of hidden and hesitant support that is far from universal, the Supreme Court of the United States of America is willing to impose judicial fiat on an entire culture, disregarding thousands of years of recorded history.
If Roe v Wade is an example of judicial activism, then SCOTUS imposing same sex marriage will be judicial activism on steroids, for societal marriage has NEVER meant a male with a male or a female with a female. Ever. Anyplace.
Why?
Reality. Marriage is about the joining of the potentially procreative pair, male and female, and establishing a recognized, protected environment in which that father and mother will produce and rear a culture's next generation.
So, is it 'discriminatory' to tell same sex partners that they cannot marry? Only if it is discriminatory to tell two real guys that they never have the potential to make a baby.
It’s not discrimination. It’s just reality.
And here is another bite at reality: calling a horse a cow does not make it a cow. If SCOTUS on steroids rules that a horse is a cow, then everyone – even the gays – will know that what they have is not the same thing. And the culture will know that all the societal concessions designed over countless years to assist in the establishment of a real procreative home will be waste, fraud, and abuse when squandered on government created fake marriages.
So to the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, where does reality intersect with very recent, fashionable, designer assertions of equality under the law? Is someone really denied equal treatment when simple biology and thousands of years of human history say this isn’t an equality issue at all?
And, dear Justices, what exactly does it mean when state after state has denied through popular vote that natural marriage and same-sex partnerships can ever be the same thing, and that the courts have then proceeded to reject the actual votes of actual voters who voted in huge majorities across the nation to reject so-called same sex marriage?
I cannot imagine that someone would interpret that as a ‘ripe’ time AGAIN to force the will of the black robes on this nation. But, if that someone can deny the reality of biology and the reality of true history, then they probably don’t mind ignoring reality elsewhere.
Do the people have a voice when the SCOTUS gathers? I would recommend writing them, anyway.
No. Save your time, buy some ammo.
if they do not believe in God but instead nature then it is nature then which has a male and a female being bale to reproduce.
there for it is unnaturally for these homosexuals and ot me they are mentally sick.
The SCOTUS will rule for gays calling themselves married, and like Roe V Wade, it will be yet another bad judgment. SCOTUS does not want to deal with the insanity of unraveling this Gordian knot that was created through their inaction (and the ghosts of Lawrence...)
I’ve written off this case, and will be more interested in seeing the appeals of those who have been charged with public accommodation violations make their way to SCOTUS, where I think they will rule that recognition of unions which do not conform to personal religious beliefs is not a requirement for anyone, much less public accommodations. Call it splitting the baby, and everyone will go home unhappy.
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.
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.
I gave up on the Supremes years ago. Look at the GOP picks like O’Connor and Roberts. What disappointments they turned out to be.
So - soon - when they vote in favor of queer marriages; it will not surprise me.
It will be just one more historical note in the drastic demise and downfall of America.
The only heteros supporting this are Lefties and (sorry) dumb women sitting around watching the View or Ellen or Modern Family reruns, all of which are there to de-sensitize, normalize and lie to you all day long- “hey, we’re just like you...” No, sorry, you are not just like 97% of Americans.
If the SCOTUS doesn’t support the traditional definition of marriage, that is the SIGNAL that all bets are OFF - come all ye who want to marry your brother/sister/dad/mother/dog/horse/bigamists/polygamists - Won’t be able to stop any of this, my fellow sheeple (thanks to Gene Wilder for that sick image).
In answer to the article’s title, No.
There is a solid five vote majority for homosexuals on the Court. Kennedy leads that block. This block has voted consistently for imposing the ruling class’s morality on the rest of America by exercising complete federal control over states’ decisions about homosexuals. Roberts will probably join that bloc.
Go read Lawrence v. Texas, which Kennedy wrote, if you have any doubt about how this will come out. If you are not concerned about Roberts vote, you should be. Go read the Roemer decision. Roberts was pro-bono counsel for the homosexuals in the Roemer case.
A liberal court intuitively favors the elements of our society that harms it; i.e. criminals, perverts and druggies.
Someone better quote Lincoln’s famous “tail isn’t a leg” analogy defending the real societal/historical/biblical definition of marriage.
6-3 to allow gay marriage. Kennedy and Roberts joining he regular libs.
answer: No.
” So - soon - when they vote in favor of queer marriages; it will not surprise me.”
With Roberts, it probably will happen.
I’m hoping for Kennedy to see the light, at least about the ‘ripeness’ of an issue that has been fashionable for a few years, but rejected for thousands.
He and Roberts are the keys. To qualm Kennedy’s libertarian insistence on equality, this isn’t even an equality issue.
However, I have no illusions. I don’t confuse my hopes with what these two have written in the past.
You never know, though, Kennedy saw the light on Greece Village with the prayer ruling. He saw that free exercise means tolerating what we don’t necessarily want to hear.
Qualifying for marriage means having the right assortment of body parts, which same sex couples do not.
the covenant occurs when you go before your minister, priest rabbi or whoever, because you’re inviting God into the picture—down at city hall it is just a contract. Same sex marriage is basically a done deal as far as I can see it. What Christians and others really need to ask themselves is “hey, how can we protect the little turf we have left? How can my priest or pastor not be forced to perform a same sex marriage.”
“It is time to get government out of the marriage business and to return it to the private sphere.”
I’ve been advocating this on FR and elsewhere for many years. Let contract law govern the legal rights and responsibilities of consenting adults, and leave to religious institutions the duties and obligations of husband and wife in a marriage.
This is just another assault on the meaning of language.
To call this pairing of same-sex partners as a “marriage” is to diminish and demean the original meaning of the term.
Marriage has become a strange sort of contract, most of which is unwritten, except as interpreted by case law. It has evolved from a sworn vow, repeated before religious authority, into an activity licensed and sort of sanctioned by the secular government.
There is a formal contract, called “civil union” which carries none of the blessings of a formal religion, but in most jurisdictions, has the terms all spelled out and down in print, of which the partners involved have been informed of the intent. This is perfectly adequate for purposes of establishing rights of inheritance, property ownership, and entering into other contracts as a unit, or for tax purposes.
There is no logical or legal reason to pursue the renaming of “civil unions” as “marriage”, except as a way to show how much influence can be bought or imposed by a very determined minority.
You stated the truth and that will not change. But it is my impression that this Supreme Court will rubber stamp gay marriage. We are in the middle of trying to rearrange society to fit the needs of a few. The true effect of these changes will not be known for years. And these effects will be horrific. Someday with a new Supreme Court, I think that much of this will be reversed. But it will be a long painful process, and many people will suffer because of this stupidity.
Kennedy will be the decider. His jurisprudence is based on a flawed notion of humanity.
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.