FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 04/28/2015 8:42:02 AM PDT by VinL
Members of the Supreme Court questioned on Tuesday whether now is the right time to force states to allow same-sex couples to marry, pointing to how quickly public opinion has shifted on the issue of marriage equality.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was a key figure in striking down the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, suggested that he might be worried about the court moving too quickly to force states to marry same-sex couples.
“This definition has been with us for millennia,” Kennedy said of male-female marriages. The justice also said it would be very difficult for the court to say it knows better than the public on the issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
IIRC, Lawrence v. Texas was decided as a privacy issue, not as an endorsement of sodomy.
The government condoning smoking: they used to - cigarettes were included in military ration kits during WWII.
By not getting married, couples can avoid the “marriage penalty” in the tax code.
Kennedy might vote that States can deny gay marriage, but that the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1) that States must recognize other States' gay marriages. That way, each side gets a little something. Kennedy did something like this in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which dealt with abortion.
You bet. Kennedy does not want to change marriage to some newfangled configuration. But he does not want to be the vote that keeps traditional marriage either. Folks should raise their voices and lobby to make them both hear. 6-3 against gay marriage would be a doozy.
Excellent.
I believe you are referring to Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972). Gideon dealt with the right to counsel in the Sixth Amendment, not the right to privacy.
Justice Kennedy does not. Read Lawrence v. Texas. In that case, Justice Kennedy held that sodomy is a sacred constitutional right.
Definition of sacred
connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.
“sacred rites”
synonyms: holy, hallowed, blessed, consecrated, sanctified, venerated, revered; archaicblest
“the priest entered the sacred place”
religious rather than secular.
“sacred music”
synonyms: religious, spiritual, devotional, church, ecclesiastical
“sacred music”
(of writing or text) embodying the laws or doctrines of a religion.
“a sacred Hindu text”
>>interspecies marriages
Transhumanist/Postgenderist marriages.
And if the Supreme Court rules there is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage, then those judges were wrong. Presumably, judges could then not turn it over again. One wonders if it makes void those previous rulings?
“Supreme Court rules there is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage”
That is what I am praying for. : )
I was encouraged for a moment hearing what Kennedy said, but only for a moment. Then I remembered what they did in recent months by not taking action.
I am not even sure about John Roberts.
“IIRC, Lawrence v. Texas was decided as a privacy issue, not as an endorsement of sodomy.”
“Privacy” in Lawrence v. Texas was the blah blah the court used to rationalize it’s decision. The holding was that sodomy was a protected right under the federal constitution and that states had no power to make it illegal.
I don’t care if it was an endorsement, a celebration, or an acceptance. It turned the 10th amendement on its head by assuming federal power over matters that were unambiguously delegated to the States in the Constitution.
The privacy concept itself has no meaning other than what five supreme court justices think happens to be a good idea. Why doesn’t John Wayne Gacy have the right to kill people in the privacy of his home? Because the supremes think that’s a bad idea. Why is abortion more widespread and protected in the US than almost any other nation? Because the supremes think having freely available abortion is a dandy idea.
Whatever they think is a good moral decision, they call it privacy and shove it down our throats. Calling it “privacy” is just a label that messages better than “the constitutional right of sodomy.”
Thanks for the correction on Gideon. You are right and I should do these posts from references rather than memory.
“I’m not sure what the 10’th amendment states, but it seems to me the supreme court has an obligation to set OBJECTIVE definitions whenever states attempt to force SUBJECTIVE interpretations that violate what should be objective laws or customs. This is to prevent states from declaring everyone must shave their heads on Tuesdays to prevent cooties- this clearly violates the constitutional right to pursuit of happiness by forcing people to do what they do not wish to do- especially in light of the fact that cooties are quite rare”
Look it up. Paraphrasing—all matters not delegated to the federal government in this Constitution are reserved to the States, or the people thereof.
Regulation of virtually all moral matters (head lice or cooties, abortion, sodomy, incest etc etc etc) was part of what was referred to as the “police power” and was reserved exclusively to the states. The 10 amendment codifies that reservation.
So you may think its a great idea for the US Supreme Court to regulate cooties or require cootie sensitivity training :), but the authors of the Constitution did not. So if you want that change, amend the Constitution.
BTW, the pursuit of happiness is not one of the rights in the bill of rights nor was furthering it an enumerated power of Congress. It was a phrase used in the declaration of independence.
This is to prevent states from declaring everyone must shave their heads on Tuesdays to prevent cooties- this clearly violates the constitutional right to pursuit of happiness by forcing people to do what they do not wish to do- especially in light of the fact that cooties are quite rare
[[So you may think its a great idea for the US Supreme Court to regulate cooties or require cootie sensitivity training :), ]]
[[Look it up. Paraphrasing—all matters not delegated to the federal government in this Constitution are reserved to the States, or the people thereof]]
the 14’th amendment to the constitutution was interpreted by McReynalds to mean the ‘orderly pursuit of happiness by free men’ in Meyer v. Nebraska
That pursuit of happiness wasn’t specifically in the constitution, Yet the SC court ruled that man is entitled to the orderly pursuit of it-
I will say it again- a police action declaring that people must shave their heads violates the pursuit of happiness- especially if it violates a religious belief against shaving heads- the SC then has an obligation to step in and determine if the states have the right to demand that everyone shave their heads or not if the state insists that it has the right to demand that in clear violation of the bill of rights decree that man is entitled to the pursuit of happiness (in an orderly manner as determined by supreme court)
If all ‘m,oral’ matters are left to the states to enforce, then the supreme court would not have had to weigh in on whether or not black folks could vote, or women could vote, or if a state law about morality violates a constitutional right then the supreme court has to step in and declare the state law unconstitutional of course-
[[So you may think its a great idea for the US Supreme Court to regulate cooties ]]
I never suggested that the supreme court regulate them- I suggested that it is their duty to determine if such a law violates constitutional rights- and if a religious belief believes it’s a sin to cut hair on Tuesdays, then this is a clear violation of religious right, aND the pursuit of happiness.
The supreme court has weighed in on several Different m oral issues, polygamy being one- where the plaintiff claimed the state was violating his right to marry based many women- He claimed he had a ‘religious duty’ to do so and that the states were impeding that duty-
Up until then, there was a federal nationwide ban on polygamy “obviously directed at the polygamous practices of the Mormons, merely extended over the Territories the common law in relation to bigamy which exists in every State of the Union.”
The court found he was not allowed to practice it (in this case upholding the state’s ban on his multiple marriages)
The supreme court is basically there to make sure everything In the states doesn’t violate constitutional law-, and even if the SC should vote I na way I don’;t agree with- and might uphold a states right to demand shaved heads on Tuesdays- I still want the supreme court at least hearing matters in which constitutional rights are violated possibly-
The SC is our last line of defense against rogue state (and federal) governments- or at least it’s supposed to be-
Note they care not if bible-believing Christians are offended.
They instead go out of their way to offend, and prosecute, and persecute.
Agree. Today its all about shun the majority and protect the minority in whatever form that takes as “ social justice” has been too long in arriving.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
WTH does “shifting public opinion” have to do with it?
Either the states define marriage or there’s a Federal “right” to it
These cowards are afraid to say NO. Stand UP for once and tell the left wing NO NO NO and NO. It’s a STATE issue. It’s not about race, so it’s not a Loving vs Va issue.
“Breyer used similar language, telling the lawyer: “Suddenly, you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to change what marriage is.””
And two of the nine have officiated homosexual “weddings”.
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.