Michigan AG's legal team defends fight to uphold same-sex marriage ban
Michigan legislative action thread
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 ...
Clearly even the secularists have difficulty claiming that sodomy is just like normal heterosexual intercourse. And that is the Achilles heel in their argument but apparently people are too afraid to make this point. Probably because it is disgusting on all levels. Tis not mine to tell you not to do it, but don't claim that it is equivalent to normal sex. Yes, there is normal sex and abnormal sex and sodomy is abnormal.
They sound hesitant to legislate from the bench. Maybe they’ll split the baby. They won’t force a state to classify same sex partners who were “married” in another state as “married” in every state. But each state would still have to offer the legal protection of civil unions - presumed inheritance, medical proxy, etc. A patchwork quilt that prevents nasty surprises.
OK, maybe the Obamacare case was not the best example. The point is, Justices ask questions in oral argument for many different reasons. Sometimes they are signalling their opinion. Other times, they may be testing that opinion, or playing devil's advocate, etc. That's why it's difficult to predict, with any accuracy, the result of a case after oral argument.
They already have. Multiple times. And they lose. But then some judge steps in and overthrows the ballot results. That’s the unspoken 800 lb. gorilla hiding behind the justice’s bench. Awful lot of judges think “one person, one vote” means they get to decide important public policy issues all by themselves.
That’s the scenario that would hold off universal state recognized ‘gay marriage’ for the longest time, in my opinion. But if you look at the trends of actual popular votes on the issue, it is not positive. If someone had told me in the year 2000 that in the year 2012 North Carolina voters would be where California voters are now on issue, I wouldn’t have believed them. But that’s exactly what happened. In 20 years I doubt if there would be a state that simply wouldn’t just repeal any marriage amendment still left by popular ballot. The ones that only passed them in the 50% ranges in the middle of the last decade probably couldn’t pass them again now.
Freegards
“Members of the Supreme Court questioned on Tuesday whether now is the right time to force states to allow same-sex couples to marry...”
Typical totalitarian Supreme Court reasoning. What in the world does WHEN have to do with whether the Consitution requires the States to perform homosexual marriages? It’s either in the Constitution or it’s not. If it is in the Constitution, it was there yesterday and it will be there tomorrow and the Supreme Court is required to rule that is is. If it’s not in the Constitution today, all the penumbras and emanations in the world won’t create it tomorrow—unless Justice Kennedy’s rule of law is “I just make stuff up and put it in the Constitution when I think the time is auspicious.”
“Clearly even the secularists have difficulty claiming that sodomy is just like normal heterosexual intercourse.”
Justice Kennedy does not. Read Lawrence v. Texas. In that case, Justice Kennedy held that sodomy is a sacred constitutional right.
In other words, they don’t want to handle this hot potatoe and will kick the can down the road for the states to deal with it.
All this so that less than 3% of the people can be “happy.”
Don’t know- but it certainly does not appear to be the “slam dunk” that was anticipated.
Ginsburg did a sham homosexual marriage a couple of weeks ago and she won’t recuse herself.
Why the hell is this even allowed?
I also recall that the majority in Lawrence v. Texas said that decision would not open the door to homosexual marriage.
The question that should have been asked is...since when do we legislate life style choices?
The Constitution is silent on this subject. That means marriage is, what it has always been, a states rights issue.
Knock it back the states at the least. Ginsburg needs to recuse herself after performing a homosexual sham marriage.
Last time gays were demanding their "rights" it did not end well for the gays.
To decide whether a right is “fundamental” under the due process clause, the Supreme Court requires two things. The first is a carefully worded description of the “asserted fundamental liberty interest.” Second, such rights must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” The right must also be “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people” that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if [it was] sacrificed.”
No state contemplated redefining marriage until Hawaii in the mid-1990s, and the first American marriages of this kind took place in Massachusetts in 2004. It seems fair to conclude that any right to same-sex marriage is not deeply rooted in this country’s history and traditions, and thus no such fundamental right exists.
Damn. By what justification?
There are some pretty nasty things lingering in the rear end of a healthy or unhealthy human being — nasty viruses like ebola and bacteria of all kinds.
Might as well stick your private parts in the sewer because is exactly what is in a sewer.
Nice!
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.