I would think so too, but I won't be holding my breath. I've noticed that the courts often like to play "Calvin Ball" when it suits them.
Posted on 04/29/2015 7:48:33 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
As the Supreme Court's oral arguments on whether states should be constitutionally obligated to issue same-sex marriage licenses adjourned Tuesday afternoon, Heritage Foundation's Ryan Anderson said in a news conference outside the building that the likely swing vote justice, Anthony Kennedy, was "not persuaded" by LGBT arguments.
As many are predicting the Supreme Court's decision in June to come down to a narrow 5-4 vote, Justice Kennedy has been pegged again as the justice who is likely to decide which way the court leans in making the tough decision on whether the 14th Amendment requires states to uphold same-sex marriages and validate same-sex marriage licenses given out by other states.
Kennedy pointed out in the hearing that "one of the problems" in this case is that the traditional man-woman definition of marriage has been the norm for "millennia," while the LGBT definition of marriage as being a union between two loving and consenting adults has only existed inside the United States for a decade, as Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in June 2004.
"One of the problems is when you think about these cases, you think about words or cases, and the word that keeps coming back to me in this case is millennia, plus time," Kennedy said. "But on a larger scale, ... it was about about the same time between Brown and Loving as between Lawrence and this case. It's about 10 years."
Kennedy further explained that it would be difficult for a bench of unelected judges to issue a national ruling on this highly-debated issue when there is only 10 years of same-sex marriage for the court to examine.
"And so there's time for the scholars and the commentators and the bar and the public to engage in it. But still, 10 years is, I don't even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia," Kennedy added. "This definition has been with us for millennia. And it's very difficult for the court to say, 'oh well, we know better.'"
Speaking after the hearing, Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Ryan Anderson, who attended the arguments, asserted that Kennedy's concern about redefining a millenia of marriage was not eased by the subsequent response of pro-LGBT attorney Mary L. Bonauto, who stated that the issue of gay rights in America has been contested for over a century.
"Anthony Kennedy asked the next question and he says 'You want us to throw away a millenia of marriage as the union of a man and a woman based on 10 years of same-sex marriage,'" Anderson told the raucous crowd outside the court building. "Anthony Kennedy was not persuaded."
Cathy Ruse, who is a senior legal fellow at the Family Research Council and also observed the hearings, said that the lawyers on the LGBT side did not want to acknowledge the "history" of marriage argument.
"The fact that [Kennedy] is bringing up that distinction, shows that he is actually thinking of it in those terms, which the other side did not want to acknowledge that at all," Ruse told CP. "They didn't want to acknowledge the millennia and the importance of the history on the issue."
Although Kennedy was not sold that a "millennia" of traditional marriage can be redefined by the Supreme Court, that didn't stop him from asking difficult questions to attorney John Bursch, who argued in defense of the state of Michigan and other states with same-sex marriage bans.
Kennedy asked Bursch, who pushed the importance of the state holding a child-rearing view on marriage, why same-sex couples do not deserve the "same ennoblement" in their relationships.
Even though many social conservative attorneys and activists feel that Kennedy's "millennia" remark indicates that he may vote in favor of states' rights, Jordan Lorence, senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Christian Post after the arguments that it was difficult to tell which side Kennedy is leaning.
"Those were good questions that [Kennedy] was asking but there were other times where [Bursch] was up and I thought [Kennedy] was asking things that would indicate that he might be leaning the other way," Lorence said. "I think it was very hard to read Justice Kennedy on this, except to say that I think he is giving serious consideration to the views on both points, which means it is probably going to be a five to four vote. For the other eight justices, where they came down was pretty clear for or against the state laws. We are just going to have to see."
Ruse additionally pointed to another Kennedy remark as an indication that he is "not comfortable" creating a new constitutional right.
"Justice Kennedy raised the issue of the [Washington vs.] Glucksberg case, which is the case in which the Supreme Court said no to the effort to make assisted suicide a constitutional right. Kennedy brought up Glucksberg. Kennedy voted no in Glucksberg. 'No, we are not going to create a new constitutional right,'" Ruse explains. "So, he brings up Glucksberg in this context. That is interesting. What he says when he does is 'What about our obligation to define a fundamental right in its narrowest terms,' and he mentions Glucksberg. That says to me that he is uncomfortable, potentially not comfortable creating a new constitutional right because we don't have it defined in its narrowest terms."
Jeff Mateer, general counsel at the Liberty Institute, told the crowd after the hearing that he foresees the court ruling in June to allow the state's to continue deciding their own marriage laws.
"It was encouraging and prayers have been answered and you should feel encouraged. ... I was especially encouraged that several of the justices recognized that religious liberty is a key value," Mateer said. "In the end, what I think we are going to see that the court is going to issue a decision that respects the right of the democratic process and will send this case back to the states where it belongs and that we respect religious liberty and we do have the freedom to believe, to speak and act upon our beliefs."
I would think so too, but I won't be holding my breath. I've noticed that the courts often like to play "Calvin Ball" when it suits them.
Children have a God-given right to be raised by their natural parents.
Same-sex “marriage” denies a child the right to be raised by at least one of his parents.
Same-sex “marriage” is structurally unjust, and this grave injustice should not be upheld by force of law.
I've read elsewhere that Kennedy was making up his own LGBT arguments.
It took Rome a lot longer to fall than it's taken us.
However, I doubt the court is going to overturn the coordinated efforts of all these federal judges. That would be akin to a counter revolution. All those marriage licenses were issued, all those Fudgies start getting bennies, all that will be taken away?
I will be shocked if Justice Kennedy doesn’t vote to create “Gay” marriage.
The reason "sads" (not gays) are so angry is that they know in their heart-of-hearts that they were born mildly defective and, rather than just accept that fact and getting on with life, they wish to validate their denial of their deformity by using feral government thugs to force normal people to pretend to legitimize their abnormal sexual orientation. The behavior is much like a three year old throwing a screaming fit. Sads (or sods, short for sodomites as some might call them) are in pain for being genetic dead ends upon whom nature has played a cruel trick.
And like the three year old, their lashing out behavior is not to be tolerated, but that does not mean that they are to be hated. Take pity on their pain-filled souls. Many, many sods are perfectly adjusted, functional people who are not lugging around large shoulder chips.
Some states have had a ballot vote against Homo marriage that was overturned by subsequent judicial action. I think Californis for one and possibly Florida for another.
Does any FREEPER here with a legal background have insight as to the effect of a SCOTUS decision to support the man-woman only marriage on those judicial actions?
Would they be overturned and the winning ballot position be reaffirmed?
I actually think Alito may have been the one to ask the critical question, about whether religious schools that failed to recognize same-sex marriages would lose their tax exemptions.
Iirc the Catholic Parochial schools are the largest category of religious schools in the country. I don’t think it’ll be lost on either Kennedy or Roberts (the other potential swing vote) that Vitelli saying they would lose their statuses would really mess up the Catholic schools.
That’s what I think is missing from everyone’s calculations. If it does, that would create chaos. Kennedy doesn’t give a rip-roaring-rip about the constitution. He’s fully in tune with the Zeitgeist and will decide based on that. For Kennedy, there would have to be a very compelling, extra-constitutional argument for razing the superstructure the Sodomites, Marxists, and traitors have worked so hard building over the last few years.
My legal background is academic in nature from polsci major classes, but it depends on how the Court rules.
For instance, they can uphold the lower court ruling, which would end new same sex marriage in jurisdictions where it only exists by Federal judicial ruling, but also leave marriages that have taken place in-tact.
Similar to how they could end Obamacare subsidies, but also provide for a “transition period” where they’d still be allowed.
This seems to be part of the “middle ground” Alito was fishing around for yesterday.
Six members of SCOTUS are Catholic or at least claim to be.
After the Obamacare ruling I see no sanity in this bunch...
A Supreme Court decision in favor of the states would, presumably, overturn all of the decisions of Federal courts that had overturned the state laws against same-sex marriage (and thus re-instating those state laws).
The messy question for the courts would be how to handle those same-sex couples that got married in the period between when one court struck down the prohibition and when the Supreme Court reinstated it.
The fed courts overturned state law after state law regarding traditional marriage. The fed courts have apparently decided that the states have to bow down to the feds, and appease the perverse whims of less than 2% of the population, at the expense of the other 98%, in contradiction of millenia of common law, consequences be damned.
If that is the side of history that the SCOTUS want’s to come down on, so be it. It’s their decision, so let them live with it. Also, let them try to enforce it without causing bloodshed and rebellion.
Exactly.
I think Vitelli messed up in acknowleging that like he did. Even though he was being truthful.
It opened the door to the Justices considering the issue of whether there’s also a conscience exeption to accepting same-sex marriage as legitimate on religious grounds. Under the auspices of private religious schools losing their tax exemptions. Most of which are Catholic.
I think this is a lost cause. The Conservative states should begin the process of getting out of the Marriage Business and leave it up to the Church...
Homosexuals are 1.7% of the American population, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation
yet they consume about half our oxygen.
I’m sick of them and their constant demands.
No
They have not recused
It’s yet another silly FR rumour so far
It’s not that simple
Just look at the florists and wedding cake folks who can be forced
And insurance benicifiaries issues
And loads of other conundrums
Even if left to states....
Making marriage just a church blessing won’t fix this
It’s been a civil construct since hunter gatherer days
For inheritance and legitimacy sake
Maybe as high as 3.5% once you count the switch hitters or, as a crude friend of mine would put it, those who will screw anything with a hole.
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.