Posted on 04/29/2015 11:12:53 AM PDT by NYer
The attorney arguing for same-sex "marriage" before the Supreme Court Tuesday hopes that the traditional definition of marriage will fall.
Mary Bonauto, answering a question posed by Justice Samuel Alito, also said she believes that "times can blind" people to more open definitions of institutions like marriage.
The high court devoted an almost unheard of two hours to oral arguments to help them come to a decision on two questions they are expected to reach by June: does the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States require states to allow marriage between two persons of the same sex, and must a state recognize the same-sex "marriage" entered into by a couple in another state?
Bonauto, a longtime gay rights activist, began Tuesday's proceedings in challenging the laws in Ohio and three other states. But her opening statement was soon interrupted by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In answering Ginsburg, Bonauto affirmed that states have the right to regulate domestic issues such as marriage, as long as their laws do not violate the Constitution.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., jumped in, picking up on Bonauto's statement that "a whole class of people ... are denied the equal right to be able to join in this very extensive government institution that provides protection for families."
"You say join in the institution," Roberts said. "The argument on the other side is that they're seeking to redefine the institution. Every definition that I looked up, prior to about a dozen years ago, defined marriage as unity between a man and a woman as husband and wife. Obviously, if you succeed, that core definition will no longer be operable."
"I hope not, Your Honor, because what we're really talking about here is a class of people who are, by State laws, excluded from being able to participate in this institution, Bonauto said.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom many believe will be the deciding vote in this case, jumped in to remind Bonauto that the Court was being asked to change something that has existed for millenia.
"The word that keeps coming back to me in this case is—is millennia, plus time," he said. "First of all, there has not been really time, so the Respondents say, for the Federal system to engage in this debate, the separate States. But on a larger scale, it's been—it was about—about the same time between Brown and Loving as between Lawrence and this case. It's about 10 years."
"This definition has been with us for millennia," he said, "And it's very difficult for the Court to say, 'Oh well, we know better.'"
Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 prohibited racially-segregated schools. Loving v. Virginia in 1967 struck down state prohibitions agains interracial marriage. Lawrence v. Texas was the 2003 case that struck down state laws that criminalized sodomy.
Justice Samuel A. Alito asked Bonauto how she would account for the fact that no nation or culture before the end of the 20th century recognized marriage between two people of the same sex. “Can we infer from that that those nations and those cultures all thought that there was some rational, practical purpose for defining marriage in that way or is it your argument that they were all operating independently based solely on irrational stereotypes and prejudice?”
Bonauto responded that “times can blind and it takes time to see stereotypes and to see the common humanity of people who had once been ignored or excluded.”
The attorney also received a grilling from Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who challenged her: “Suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require States that don’t want to do it to change what you’ve heard is change what marriage is to include gay people. Why cannot those States at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other States is or is not harmful to marriage.”
Catholic ping!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world
That has such people in’t!
Pray REAL hard.
“I hope not, Your Honor, because what we’re really talking about here is a class of people who are, by State laws, excluded from being able to participate in this institution, Bonauto said.
The constitution protects the rights of the individual. Every individual can marry as long as they are of age, are not already married (nor is the other person), are marrying a member of the opposite sex and are not closely related to the other person. And any of the above disqualifies them from marrying the other person.
This law applies equally to everyone.
It’s not about rights. It’s about tearing down the principles of right and wrong that we learned from our parents and religious institution.
To turn this country into a communist country, they have to make the State the only source of right and wrong.
Marriage is defined in the Bible, if the so-called Justices think they can redefine the term they are sadly mistaken. They can call a cow a horse, but it sure doesn’t make it so.
Lousy report! Was Breyer’s question indicative of skepticism, or a set-up? We can’t possibly know without knowing how it was answered!
Lousy report! Was Breyer’s question indicative of skepticism, or a set-up? We can’t possibly know without knowing how it was answered!
I remember when Roe V. Wade was being decided. They told us that to have legal abortion - it would get rid of child abuse, crime, you name it. But all the problems they said would be eliminated actually increased.
Whacking the protection of marriage laws between a man and a woman will open more cans of snakes than we can possibly imagine right now.
One thing - what keeps gays from doing more kissing and hugging and holding hands right now is that it is not socially acceptable. Guess what we and our children will be witness to if the laws are lifted?
You will be eating at a restaurant with your family and you will be forced to watch the two guys in the next booth going at it. And there will be no law protecting public decency because they will have privileged law on their side.
I was at private lake and there was a woman walking around with nearly all of her buttocks showing. A small group of us parents went to the owner and asked if the offending woman could be asked to cover up her greatly exposed @$$. He agreed since his lake was a family-friendly place. So, he went up to her and asked her to either put something on to cover up or leave the lake. She left after wiggling her @$$ at us.
This marriage law will allow these people to push for more “rights” and I gotta tell you a couple of guys or a couple of gals marrying each other will be the least of our concerns.
After the Obamacare ruling, I have no confidence in the Roberts’ court.
Roberts has proven himself to be incompetent.
If they get this one right, it will be a miracle.
I predict they get it wrong. Thousands of years of civilization’s definition of marriage, struck down on a whim.
This is one I’d like to see proven wrong on. Lets hope I am.
Until gay couples are able to produce new tax payers without assistance, then their contribution to society can ONLY be measured in terms of DE-population through disease and natural attrition via national fertility rates.
Governments naturally favor those behaviors which grow the economy through perpetuation of the species...
Even with religion and morality set aside (NOT that it should be), this issue is NOT about discrimination but rather about promotion of the general welfare.
If gay marriage is a good thing, then would happen if heterosexuality were non-existent???
God has a purpose for everything... and gay marriage is not only in direct opposition to that purpose, it mocks the very God under Whom this nation was founded. The gays know this. I hope SCOTUS understands what they will be saying to God if they let this abomination to continue.
The constitution has never defined marriage as it has been the same since BC.
Scotus is not the arbiter of the dictionary. Never has been.
And the Lord said, because of the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great; and because their sin is very grievous I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it, that has come to me; if not I will know it.
Genesis 18:20-21
More Mary K for the porcines.
"Justices Question Redefining Millennia-Old Institution of Marriage"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
First, note that the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional approach to deciding the constitutionality of gay marriage is a 17th Amendment-related problem. In other words, if the 17th Amendment had not been ratified then there would probably be all different faces on the Supreme Court at this time. And if such was the case then the Supreme Court would likely consist of God-fearing justices who would probably share the family values of the senators who confirmed them, senators likewise sharing the family values of the state lawmakers who elected them. And patriots wouldn’t be concerned about pro-gay activist justices looking for an excuse to legislate the so-called “right” to gay marriage from the bench.
Regarding redefining marriage, since when did the Constitution give the Supreme Court the power to define marriage? In fact, the Founding States had made made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage means that marriage is uniquely a state power issue. And since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage, the states are free to make marriage laws which discriminate on the basis of sex, prohibiting gay marriage an example of this.
Getting back to the 17th Amendment, that amendment needs to disappear.
Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are Sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a Sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever.
Jefferson Davis
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.