"I've Said It Before,
And I'll Say It Again,
Death to America!"
Posted on 04/29/2015 12:39:21 PM PDT by TangledUpInBlue
Chief Justice Roberts has long been troubled by the idea that courts might short-circuit a democratic debate over marriage equality by imposing a constitutional right to marry by judicial fiat. In his dissent from the Windsor case in 2013, he wrote that he was reluctant to “tar the political branches with the brush of bigotry” without convincing evidence that a law’s “principal purpose was to codify malice.” He might vote to uphold same-sex-marriage bans on the grounds that the people, not judges, should decide the future of marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Roberts will cave. Mark my words. He cares more about what others think of him than he does about doing the right thing.
"I've Said It Before,
And I'll Say It Again,
Death to America!"
I don't think it will be an either/or case; the Supreme Solomons will "split the baby," at the cost of the baby. And the false mother will not object.
They're likely to let states continue to define the requirements for getting married, but require them to honor these redefined "marriages" from other states.
Or, they'll craft together a requirement for all states to offer "marriage"-like civil unions to sodomites, effectively gutting the institution just the same.
Ginsburg’s face needs to be painted green and it would be perfect.
Hey Roberts, how about if Sue loves Joe and Tom and Alice and Bob, and Fido, and Mary, and Bill, and Fluffy and her grandma? Can she marry all of them.
Supreme SODOMY...
Uh, NO John, because Jane can marry Tom, so 'sex discrimination' against Sue is not relevant here. This is NOT about discrimination based on gender, John.
It’s a sign when homosexuality is accepted as normal.
Chief Justice Roberts is a good example why the 17th Amendment should never have been ratified. More on this shortly.
Roberts is wrongly ignoring that the states are basically free to discriminate against any issue, such such gay marriage, that they have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect.
With that in mind, consider that if the 17th Amendment had never been ratified then their would probably be all different faces on the Supreme Court today. The Court would probably be comprised of God-fearing justices who reflect the family values of the senators who confirmed them, senators likewise reflecting the family values of the state lawmakers who elected them. And if such was the case then patriots wouldn’t be concerned about activist justices trying to legislate so-called vote-winning “right” to gay marriage from the bench.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear.
No. Roberts will cave because if he DOESN’T cave HIS CHILDREN WILL BE DEPORTED because they are illegal aliens. Remember, blackmail is the force behind many seemingly unreal decisions by politicians!
Alito’s comment is gold.
I guess the Left would have us think that everyone throughout history was an open, hateful bigot.
No, then it would disgrace the color green.
“It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
...or from their taste in sweaters.
Why would his kids be deported when nobody else’s are anymore? Because they aren’t Hispanic?
These days his kids should just as safe as any other illegals, don’t you think?
And that’s if they are really illegal.
What would happen on Earth if everyone were gay? We would cease to exist. Gays are a selfish group who live life for THEMSELVES and promote termination of the human race. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it, SCOTUS!
“More than any of the justices, Justice Sotomayor focused on what she identified as the basic question of whether the right to marriage is a fundamental right. If so, she said, it had to be extended to all citizens on equal terms.”
I would argue that marriage is not a right, much less a fundamental one. Except for gun ownership (which is a different argument altogether), since when must one “apply for” permission to exercise a fundamental right such as when applying for a marriage license? At best, marriage is a privilege, and not one that must necessarily be extended to all individuals.
Under the current regime, justice and laws are dispensed SELECTIVELY as a means to a political end. For example, when the cops beat a white homeless man to death in Orange County, CA you heard not a WORD from the DOJ.
Anything LICENSES are issued for is a privilege not a right. This includes hunting, driving, and traditional marriage.
gay marriage has no standing in court. no one is denied being able to marry under the definition of a marriage is between a man and a woman.
love does not enter law.
gay sex is a choice.
love does not enter into the contract of marriage.
t
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.
