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.”
Of course he will cave. Whatever dirt they used to blackmail him on Obamacare will be used as a threat on this issue and all isses forevermore.
“I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t,” Roberts said. “And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”
I wish he would call into Mark Levn’s show with this stupid line of thought.
“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.”
What makes you think that state politicians that are elected by the people would be anymore “God fearing” and chose conservative U.S. senators (that then confirm justices) than U.S. senators picked directly by the same people? It is illogical. Until my home state finally got a Republican controled legislature, we routinely sent conservative GOP Senators to congress while still electing state legislators that were democrats. IF the 17th had not existed, we wouldn’t have sent conservative Senators to the congress....they would have always been Democrats.
There may be good arguements against the 17th (direct election of Senators by the people), but the one you are putting forth is not one of them.
This is the real problem here. One of the Justices' today brushed against it.
If we redefine marriage to include same-sex couples; then, what moral or legal argument is there to not re-define it again for group marriages; or, two girls and one guy "marriage". There isn't any, because once we redefine marriage, it is open to be redefined over and over again. It will be redefined to whatever combination of people (or animals?) that can be thought of. It will dilute the meaning of marriage to a point where it is meaningless. And, that is the point of this whole exercise.
One of the points of this exercise is to undefine marriage,
the other point is to criminalize Christianity.
If it WERE ‘sex discrimination’ against Tom, then Joe would not be allowed to marry, either. Therefore, ‘sex discrimination’ is not the issue here.
I read a book about 40 years ago about the coming “gay” dominance. The theme was that in the future it would be illegal to marry if you were heterosexual. It would also be illegal for straight people to have or raise kids. The sodomites would be ruling the country. At the time I laughed it off as trash but it seems that the author might have been on to something. I read it in the early 70’s while most of them were still in the closet. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever believe I would see it happening.
'Undermine' is their goal, and they are succeeding.
It’s easier for God-fearing citizens to work with their state lawmakers to make recall laws for dealing with bad-apple state lawmakers who would uniquely elect federal senators than it is to amend the Constitution to recall corrupt federal lawmakers.
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.