Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Presiding at Same-Sex Wedding, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Emphasizes the Word ‘Constitution’
New York Times ^ | 05/18/2015 | Maureen Dowd

Posted on 05/18/2015 12:19:37 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

The groom and groom strolled down the aisle to the mellow strains of “Mr. Sandman.”

Wearing her black robe with her signature white lace collar, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presided over the marriage on Sunday afternoon of Michael Kahn, the longtime artistic director of the Shakespeare Theater Company in Washington, and Charles Mitchem, who works at an architecture firm in New York.

The gilded setting was elegant: Anderson House in the Embassy Row neighborhood, the headquarters in Washington of the Society of the Cincinnati, a club for the descendants of the French and American soldiers who fought in the Revolutionary War. During the ceremony, the couple slipped black and gold Harry Winston rings onto each other’s fingers.

But the most glittering moment for the crowd came during the ceremony. With a sly look and special emphasis on the word “Constitution,” Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States.

No one was sure if she was emphasizing her own beliefs or giving a hint to the outcome of the case the Supreme Court is considering whether to decide if same-sex marriage is constitutional.

But the guests began applauding loudly, delighted either way. Justice Ginsburg, who has officiated at same-sex weddings in the past, also seemed delighted, either by their reaction or, perhaps, by the news that she will be played in a movie by Natalie Portman (who, in a strange casting segue, will play Jackie Kennedy Onassis in another film).

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; US: District of Columbia; US: New York
KEYWORDS: alcoholism; charlesmitchem; constitution; districtofcolumbia; gaymarriage; ginsburg; homosexualagenda; libertarians; medicalmarijuana; michaelkahn; newyork; newyorkcity; newyorkslimes; newyorktimes; ruthbaderginsburg; samesexmarriage; scotus; shakespeare; sodomy; washington
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last
To: Genoa

So, in essence,
the 14th amendment nullified the Constitution,
and we’re now ruled by an oligarchy of 5 judges,

with the facade of a democratic republic to give them legitimacy.


21 posted on 05/18/2015 12:37:58 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Remember if 5 people can make it legal, 5 people can make it illegal.

We need to concentrate on nominating people who will put true conservatives on the court that will rule the way we wont them to.

To hell with stare decisis and precedent, the left doesn't care about it, and we need to stop caring about it. Any politician that spouts drivel about not having a litmus test needs to be immediately disqualified from consideration.

22 posted on 05/18/2015 12:41:58 PM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (You can't spell Hillary without using the letters L, I, A, & R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

No actually. Consider the flip side, if another judge performed a normal marriage, should they recuse themselves because of bias on the normal side? How about Scalia because he’s Catholic? You’d have to find advocacy, not simply executing judicial roles.

I’m definitely believe marriage is as originally defined and intended but even having a gay judge is not enough to recuse because the flip argument could be used on a straight one.


23 posted on 05/18/2015 12:42:14 PM PDT by fruser1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

In theory the 14th Amendment could be repealed and replaced with a better one, but that’s an utter pipe dream.


24 posted on 05/18/2015 12:43:57 PM PDT by Genoa (Starve the beast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

Society of the CIncinnati is not “just” descendants of the French/American soldiers who fought in the Revolutionary War” as cited in the article. Its membership is a bit more restrictive. http://www.societyofthecincinnati.org/about/membership


25 posted on 05/18/2015 12:46:30 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MrB

....or just pass a new amendment clearly stating that “nothing in this Constitution shall be interpreted so as to....” and include specific language that will return to the states the right to specific kinds of lawmaking, such as marriage, reproductive health, whatever. But again, what are the chances?


26 posted on 05/18/2015 12:47:14 PM PDT by Genoa (Starve the beast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The two lesbians recused themselves because they perform gay weddings. Buzzi needs to do the same.


27 posted on 05/18/2015 12:47:43 PM PDT by Yaelle ("You're gonna fly away, Glad you're going my way... I love it when we're Cruzin together")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

Recused? When???


28 posted on 05/18/2015 12:48:16 PM PDT by Genoa (Starve the beast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Genoa

Sounds like the wording of the 9th.


29 posted on 05/18/2015 12:48:47 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MrB

and we’re now ruled by an oligarchy of 5 judges,


No, we’re ruled by 1 judge, the swing voter.


30 posted on 05/18/2015 12:50:40 PM PDT by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Genoa

Right? Did we miss something?


31 posted on 05/18/2015 12:52:18 PM PDT by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Freakish wierdos


32 posted on 05/18/2015 12:52:28 PM PDT by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 444Flyer

Way better description.


33 posted on 05/18/2015 12:53:32 PM PDT by ColdOne (I miss my poochie... Tasha 2000~3/14/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Shouldn't she have RECUSED herself from even deciding on this Supreme Court case?

The issue before SCOTUS is whether the Constitution requires that states permit same-sex marriage even if the voters and their representatives have voted against it. Ginsburg has performed same-sex marriages only in the District of Columbia, whose elected City Council voted for same-sex marriage. So no, she is not required to recuse. (Had she performed a same-sex marriage in a state where it exists only because of a judicial decision, I would agree with you that she should recuse.)

34 posted on 05/18/2015 12:57:12 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

RE: The two lesbians recused themselves because they perform gay weddings.

Did Sotomayor and Kagan recuse themselves from this case?


35 posted on 05/18/2015 12:58:48 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
The two lesbians recused themselves because they perform gay weddings. Buzzi needs to do the same.

1. Which two lesbians? (Sotomayor was married to a man and is now divorced.)

2. No one has recused in this case.

3. I may be mistaken, but I do not believe Sotomayor has performed any same-sex wedding ceremonies.

36 posted on 05/18/2015 1:00:58 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Oh no, my bad. Why did I think they recused?? It seems they did not. What a joke this court is.

My mistake, sotomayor and kagan still think they can be unbiased.


37 posted on 05/18/2015 1:01:07 PM PDT by Yaelle ("You're gonna fly away, Glad you're going my way... I love it when we're Cruzin together")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MrB

So, in a way, she’s right here.

DC permits same sex marriage. If only because Congress has delegated the authority to regulate marriage to the DC government and is unwilling/unable to step in and exercise it’s Constitutional authority to override on the matter.

By citing the Constitution as the source of her power, rather than the laws of the District of Columbia, she’s actually citing the 10th Amendment. In part anyways (the clause establishing DC and Congressional supremecy being another)

Assuming she’s a deep enough thinker to realize that, of course.


38 posted on 05/18/2015 1:02:06 PM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

You’re just now finding out that there are homosexuals in the theater community? Here’s a couple of shockers for you: WW2 is over and we’ve landed on the moon.


39 posted on 05/18/2015 1:26:42 PM PDT by Team Cuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
36 ... 1. Which two lesbians? (Sotomayor was married to a man and is now divorced.)


Elena Kagan, officially took her seat on the SCOTUS on 10/01/2010.

A year ago, I was watching CSPAN coverage of the guests arriving and being introduced at a White House state dinner for France. Sure enough associate justice Kagan entered the room with her female date.

40 posted on 05/18/2015 1:30:21 PM PDT by MacNaughton (" ...it is better to die on the losing side than to live under Communism." Whitaker Chambers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson