Posted on 06/21/2015 2:18:13 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The clock is ticking down toward the eventual Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which will supposedly “settle” the gay marriage question once and for all. Most of the observers I’ve seen making predictions seem to feel that they will codify marriage as a right which crosses all boundaries except in cases of children and close familial ties, and some seem to feel that opponents of gay marriage won’t even get all four conservative justices on their side. My own views on the general topic are well known and there’s no need to go into the whole thing again. (Suffice to say that I don’t think it’s within the government’s power to demand a license or a fee for two consenting adults to marry.)
More interesting to me at this point is the political fallout which will come from this decision no matter which way it goes. Needless to say, it’s going to set off some fireworks. Greg Stohr at Bloomberg has issued the dire warning of the “turmoil” which would ensue if the Supremes allow states to decide for themselves. It will be chaos, I tell ya!
A victory at the U.S. Supreme Court on same-sex marriage would be a historic moment for gay rights. Defeat would bring legal pandemonium.
The high court will decide by the end of the month whether the Constitution gives gays the right to marry. The court’s actions until now have suggested that a majority of the nine justices will vote to legalize same-sex weddings nationwide.
Should the court rule otherwise, it would throw gay rights into turmoil across the country, halting weddings in at least 15 states, raising questions about tens of thousands of unions and guaranteeing a new round of legal fights.
Greg provides a fairly good breakdown of the immediate impact on a state by state basis. Essentially, some states which have passed gay marriage either through legislation or court interpretation of their state constitution probably won’t be affected at all. These include 16 states along the lines of New York and Illinois. But in 20 others which currently allow the practice, including Florida, South Carolina, Kansas, Idaho and Alaska, such unions might stop almost immediately since they were court enforced over the wishes of the voters. In the rest of the states where there is no law allowing gay marriage, any efforts to enact change would probably be cooled down a bit.
But would conservatives really be “losing” if that happened? Even when hot topics are decided in the Supreme Court, the answer doesn’t always last forever. (Though the time required for that pendulum to swing can be generational.) It’s not as if the fight would go away, and sometimes in politics the fight is actually worth more than the victory. I’m reminded of the Roe v Wade decision in this context. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Supreme Court had either outlawed the practice of abortion or said that it was exclusively up to the states? Think about it for a moment. When the conservatives lost that one, it sparked the true beginning of the massive Pro-Life movement which continues to this day. In many states it has energized and bound together elements of the GOP and supportive conservative groups which might not have congealed as fully without that common enemy to do battle with. In some ways that fight, even though it was lost on the steps of the highest court, has provided the glue that drove conservatism forward for decades.
So what happens when (assuming it does) five, six or seven justices vote in favor of gay marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges? Do you honestly think that everyone is going to shrug their shoulders, suddenly realize they were wrong all along and just go home? I highly doubt it. In fact, in many of the states where the voters are most closely divided, it’s going to energize the base with an even greater interest in stopping more liberal appointments to the court in the next term. Conversely, if gay marriage is struck down at the federal level, the battle will shift back to the states and places like Florida will see a massive surge in activity by liberal, pro-gay marriage advocates eager to fight it out from state to state to state.
Personally, I’m with the professional court watchers on this one. I expect the court to find in favor of gay marriage. But conservatives shouldn’t be rending their garments too heavily just yet. In terms of political fortunes, it may just put more gas in your tank.
Sure. A nice irreversible and massive loss would be good for us.
Who wrote this, Karl Rove?
The more we lose the better off we’ll be. Reminds me of the pressure that is applied at election time to vote for the RINO because it’s better than the alternative. Doesn’t seem to get us anywhere, does it? I’d vote for the RINO again this year but my nose is just too raw to hold anymore.
“Conservatives will win by losing!”
Yea.... Sure
Is this the same logic that said that Obama’s first win to the oval office would be “good” for conservatives????
Give me a break!
If you want to know who it will be good or bad for, try asking those who lived in Sodom and Gomorrah
As one comedian said: “The only time losing is winning is in a game of musical electric chairs!”
>>codify marriage as a right which crosses all boundaries except in cases of children and close familial ties...for two consenting adults to marry.
Why two? If marriage is for all, then why limit it? Is the author saying that it is impossible for three people to love each other? You can’t “cross all boundaries” and leave the number two as the uncrossable boundary.
And what about the “close familial ties”?? Why can’t two same-sex siblings marry to share resources, benefits, and retirements?
I can’t wait to see the craziness to come when the black-robed tyrants make their ruling to make sodomite marriage the law of the land.
”… which will supposedly “settle” the gay marriage question once and for all."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
The Supreme Court is not the end of the road with respect to deciding what the Constitution says as some people seem to think.
More specifically, when state lawmakers actually knew the Constitution that they swear to protect and defend, they knew that they could overturn unpopular Supreme Court decisions by appropriately amending the Constitution. In fact, the 11th, 16th and 19th Amendment to the Constitution are examples of the states doing so.
Sorta begs the question, why can’t I marry my pet goat...?
This is a case of unfair discrimination, and I hope someone will soon take the issue before the Supreme Court.
The progressive’s wet dream could be the best thing to happen to conservatives?
Yah, right!
So Roe v. Wade resulted in millions of unborn children being slaughtered...but it was “good” for conservatives because it created the pro-life movement?
Similarly, SSM will be used as a cudgel against religious liberty and an excuse to further redefine marriage to accommodate the gay and lesbian lifestyle...but we’re supposed to be happy because it *might* galvanize some sort of pro-traditional marriage movement?? I doubt that latter part would happen, but even if it did, who are these pro-traditional marriage folks supposed to support politically? The Republican politicians who can’t wait to attend their friends’ same-sex marriages (Rubio, Walker, etc.) or the Republican politicians who wet their pants every time some corporate CEO says, “boo” (Pence, Hutchinson, etc.)?
They should throw this back to the states and let each state decide this issue. If it’s only legal in 15 states, my math tells me there are 35 others where it ISN’T legal yet. Of course, in this day and age, the minority rules. Nine, black-robed lawyers deciding to shake their fists in God’s face isn’t going to be pretty in the long run.
Hogwash. All it would do is reaffirm states' constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
If SCOTUS does rule in favor of homo marriage, then churches, businesses, and private organizations will get sued up the wazoo by the homosexual mafia for "discrimination."
Of course, the dozens or so RINOs running for President will breathe a collective sigh of relief and say that it's settled law and that we right-wing Tea Party extremists need to quick focusing on "divisive" social issues.
The landscape will resemble eventually Soviet Russia's attitude toward religion, something relegated to old grandmothers, the chronically unemployable, and dissidents, not the Jacobins of the French revolution. Concordance with the new order will forced not with the blood of martyrs, but with their bank accounts, social services and schools’ threats against non-compliant parents, and a host of other pressures.
There is no way to reconcile religion with sodomy unless religion is willing to dismiss the Bible. There is no way to allow those who are deeply religious to practice their religion in the public sphere.
There is no upside or good news to a ruling that destroys marriage.
If you don't think there will be terrible repercussions, think again.
And ALL the Justices will be answerable.
In 20 states the unions would stop immediately since they are court enforced OVER THE WISHES OF THE VOTERS, in 16 states the unions will proceed since the state level legislation exists.
It’s just like the TPPers saying that even bigger trade deficits will be good for America.
Being hunted down and executed in the streets “might be the best thing to happen to conservatives” is a future headline too
I agree that this is just the opening salvo in the process of destroying Christian churches. I'm less concerned about losing tax exempt status. I think that would be a good thing. Pastors would not have to be so PC.
I think the next step that the left will pursue when they find that Christians will continue to condemn homosexual acts and the normalization of them will be to imprison all who would question the new orthodoxy. Of course this will be done to "stop the hate mongering and the violence of words".
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.