Posted on 06/27/2015 11:21:22 AM PDT by marshmallow
With same-sex marriage declared constitutional in all 50 states, some Supreme Court justices worry that religious freedom will face unprecedented challenges in coming years.
In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is — unlike the right imagined by the majority — actually spelled out in the Constitution.”
In his decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that those who object to same-sex marriage because of religious beliefs still enjoy constitutional rights to “advocate” against it.
“The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered,” he wrote. “The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.”
Roberts dismissed this language as essentially meaningless.
“The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses,” he wrote.
He went on to highlight “hard questions” about religious freedom, including housing and adoption policies at religious institutions. “There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today,” he wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at cruxnow.com ...
Gay marriage will be like abortion, legal but rare.
In less than 5 years the gays will wonder why they fought so hard for their meaningless unions.
It was simply a weapon, to be wielded against the kindest and most generous people in the history of the world.
Now that the battle is over, it is no longer relevant.
Congress can solve this but John Boehner has been bought. The price was a ride on Air Force One.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/john-boehner-first-air-force-one-ride-invite-barack-obama-charleston-119478.html
McConnell is just too chicken to act on anything that would help the country as he would have to make a stand.
....didn't the court do whatever they damn well pleased the last two days in a row....
If the courts left and the left master want persecution of any one saying anything political incorrect....they will do it and rule it legal
With the courts left and the left in general, there's no respect for any principle of logic or reason that might stricter their actions, all is arbitrary whim of political want of the now
that's why I'm saying the court is now engaged in 1984 Orwellian "Newspeak" ..they will manipulate language and wording.. invent new meaning out of thin air....it's "magical" (sarcasm off)
..make law and words anything they want them to be or need them it to be...it's completely malleable to them.....
Tyrants are ultimately just arbitrary they do what they want when they want to..the court just add some kind of false pretext to make it seem pretty for the foolish.....
.2 plus 2 will equal 5 today and will equal 3 tomorrow...and then 0 the next if they wanted to equal that...
.hell they might even decide that 3, 5, and 0 don't exist as numbers anymore on ever other Tuesday if they feel like it..
you thought transgendered was bad?....
we now have translegal, translaws and transwording....like I said it's absolutely magical!
Did Obama allow him to say that? Or is he going to get his ass beat by Obama for saying it.
In other words, we wouldn’t be getting thinly veiled threats against our religious freedoms from ungodly activist justices like we are now.
Next, the material below is from a related thread and helps to explain that corrupt justices ignored both constitutional history and state sovereignty to force gay marriage on the states outside the framework of the Constitution.
———————
Regarding the so-called constitutional “right” to gay marriage, this is how Obama’s activist justices have cheated the states, wrongly ignoring 10th Amendment (10A)-protected state sovereignty.
To begin with, note that the Constitution’s Bill of Rights (BoR) originally did not apply to the states. So even if the Founding States had included an amendment to expressly protect gay marriage in the BoR, only the federal government, not the states, was constitutionally obligated to respect such a right.
Next, pro-gay activist justices perverted the 14th Amendment’s (14A) Equal Protections Clause (EPC) as an excuse to not only steal legislative powers, but breaching the Founder’s division of state and federal government powers, used stolen state powers to legislate the so-called right to gay marriage from the bench (as they had done with the so-called “right” to have an abortion) as per the following explanation.
When state sovereignty-respecting justices were asked to decide if 14A’s EPC gave women the right to vote, the Court clarified that 14A added no new protections to the Constitution. The 14th Amendment only strengthened those protections which the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
In fact, the congressional record shows that Court’s interpretation of Section 1 of 14A reflects the clarification of that section by John Bingham, the main author of Section 1.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” —John Bingham, Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
So since the states had never amended the Constitution to expressly prohibit themselves from prohibiting citizens from voting on the basis of sex before 14A was ratified, 14A’s Equal Protections Clause didn’t automatically give women the right to vote as pro-gay activist justices have now argued with constitutionally unprotected gay marriage.
In fact, although the states later amended the Constitution to give women the right to vote as evidenced by the 19th Amendment (19A), it remains that the states have never amended the Constitution to likewise expressly protect gay marriage.
So regardless what activist justices want everybody to think about the constitutionality of gay marriage, the states are still free to make 10th Amendment-protected state laws to prohibit constitutionally unprotected gay marriage imo, just as they could make 10th Amendment-protected laws that discriminated on the basis of sex, both before and after 14A was ratified, laws that prohibited women from voting until 19A was ratified for example.
The bottom line is that activist justices had no constitutionally enumerated "right” to gay marriage to throw at the states. So just like low-information officials in pro-gay activist states have violated Section 1 of 14A by using constitutionally baseless pro-gay state policies to trump constitutionally enumerated freedom of religious expression, corrupt justices have now wrongly used PC, pro-gay “rights” to trump 10A-protected state powers.
In fact, let's argue that most of the states think that gay marriage is a good idea. If such was the case then there is nothing stopping the states from amending the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage like they did by ratifying 19A to give women the right to vote.
Instead, pro-gay activist justices have wrongly established the so-called “right” to gay marriage outside the framework of the Constitution as previously mentioned, just as they did with the so-called vote-winning federal “right” to have an abortion.
———————
I’m glad that this Supreme Court anarchy is happening before an election year.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators and anti-religious freedom activist justices along with it.
It was simply a weapon, to be wielded against the kindest and most generous people in the history of the world.
Now that the battle is over, it is no longer relevant.
I never thought of it like that, but you are soooo right. How sad.
Obama and Hillary said our religious beliefs must change.
They can control the whole world but that is not enough for Satan, they must force you to accept it!
bump
They are going to go after our minds and try to make us deny Jesus.
“Religious beliefs have to be changed” - Obama & Hillary have both said this
They can have the whole world, but if they do not steal our souls, then the devil has not truly won.
+1
Gay Divorce Court
The next reality television show.
“Roberts. What a joke.”
Especially so as he could have removed two of the Justices from the case because of a conflict of interest. His interest was only to whine a hope that the unwashed masses would ignore his arrogant rewrite of CommieCare.
Roberts is a demon seed improved lying and utter dishonesty is ok so what does he care about religious freedom. Maybe Isis will find him.
Freedom from religion. We will lose this one too.
It is over folks!
It would be one thing if the people of the USA and the states of the USA were stupid enough to reject religious freedom by changing the 1st Amendment to the constitution. But AT LEAST I could respect that the LAW was changed and the LAW was followed.
The commie left are getting all these changes by judicial fiat — by pulling it out of there asses. The laws are not actually being changed. Just neglected and unenforced.
We have long ceased to be a nation of laws. Long ceased.
Not at all - in order for that to happen, the Supreme Court would have to read the perfectly clear wording of the First Amendment and conclude that it means exactly the opposite of...
You're right. We're screwed.
They are pulling law out of their asses now. It doesn’t really matter what is recorded on paper. They are just making it up as they go along. The New World Order will not be denied!
Zig Heil! Heil Fuhrer!
Ultimately we all failed to do our jobs well enough, and there will be consequences.
There was never a guarantee that Diocletian and Julian wouldn't show their faces again.
We fight against the powers of darkness.
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.