Taking on God isn't wise.
Posted on 01/17/2015 6:43:49 AM PST by cleghornboy
never.
he fried sodom for less
O, but they're an audacious bunch of criminals, aren't they?
Taking on God isn't wise.
I think the conservative side of the SCOTUS is extremely calculating as far as things go. Here are some of the direct and indirect ramifications of this decision:
1) If they issue a blanket ruling, applying to all states, then they have effectively ended Interstate Compacts and reciprocity agreements, the courts taking power away from congress, the states, and the people. (And many federal judges have been more than willing to do this in the past.)
“An interstate compact is an agreement between two or more states of the United States of America. Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that “no state shall enter into an agreement or compact with another state” without the consent of Congress.”
But there is more: California’s Proposition 8 for heterosexual marriage was overturned by a homosexual federal judge because he didn’t like it, in a blatant and crude conflict of interest.
2) Homosexual marriage remains decidedly unpopular in the US (despite rigged polling to the contrary), except among federal judges willing to force the people to have to abide it, and very blue state legislatures, who gave the people no say in their decisions to support it.
For the SCOTUS to overturn it would be a significant rebuke to dozens of federal judges who have clearly exceeded their authority, so the phrasing of the decision would have to be crystal clear so these judges could not try to fudge their way around it.
3) The Equal Protection Clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is often cited in this and many other cases, but the circumstances are questionable. Yet any decision here will be reflected in many other laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
The basic question is: “Does ‘equal protection’ apply to all parts of the law? That is, states issue medical licenses, but not to everyone, only to those persons, with some exceptions, who are competent to practice medicine, “as determined by each state”.
And this is the zinger. Until these federal judges went on their spree of forcing homosexual marriage on the states and the people, it was up to the individual states as to whether two people could be married. And this was no simple decision by the states.
Those persons excluded from marriage: children, whose ages vary by state; polygamous marriages; incompetent (mentally deficient); inhuman marriages; forced marriages; exclusion of syphilitics; and homosexuals. States also have a strong interest in opposing prostitution and adultery leading to violence.
Importantly, the state interest in excluding homosexuals is for many reasons related to procreation and taxation, and supporting heterosexual monogamy, as background to procreation.
Likewise, the states have to contend with everything related to divorce.
The bottom line to all of this is that marriage is in the purview of the states, the one exception being the anti-miscegenation (mixed race marriage) laws that were forbidden by the SCOTUS in 1967.
This will be the key precedent used by the SCOTUS in their decision: is race equivalent to homosexuality?
The preponderance of evidence suggests not. Race is less important because all races belong to the same species, and a male of one race can likely reproduce with a female of another race, assuming biological capability.
However, the guiding purpose of homosexuality is *not* procreation, but financial. As such, since states generally offer a civil alternative to marriage that provides for equivalent benefits, there is no compelling reason for homosexuals to be married.
As a footnote: because of corruptions to marriage, such as forced marriage and the dowry, leftists reached the conclusion long ago that marriage is just a social contrivance, instead of an advantageous reproductive scheme. So leftists have no end of contempt for marriage, and have long sought to corrupt and destroy it; which is likely their sole initiative to this current oppression.
The questions then become, "Can homosexuals legally adopt children under that civil alternative? Is that civil alternative stable enough for children?"
My guess is "no" to both.
Even among homosexuals. Since gay marriage became legal in 2004, only about 2% of homosexuals chose to marry. How many remain married over those 10 years is unknown.
If we assume half, that means we are turning the institution of marriage on it's head to accommodate 1% of 2% of the population?
It will be interesting to read the language of the USSC opinion that would allow gay marriage but exclude polygamy or incestuous marriages. Especially if they use equal protection as their justification.
I said way back before the election that Holder was never going to resign, he was just lying to get past the 2014 midterm.
At least as far as adoption goes, it often reverts to the state if *single* people can adopt. Some states allow it, others do not. But along with everything else, it is another great reason to not federalize homosexual marriage.
And I agree with you, that as more data comes out about children adopted by homosexual couples, it is unlikely that it will indicate that the results are anywhere as good as for heterosexual couples. It is even a good question if homosexual parents are as good for the children as are single parents.
And it is increasingly obvious that single parents’ children have some serious handicaps.
I think the Supreme Court is going to rule state SSM bans constitutional. Why else rule on whether states can fail to recognize SSM “marriages” made in another state? If it’s made legal nationwide, then, I assume the latter law becomes moot. If state SSM bans are ruled constitutional, then ....
"According to the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, children from single-parent families account for 63 percent of all youth suicides, 70 percent of all teenage pregnancies, 71 percent of all adolescent chemical/substance abuse, 80 percent of all prison inmates, and 90 percent of all homeless and runaway children."
Another product of the Black “church,” ladies and gentlemen.
I only knew of the stat about prison inmates. Things are far worse than I thought.
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.