Posted on 07/05/2022 7:17:00 AM PDT by redfog
Obergefell, like Roe, was a particularly arbitrary, extreme, and unjust imposition on the people. Like Roe, it had no basis in the Constitution’s text or American custom. It was simply dreamed up by a group of unelected judges who decided the time had come for them to impose a radically new understanding of the most fundamental institution of human society.
Like Roe, Obergefell took away from the people the power to decide the most basic moral questions and daily life in their communities. As Justice Scalia put it at the time, the Court was violating “a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”
(Excerpt) Read more at amgreatness.com ...
Hopefully each of these SC decisions drives progressives from red states to blue states for refuge. The sooner we separate, the better.
Good luck demonstrating "standing". It's the same problem as suing to enforce elections laws. Leftist judges deny anyone has "standing" to bring a case.
“ if i remember, “gay” marriage lost on every ballot it was ever on...even California by over a 2-1 margin.”
The left knows voters won’t make the “right” choices if left up to them. It’s for our own good!
This is a political forum so we take all these issues seriously.
However—the majority of folks in all states care so little about these issues it is unlikely they would make a physical move due to any of them.
It would be interesting if this went back to the states - prog heads would all blow up first though. The last time gay marriage was on the ballot even in California in 2008 (Prop 8), voters approved a ban of it 52 to 47%.
I wonder how a vote today might go after a decade of non-stop pro-gay propaganda?
“Please include subject matter - not all of us know the legal case names.”
Here, here!
Worth saying AGAIN, and AGAIN and AGAIN.
Poster’s responsibility 101.
FR woodshed.
Religious reasons. Any county clerk can say that issuing a license under their signature violates their religious beliefs. Where is Kim Davis when you need her?
That was before they had their Dominion machines and voter fraud fully in place, so obviously such a vote now would pass by 100-0.
Please note that the original (February) Alito opinion included as basis that the Burger Court just made the opinion up with no constitutional foundation. If final, this would have exposed all “substantive due process” cases to reversal.
However, the FINAL opinion included language pointing out why abortion is DIFFERENT from all the other examples, which in a Constitutional way it really isn’t, but in an equitable way it certainly is, because two gays having a ceremony or buying rubbers at Walgreens doesn’t kill anyone.
I’m sure Roberts insisted on the altered language to prevent his bitter dissent and a 5-4 final vote.
Thomas filed a concurrence saying all the other substantive due process cases SHOULD be looked at, but none of the other 8 signed it, so the straw vote to undo the gay rights and birth control cases is 1-8 “no”.
OK ... I hope someone tries it, and it works.
“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.
So just like the Court had explained that, since women didn't have the express constitutional power to vote before 14A was ratified, they still didn't have the power to do so after it was ratified.
Likewise for post-17th Amendment ratification, politically correct gay marriage and "right" to murder unborn children imo.
Insights welcome.
Also, Trump's red tsunami of patriot supporters are reminded that they must vote twice this election year. Your first vote is to primary career RINO incumbents. Your second vote is to replace outgoing Democrats and RINOs with Trump-endorsed patriot candidates.
Again, insights welcome.
“From the “state’s” perspective it is a property contract”
Agreed-
Consenting adults join whatever they want, under law and conract.
“Marriage” is one thing, defined in a religous context.
It’s something else as a legal entity.
Convince your fellow Citizens to vote the way you want, to get your State to pass laws reflecting what you want.
That’s how it’s done.
I think you can count on someone trying it. How successful it is remains to be seen.
That’s going to be the problem.
It’s going to have to look like a broader state’s rights claim... as in the Federal Government and the Federal Courts has no right to redefine words in a manner consistent with common law under the 10th amendment.
The path to standing might be DOE regulations that redefine the word ‘woman’ for the purposes of Title IX. If a State AG can attack the acton of redefining words... perhaps they will be able to extend into an overturn of Oberfell.
“The vanquished defenders of “traditional marriage” (a contrived term that signaled defeat the moment it arrived)”
Just like they’re now doing with “cisgender” and “cismale or cisfemale” , and all the redefinition of pronouns.
It’s a frontal attack on language, where words mean what one wants them to mean, which means you can’t have a rational discussion on anything. And the mere acceptance of the usage of those words implies your defeat.
It’s like two people talking different languages trying to debate a topic.
Two couples of women, neighbors of mine, claim to be married. Fir at least seven years.
To me, they seem to be happy, at leaxt as happy as hetero married couples I know.
Breaking them apart would devastate them.
What is right and what is arong in this cade?
Opinions please!
...and in Massachusetts,we weren't even allowed to vote on it!
What is right and what is wrong in this case?
Opinions please!
They have always had the right to live together, They can do what ever they want in estate planning and caring for each other.
Why is it so important for them to be “married”?
<>One issue is who would have standing to challenge it?<>
anne heche ?
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.