Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Not Overturn Obergefell?
American Greatness ^ | July 4, 2022 | Matthew Boose

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 ...


TOPICS: Society
KEYWORDS: 2024election; constitution; dobbs; election2016; election2020; election2024; genderdysphoria; homosexualagenda; obergefell; roe; theconstitution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last
To: redfog

Hopefully each of these SC decisions drives progressives from red states to blue states for refuge. The sooner we separate, the better.


21 posted on 07/05/2022 7:48:58 AM PDT by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
I would be amazed if the first Obergfell challenges are not filed before the end of the year.

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.

22 posted on 07/05/2022 7:51:05 AM PDT by NorthMountain (... the right of the peopIe to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: basalt

“ 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!


23 posted on 07/05/2022 7:51:20 AM PDT by bk1000 (Banned from Breitbart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: chuckee

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.


24 posted on 07/05/2022 7:51:39 AM PDT by cgbg (A kleptocracy--if they can keep it. Think of it as the Cantillon Effect in action.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: redfog

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?


25 posted on 07/05/2022 7:52:46 AM PDT by NohSpinZone (First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PIF

“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.


26 posted on 07/05/2022 7:54:13 AM PDT by faucetman (Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NorthMountain
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.

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?

27 posted on 07/05/2022 7:57:42 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NohSpinZone

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.


28 posted on 07/05/2022 8:03:43 AM PDT by ponygirl (An Appeal to Heaven )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: redfog

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”.


29 posted on 07/05/2022 8:03:46 AM PDT by Jim Noble (I’ve stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

OK ... I hope someone tries it, and it works.


30 posted on 07/05/2022 8:04:55 AM PDT by NorthMountain (... the right of the peopIe to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: redfog; All
Regarding Obergefell, the 19th century Supreme Court, in Minor v. Happersett, had clarified that the 14th Amendment (14A) did not introduce any new rights. What the amendment did was to strengthen rights that are enumerated in the Constitution.
“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.

31 posted on 07/05/2022 8:10:43 AM PDT by Amendment10 ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

“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.


32 posted on 07/05/2022 8:11:33 AM PDT by Macoozie (Handcuffs and Orange Jumpsuits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NorthMountain
OK ... I hope someone tries it, and it works.

I think you can count on someone trying it. How successful it is remains to be seen.

33 posted on 07/05/2022 8:12:44 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

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.


34 posted on 07/05/2022 8:25:11 AM PDT by rwilson99 (How exactly would John 3:16 not apply to Mary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: redfog

“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.


35 posted on 07/05/2022 8:27:13 AM PDT by aquila48 (Do not let them make you "care" ! Guilting you is how they control you. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redfog

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!


36 posted on 07/05/2022 8:28:11 AM PDT by FroggyTheGremlim (I'll be good, I will, I will!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: basalt
if i remember, “gay” marriage lost on every ballot it was ever on.

...and in Massachusetts,we weren't even allowed to vote on it!

37 posted on 07/05/2022 8:29:36 AM PDT by massmike (I'm only here to observe these earthlings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FroggyTheGremlim

What is right and what is wrong in this case?

Opinions please!


38 posted on 07/05/2022 8:30:08 AM PDT by FroggyTheGremlim (I'll be good, I will, I will!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: FroggyTheGremlim

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”?


39 posted on 07/05/2022 8:30:34 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple (Thinking Caps are no longer being issued but there must be a warehouse full of them somewhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

<>One issue is who would have standing to challenge it?<>
anne heche ?


40 posted on 07/05/2022 8:38:57 AM PDT by stylin19a (this space for rent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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