Posted on 05/14/2004 4:42:47 PM PDT by pollywog
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to intervene in the same-sex marriages law in Mass. Truly a sad day for America.
Not hearing the case at this point in time should not be equated as an opinion from the court.
You're right-- better find 2-3 single men and marry all of them. Yep, that's the ticket! "I'm going back to Massachusetts..."
Instead of alerting the admin moderator to your vulgar post, I choose to let it hang there in the wind.
As a Libertarian, I just don't care if gays get married or not.
Also, gemoftheocean, Freeper posts usually contain a modicum of intelligence or wit. Work at it.
"......and I hope every Freeper is writing their senators, etc and encouraging the constitutional ban . In my opinion, if in the next few months a constitutional ban becomes a reality, it will help President Bush greatly in the polls and re-election. Most Americans do NOT want the gay marriage.!!!"
I think having no Constitutional Amendment until after the election will help W. Many people who are not anti-gay are still uncomfortable with the recent shift from tolerance to acceptance and recognise the overzealous nature of their political tentacles. Not to mention the unequal prosecutorial application of hate crime laws.
Did some legal research:
First of all, and perhaps the most important, (the liberals in the media don't want you to know this), The Supreme court did not rule in Lawrence V Texas that there is a "Fundamental Right" to homosexual sodomy. In fact this is one portion of the Bowers V Hardwick ruling that was left intact. In that case the court ruled:The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. Pp. 190-191.
In order for something to be found a "Fundamental Right" and therefore be subject to a much higher standard of review (Strict Scrutiny) it must be "Some principle so rooted in the traditions and conscience of the people as to be ranked as fundamental." Snyder V Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 291 US 97 (1934).
This standard was upheld more recently in Reno V Flores 507 US 292 (1993) where again the court ruled that a Fundamental Right must be considered "So rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."
And Most Recently in Washington v. Glucksberg. 521 US 702 (1997) "The Court's established method of substantive due process analysis has two primary features: First, the Court has regularly observed that the Clause specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. E.g., Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 (plurality opinion). Second, the Court has required a "careful description" of the asserted fundamental liberty interest. E.g., Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 302. The Ninth Circuit's and respondents' various descriptions of the interest here at stake--e.g., a right to "determin[e] the time and manner of one's death," the "right to die," a "liberty to choose how to die," a right to "control of one's final days," "the right to choose a humane, dignified death," and "the liberty to shape death"--run counter to that second requirement. Since the Washington statute prohibits "aid[ing] another person to attempt suicide," the question before the Court is more properly characterized as whether the "liberty" specially protected by the Clause includes a right to commit suicide which itself includes a right to assistance in doing so. This asserted right has no place in our Nation's traditions, given the country's consistent, almost universal, and continuing rejection of the right, even for terminally ill, mentally competent adults. To hold for respondents, the Court would have to reverse centuries of legal doctrine and practice, and strike down the considered policy choice of almost every State. Respondents' contention that the asserted interest is consistent with this Court's substantive due process cases, if not with this Nation's history and practice, is unpersuasive. The constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition that was discussed in Cruzan, supra, at 279, was not simply deduced from abstract concepts of personal autonomy, but was instead grounded in the Nation's history and traditions, given the common law rule that forced medication was a battery, and the long legal tradition protecting the decision to refuse unwanted medical treatment. And although Casey recognized that many of the rights and liberties protected by the Due Process Clause sound in personal autonomy, 505 U. S., at 852, it does not follow that any and all important, intimate, and personal decisions are so protected, see San Antonio School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 33-34. Casey did not suggest otherwise. Pp. 15-24."
The Homosexual activists cannot argue that Homosexual marriage is deeply rooted in the traditions and conscience of the American people.
In fact even in cases where the Homosexual Activists have had activist judges rule a right to marriage under a state constitution the courts still ruled that Homosexual Marriage was not a fundamental right. In Baehr V Lewin (The marriage case before the Hawaii Supreme Court.) The majority found: "we do not believe that a right to same-sex marriage is so rooted in the traditions and collective conscience of our people that failure to recognize it would violate the fundamental principles of liberty and justice that lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions. Neither do we believe that a right to same-sex marriage is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if it were sacrificed. Accordingly, we hold that the applicant couples do not have a fundamental constitutional right to same-sex marriage arising out of the right to privacy or otherwise."
Remember this is the pro-sodomite judges speaking above. Even they did not have the nerve to rule sodomite marriage a fundamental right.
So with a Fundamental Right argument dead in the water, the Homosexual Activists must retreat the the full faith and credit clause option.
I believe that here as well the Homosexual Activists do not have a leg to stand on. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution does not mandate that one state accept the laws of another, in addition it specifically gives Congress the Authority to provide for implementation of the Clause. (Congress has done so with the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.)
The Supreme Court has ruled in two cases on the extent of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The first Pacific Employers Ins Co V Industrial Accident Commission of California 306 US 493 (1939) The Court ruled : "we think the conclusion is unavoidable that the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events."
The court restated this principle in Sun Oil CO V Wortman 486 US 717 (1988) where it stated "The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel a state to substitute the statutes of another state for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate."
Let's also look at the case that the activists use to attempt to justify their perversion:
In Loving v. Virginia The court said : Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).
In order to be Fundamental to our very existence and survival it HAS to refer to the Procreation of the Human Race, Something that Sodomites cannot do.
In addition in making that statement the Court Reference TWO Cases: In One of them MAYNARD v. HILL, 125 U.S. 190 (1888) The Court stated two points that DIRECTLY conflict with the trash the sodomites are spewing today.
Marriage, as creating the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature. That body prescribes the age at which parties may contract to marry, the procedure or form essential to constitute marriage, the duties and obligations it creates, its effects upon the property rights of both, present and prospective, and the acts which may constitute grounds for its dissolution.
It [marriage] is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.
Once again, the cases that the Sodomites Claim help them, actually HURT their points.
The other case the Court Referenced was SKINNER v. STATE OF OKL. EX REL. WILLIAMSON, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.
After looking at the cases that Loving cited, there is NOTHING, ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING that the sodomites can claim applies to them.
In each case the court was very clear that Marriage is linked with PROCREATION, just as Blackstone's Commentaries defined, and just as Common Law dictated.
Not only has the Supreme Court ruled on 3 seperate occasions that Marriage is an Institution between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, It has also ruled that it is ALWAYS subject to the Legislature, and it has ruled that it is linked with PROCREATION.
Legally, the sodomites don't have a leg to stand on.
Now keep in mind the above is only applicable if judges are not going to legislate from the bench and are going to follow to legal principle of stare decisis. The United States Supreme Court, The MA Supreme Judicial Court and The 9th Circus for example have demonstrated time and time again that they are not willing to act within the bounds that the Founding Fathers intended for them, but instead they want to act as social engineers and black robed kings of the nation.
That is the real reason the Constitutional Amendment is needed. Not because the sodomites have a legal case, but because Activist Judges are not willing to abide by settled law.
I just don't see how this issue is such a big deal.
I'm more worried about Islamic swine infiltrating our country in order to kill us. I cannot be distracted by homos who want to get married.
Incidentally, if J.Edgar Hoover was the FBI Director on 9/10, then 9/11 would never have happened. He would have had those SOBs rolled up in the Spring of 2001, then gone back home for some private time with his longtime personal (male) assistant. ;)
But he cares about the little people. (Source: any number of little old ladies who call the Howie Carr Show. Sickening, isn't it?)
LOL! Actually, there was a letter to the editor in the WSJ suggesting that only a first marriage should count for standing and benefits. Didn't sound like a bad idea!
As homos try to get their marriages accepted in southern states they will run into a solid wall of opposition from religious groups.
The SCOTUS will not step in as they have not in Massachusetts.
I can see a resurrection of the KKK, governors on the courthouse steps blocking homos admission etc.
As somebody else stated recently where is the next Ft Sumter ?
BUMP
And again, with all due respect, that there is absolute truth out there that we have to find has nothing to do with what appears to be one of your central theses, that the US could lose the war on terror because we are giving God the finger.
"I just don't care. If two people, of any sex, love each other and commit - they should have the right to get married. There is too much hate in the world for me to be concerned about people of a different ilk wanting to have their love for one another formally recognized by the government."
Is the purpose of Marraige to encourage future generations, or is it to have the government sanctify recreational sex?
THis only further debases an already damaged institution.
BTTT
"The federal Constitution protects state sovereignty by limiting what the federal government may do, i.e., by defining the federal government's "enumerated powers." The Constitution does not delegate to the United States the power to create a categorical exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, thereby inviting states to disregard the official acts of other states. Rather, the Full Faith and Credit Clause empowers Congress to enact general laws and to prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. Simply stated then, the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not allow Congress to decree that a state action which is disfavored by Congress on substantive grounds may be disregarded by states that share the congressional viewpoint. Taken to its logical extreme, were Congress to have the power it deems it has by proposing the Defense of Marriage Act, Congress could next declare that one state need not recognize a no-fault divorce of a sister state, or need not recognize a punitive damages award in excess of $100,000. Obviously, Congress could not enact such legislation. See Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 (1945); Cook v. Cook, 342 U.S. 126 (1951) (divorces in one state must be honored in another state). The "unifying" aspect of the Full Faith and Credit Clause would forever be undermined, and a state's authority to make a final, respected judgment would be forever extinguished. Milwaukee County v. M.E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268 (1935) (the very purpose of the Full Faith and Credit Clause was to alter the status of the several states as independent foreign sovereignties, each free to ignore the obligations created under the laws of a sister state, and to make the states an integral part of a single nation); see also Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Hunt, 320 U.S. 430 (1943) (describing the Full Faith and Credit Clause as a nationally unifying force).""Indeed, even the United States Supreme Court recently recognized that the anti-gay animus of the majority is not sufficient to make a class of citizens strangers to the law. Romer v. Evans, 64 U.S.L.W. 4353 (U.S. May 20, 1996)."
"Therefore, if there is no public policy exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Defense of Marriage Act is not consonant with states' rights, because it is an act of Congress in excess of its constitutional authority." -- Source
As far as an amendment to the Federal Constitution, I believe it to be a mistake to transfer the right to define Marriage from the States to the Federal government.
Instead of amending the Constitution, work within the framework established by the Founders.
"It's not the will of the people we're worried about. We're worried about one person venue shopping until they find a judge who'll agree with them and overturn the law."
It is true that as long as we have laws against bigamy no one can legally marry more than one person. Therefore, those who in seriousness express concern that allowing same-sex marriages opens the door for legalizing polygamous and polyandrous marriages are missing the point.
However, I'm not as sure about those who fear that legal marriage to a child, an animal or an inanimate object is next. They could have a legit issue here. That to me would possibly justify some kind of constitutional-level codification of what marriage is and who can legally marry. Wouldn't stop those who love getting one court to overturn the decision if another court or a legislative body but it'd help us begon to clarify things.
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.