By the Stroke of a Pen: Will the Supremes Legalize Gay ‘Marriage’?

Breakpoint with Charles Colson ^ | March 30, 2005 | Charles Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

It was a shocking—yet not unexpected—decision by the Supreme Court. Speaking for the 5-4 majority, Justice Kennedy wrote that laws barring same-sex “marriage” infer “that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.” Thus—by the stroke of a pen—the Court struck down state laws banning gay “marriage.”

Okay, it hasn’t happened—yet. But if the words sound familiar, it’s because they come from Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Romer v. Evans. That’s the ruling in which the Court overturned a democratically enacted Colorado law barring special civil rights protections based on sexual orientation. While the Supremes have not yet imposed gay “marriage” on America, they will the minute they get the chance. That’s why the Congress must act immediately on a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.

The stage is already being set. In a recent California case, Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled that laws barring gay “marriage” impermissibly deny the constitutional right to equality. That case could soon reach the high court. Or challenges to one of the thirty-eight Defense of Marriage Act statutes that have been enacted across America could come before the Court at any time. It is not a question of if; it is a question how soon.

At that point, does anyone think that the Supremes will not declare gay “marriage” a constitutionally protected right on the very grounds that Kennedy has already stated in Romer? Or they might choose to rely on Justice Kennedy’s reasoning in Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Court struck down a Texas anti-sodomy statute on the grounds it denied the rights of “two adults who [engage] in sexual practices common to homosexual lifestyle.”

Or the Court could instead invoke the “emerging international consensus” ploy. In the recent Simmons decision, the courts held that executing juveniles—even those who commit premeditated, heinous murders—violates the Constitution. Kennedy, again writing for the majority, referred to a fashionable new basis of constitutional interpretation: that is, determining what more sophisticated judges in Europe—or in Jamaica, India, or Zimbabwe—think. “It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty,” intoned Kennedy. Proper? What does international opinion have to do with the American Constitution? Justice Kennedy and company appear to be relying on everything except our own Constitution.

That is why I’m becoming increasingly impatient with politicians who say we don’t need a constitutional amendment. Let the states do it. But remember, the Supremes did not allow the states to work out their own laws regarding abortion, protection for homosexuals, or the death penalty: They’ve simply imposed their will.

It’s time for Christians to say “enough is enough.” The handwriting is on the wall. Our robed masters will impose gay “marriage” on America unless we marshal our forces and pass a constitutional amendment.

A vote is expected in the Congress this summer. If we cannot muster genuine outrage over this issue, then we will deserve the consequences: the almost certain “constitutional” protection of same-sex “marriage”—and the destruction of marriage itself.

[DBeers]

Okay y'all can 'attack' the Ol Canucklehead now ;-) ;-)

Take your homosexual advocacy back to DU.

[AnalogReigns]

I don't think anyone who can't spell marriage is worth attacking.

If you can't understand that undermining an ancient institution by redefining it into something it is not (and never has been...) won't damage society as a whole, its not worth the effort to argue with you.

[DBeers]

P.S.

You may be on the wrong Forum? What Free Republic is all about:

Statement by the founder of Free Republic

As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.

Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.

We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.

[FYREDEUS]

I cant take anything BACK to DU since I've never been there...in fact until I came HERE I'd never heard of it.

[FYREDEUS]

I can spell it and many other words including ones like Honour, Valour etc that those like Mr. Webster who believe there is actually such a thing as a dictionary of 'American' [which is NOT a language, sorry Mr. Webster; OXFORD did your job FIRST and BETTER] never seem to be able to spell CORRECTLY ;-)...I choose not to for my own reasons which if you knew me well you would find completely understandable but which are personal and therefore I will not disclose here.

[FYREDEUS]

I mostly like and AGREE with that AFFIRMATIVE statement since I am VERY pro-God, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and pro-America.

I am NOT however a drone who follows EVERY part of ANY 'party line' in blind lockstep.

My view on pro-life/pro-choice for example is somewhat too NUANCED to fit either side's dogma EXACTLY and I usually find people on both 'sides' partially disagreeing with me which is fine imo.

And I am VERY anti-communist ever since the 'Bad Ol Days' and am QUITE pro-Capitalism FOR NOW - but I dont see Capitalism as the BE ALL/END ALL of economics FOREVER either since I believe that in the FUTURE either NANOASSEMBLER replicators/omniproducers or VON NEUMANN-type replicating space habitat/omniproduction facilities WILL obsolete the basic underpinning of ALL supply and demand based EARTHBOUND economics including Capitalism which is the soon-to-be obsolete notion of FINITE supply on Earth. Some may believe that Capitalism will continue to be accepted by Humanity [or perhaps Posthumanity] once the production capacity of Humankind exceeds 100% growth per annum and accelerating exponentially with NO "Limits To Growth" but I think a PARADIGM SHIFT will then occur to create an economics that is ENTIRELY NEW and as different from industrial/post-industrial economic systems as bronze age agrarianism was from neolithic nomadism.

And on THIS particular issue of gay m@rri@ge I also respectfully beg to differ with those who I MOSTLY agree with.

[Clint N. Suhks]

balh, blah, blah...gay m@rri@ge is NOT the end of anything for those of us who would dearly love to choose the traditional kind...its simply a beginning for those who might choose otherwise. God bless Liberty.

You must also endorse marriage between same sex adult sisters lest you be a hypocrite OR a Liberaltarian.

Which is it oh pro-sodomy cheerleader?

[Clint N. Suhks]

I mostly like and AGREE with that AFFIRMATIVE statement since I am VERY pro-God, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and pro-America.

Yeah sure...either DU or Liberaltarian troll.

I suspect the former.

[judgeandjury]

At that point, does anyone think that the Supremes will not declare gay “marriage” a constitutionally protected right on the very grounds that Kennedy has already stated in Romer?

If the Supreme Court does declare this, they will by default also be declaring that polygamous marriage is a constitutionally protected right based on the very same legal grounds.

[judgeandjury]

...and neither will 'Traditional m@rri@ge' be 'destroyed' if OTHER forms of NONtraditional m@rri@ge [including gay m@rri@ge] that FREEmen and women CHOOSE for themselves are recognized by the High Court as their equal Right under Law in the Land Of The FREE and the Home Of The Brave.

So, based on your comments, I would assume that you are in favor of allowing polygamous marriage. Am I correct?

[Bogolyubski]

I think you addressed the wrong poster here. The pro-Sodomite from Soviet Kanuckistan's post was above mine. I'm a traditionalist, and have no sympathy at all for such idiotic arguments.

[Yaelle]

And on THIS particular issue of gay m@rri@ge I also respectfully beg to differ with those who I MOSTLY agree with.

I am a very pro-life conservative stay-at-home Mom. I used to be against gay marriage. I certainly am against the fiat and tyranny of the Men in Black. I despise the "liberal gay agenda."

Yet I have changed my opinion on gay marriage or at least legal secular partnership with all rights of marriage. I have come to think that conservative gays (of whom I know a few) should be allowed to support and be a part of conservative family life. Monogamy is good, and I'd like to see less promiscuity among both gays and straights. Sex is so cheapened by what's out there on TV every day, and in public. Straights are pretty raunchy themselves, these days. I welcome anyone who wants to live a committed, conservative, family-oriented life.

I am therefore not of one mind with 99.9% of Freepers on this subject, either.

[DBeers]

And on THIS particular issue of gay m@rri@ge I also respectfully beg to differ with those who I MOSTLY agree with.

Good for you -discuss and debate the merits of state sanctioned depraved sexual activity somewhere where it may be permitted and appreciated as legitimate.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

I agree with his assesment. But I would amend one part -

"It’s time for Christians to say “enough is enough.” The handwriting is on the wall. Our robed masters will impose gay “marriage” on America unless we marshal our forces and pass a constitutional amendment."

I would change that to "people of every religious faith". Note how in Jerusalem religious leaders from the Christian, Jewish and even Muslim communities are banding together to fight the radical "gay" agenda from trying to defile Jerusalem and the people of faith there.

Let DirtyHarryY2K and me know if you want on/off this pinglist.

[little jeremiah]

Thank you for posting that. I like to post it now and again, but you know how to make some of it red and blue which is cool.

[nickcarraway]

I don't think George III had nearly as much power. He had a very contentious parliament to deal with.

[Jacquerie]

Agreed. Congress can rein in the court right now.

Tell me this though. What makes SCOTUS superior to state constitutions? I don't see any language in the federal Consitution that gives SCOTUS purvue.

[Clint N. Suhks]

The pro-Sodomite from Soviet Kanuckistan's post was above mine. I'm a traditionalist...

My Apologies, you are absolutely correct. I was addressing the pro-sodomy troll from up nort.

[gidget7]

MA Constitution did, and it was overruled by the court. Not only that, as soon as it was, it was a "let the marrying begin" circus, and the Governor and his council ALSO had and still have, sole authority in matters concerning marriage. He could have ignored it, overrode that ruling, He didn't. Another case where the executive branch of government, failed to excercise it's power, and allowed the Judiciary to over reach theirs.

[gidget7]

""We need congress to declare some things are outside of court jurisdiction. Marriage, restrictions on public displays of religion, etc.""




Which is what our Presidents' amendment would have done. It would also disallow judges the hearing of cases where students are denied the free exercise thereof, of their religion.