Posted on 03/30/2005 6:21:32 PM PST by 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.
I've heard it pointed out several times since the Massachusetts decision that passage of gay marriage in one state will not force any other state to allow gay marriage. That is true. It's also true that no state that had a ban on abortion was forced to allow them when other states decriminalized it.
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Nothing would surprise me when it comes to the American judicial system.
When the hell are the politicians going to stand up and take back the authority they are elected to exercise?
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
The decision will be written by Justice Kennedy and will be based on "International Law", "International Public Opinion", and "Evolving American Morality".
Our black robed masters will do as they like.
Just as George III and Lord North did...
They will do it with sleight of hand. They'll uphold the gay marriage law in MA and VT, and that will set the stage for a cramdown on the rest of the nation. They've already ruled that states are bound to recognize each others marriages.
Call me skeptical, but I don't think they have the "courage" to do it. After how anti-gay marriage amendments fared in November, I think the Justices may realize they could lose bigtime if they invalidated all the state constitutional amendments.
Does anyone know how many state constitutions specifically forbid gay marriage?
I think he means Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned Romer.
We need congress to declare some things are outside of court jurisdiction. Marriage, restrictions on public displays of religion, etc.
was it 34 or so?
its a majority of the states in any case I believe....
How so?
Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1 & 2 of the Constitution of the United States
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
No, there is nothing that will prevent them from changing the law in the future except our hot breath breathing down their necks.
Time for a star chamber overlay system? Tribal elder model.
BTTT
I hope some good Congressmen and Senators are reading up on impeachment and trials of Justices. It's about time to put them in their place.
When the First Amendment was gutted, it was a serious wake-up call. If they overturn a 70%+ opinion of the electorate, it will be time to throw a few out.
re; "...and the destruction of marriage itself."
Last August I attended a very traditional HETERO m@rri@ge here in the Great White North and NOWHERE did I see any sign that the happy couple, their parents, peers or wellwishers felt THAT m@rri@ge was in any way diminished, denigrated, degraded or "destroyed" in that joyous moment by the thought that someone ELSE of homosexual persuasion was ALSO entering into Matrimony with THEIR chosen partner.
Though I had no reason to ask them I suspect if it had been appropriate to inquire "Could somehow your Bliss at this happy event in YOUR life be diminuated by the thought that someone else 'different' to you is ALSO entering into Matrimony? they would have said that they would hope that EVERYONE could experience the Joy they were sharing in that blessed moment.
Certainly NO ONE there felt that THEIR m@rri@ge was 'destroyed' even though doubtless 'gay marriages' were also going on nearby that day. I suspect no one even thought about the fact gays were also marrying...I certainly didnt, just wished Sam and Laura well.
Fear of new and unfamiliar social change is understandable...and not only to conservatives...remember how the liberals were terrified that 'shall issue'/'right to carry' handgun carry-permit legislation if enacted widely by US states [now about 2/3 isnt it?] would lead to 'bloodbaths on the streets'.
Well it didnt happen...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.
Have some of that COURAGE; 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.
Traditional m@rri@ge WASN'T 'destroyed' HERE last August when Sam and Laura entered into it and it WON'T be destroyed for y'all either [if the thought that gays might be married could make you feel YOURS is suddenly worthless methinks you have bigger problems than gay m@rri@ge LOLOL] if the Courts recognize and protect gays equal rights to m@rry under Law.
Okay y'all can 'attack' the Ol Canucklehead now ;-) ;-)
Two separate decisions,actually. Romer v. Evans struck down a voter referendum while Lawrence v. Texas struck down sodomy laws in every state in the union.
I think Colson is correct that the Council of Grand Ayatollahs will impose gay marriage by a stroke of the pen shortly - three years at the outside. Grand Ayatollah Kennedy will likely author the decision. The amendment would be wonderful, but I think that an Article 3 law that forbids judicial review would be the best route short term.
That is such a sick thought I had to laugh.
ping.
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.