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.
Why not just start calling it what it is.
The Oligarchy of the Nine.
If someone had told you ten years ago that the Court would have the "courage" to declare certain kinds of child porn "free speech," while deciding that political speech was not free at a certain time of the year or if paid for in a certain way, would you have believed them?
I'm not sure of the number, but consider this: Ban referenda passed in eleven out of eleven states in November, in margins over 60% in all cases, and two of those states (OR and MI) were states that Dubya lost by a wide margin. Even libs think this is a bad idea.
It will be hard, but it is necessary. If we fail to reign in the judiciary, the historians will point to the session where the Court placed "virtual" child porn under free speech protection and endorsed CFR, and say, "That's where they should have done something."
Agreed, especially about the Article 3 method.
Indeed. Right after the Court ruled in Lawrence vs. Texas, a polygamous trio (husband and wife looking to add on another wife) attempted to obtain a marriage license and are now suing Salt Lake County, citing that L v. T's reasoning concerning consenting adults and state interest clears the way for polygamous marriage. Frankly, I agree with them. If the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of moral issues that they are setting themselves up as, L v. T legalizes any marital or sexual arrangement consenting adults desire, end of story.
Excellent point. Yes, and no. George did have a rough time with Parliament, and that's one reason he asked Lord North to be PM, because he knew he was an excellent parliamentary tactician and would be tough (ruthless, even). But George would also just do end runs around them. For example, when he and North first became aware of the aliance between the Americans and the french, they witheld that information from Parliament. George was afraid they'd insist on war with France and really ruin his day.
If we don't rein them in soon, this country will either have a Lexington and Concord/Fort Sumter moment (bad) or we will be too whipped to have a Lexington and Concord/Fort Sumter moment (horrible).
1. What's with the "m@rri@ge" spelling?
2. You wrote this...
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'.
Now let me ask this...what if the libs had been able to point to another country that had experienced a bloodbath in the streets when it adopted shall issue permits? That would bolster their argument, wouldn't it? In fact, it would be the best kind of evidence, no specualtion, no tortured conclusions, just "They did the same thing and this happened."
Well, here's the problem: In countries that have already jumped off this bridge, we've seen more kids born out of wedlock, few homosexual marriages/civil unions and plenty of suppression of free speech and religious practice. Why should any conservative favor and initiative which led to more fatherless households and tyrannical restrictions, especially if the folks it was supposed to benefit won't take advantage of it?
3. Last time I checked, the same homosexual activists who are pushing homosexual marriage had bullied your country into restricting freedom of speech and religion. If Sam and Laura want to go out on the street corner with a bullhorn or on the radio and read Romans 1, do they get to? Will the Swedish pastor sent to jail for reading Bible passages about homosexuality in a church feel his freedom is undiminished because Sam and Laura had a nice wedding? Are you really going to lecture us about "fear" of social change from a country where the government is afraid of Christians reading things out loud?
4. Have you read any of these:
Results of gay marriage in Scandinavia.
Results of gay marriage in Holland
Where it will lead sociologically.
Let's be nice, live-and-let-live libertarian types, just like in Canada.
(In Sweden and Canada gay activists got parts of the Bible made "illegal." Do we want to encourage them in the USA?)
Well, you are on the opposite side from me for good reasons, but the problem is that the things you are expecting from homosexual marriage will not materialize. We know this because they haven't materialized in other countries.
Let's say though that they would: Is less promiscuity among homosexuals worth the effect on heterosexual families (see below)? Is that (or being "part of conservative family life") worth the degradation of basic freedoms that has followed in Sweden and Canada?
Check these out. Like I said, they deal with the experience other countries have had with these policies, and they have been a disaster, and I can't think of any definition of diminishment" that wouldn't apply to what these policies have done to hetero marriage in those countries.
Results of gay marriage in Scandinavia.
Results of gay marriage in Holland
Where it will lead sociologically.
Let's be nice, live-and-let-live libertarian types, just like in Canada.
(In Sweden and Canada gay activists got parts of the Bible made "illegal." Do we want to encourage them in the USA?)
well I will tell you what, I have 3 uncles up in Michigan. All 3 are very catholic and all voted for Kerry. But all 3 voted for the gay marriage ban up there.....
Thanks for the info. I agree that if same-sex marriage is legalized nationwide, it will indeed be a short step to legalizing polygamous marriage, and I don't see how the Supreme Court could argue against allowing it.
Just as George III and Lord North did...
Not to mention Darth Vader.
I don't think George III ever wore a black robe...but he did have blue pee.
I feel that the USA is more unique than the European, esp. the Scandinavian countries, with its religious freedom and thus more love for religion. I do not think we will go the way of Sweden.
Thanks.
Thank you for taking a look at those. As for the Sweden thing, I agree to this point: It won't happen here, but only if we make it clear that we will fight it in the streets if necessary. And it may be close to being too late; Illinois just recently passed an anti-discrimination law and made no provision for churches. So, if my church grows some and needs a secretary, and my pastor refuses to hire a member of ACT UP, the State comes after us.
I read the articles you posted on gay marriage and I thank you for this valuable information. Great read and very revealing!
You're welcome!
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.