Posted on 03/26/2013 2:41:44 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
During oral arguments today at the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia and attorney Ted Olson had a pointed exchange over whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Scalia's argument, which was advanced by Chief Justice John Roberts before him, was that when the institution of marriage developed historically, it was not done with the explicit intent of excluding gay and lesbian couples. "We don't prescribe law for the future," Scalia said. "We decide what the law is. I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?"
Olson countered that with a question of his own, bringing up two past high-profile cases involving discrimination.
"When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?"
Olson asked.
The two went back and forth, with Scalia repeatedly questioning when, specifically, it became unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marrying. Olson argued back, but ended up conceding that there was no specific date.
"Well, how am I supposed to how to decide a case, then, if you can't give me a date when the Constitution changes?" Scalia said.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Nobody has ever been excluded from marriage. Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, have always been free to marriage. It’s just that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. If you allow people of the same sex to marry each other, how can you not allow all sorts of strange types of marriages? The answer: you can’t.
If that is the intent, the LGBT crowd not only wants to change Constitional Law but Biblical Law!
No Religion will be able to refuse the infusion of LGBT into the Church of any religion and will therefore change the teachings and content of any religion!
SCOTUS might as well order that all bibles in the USA be rewritten to accept the LBGT lifestyle and order all Churches to submitt to LBGT lifestyle!
Hearing common sense almost sounds alien to the ears since the left have so distorted the debate. For example, the left are always using the phrase “separation of church and state” yet at the same time advocate federally forced atheism.
Ping for later
Ted Olson has been arguing before the SCOTUS longer than most of the Judges have been on the Court and has forgotten more than they knew to begin with.
This is just “inside baseball” friendly poking one another. Don’t read anything big into this, especially how Scalia felt about Olson’s counter questions.
I can not find anywhere in the Constitution wher it says the court can nullify a legal vote, even though they try sometimes. My guess is that the majority will side with the voters, not the liberal Judges under and on the 9th.
Gay couples aren’t barred from marriage, so long as they don’t marry each other. They are as free as anyone to marry someone from the opposite sex. What they want to do is redefine what marriage means. Allowing interracial marriage doesn’t do that. Olson’s response is BS.
Marriage has been around since Adam and Eve. But the State wasn’t involved until around the 1700’s.
BKO is rolling over in her grave!!! Ted’s THIRD wife is a LIBERAL: and my guess is that she has GAY KID or KIDS...period.
Laura Bush is a DEMOCRAT...a TEXAS DEMOCRAT.
It is about forcing the Church, through the law, to approve of their unions—to have the Church bestow the blessing of God upon their union and call it a true marriage.
Why? His job is to ask questions requiring you to answer with valid argument. It in no way reflects on his personal stand on the issue.
He is doing exactly what a Supreme Court Justice should do...........
That is correct. The third party to the contract is the body of citizens represented by the government. The purpose of the contract is to protect the rights of the children that are produced in the union. The duty of the government is to secure those rights, and the marriage contract delegates that duty to the two people who created the child.
That's the smart money. But I'd further bet that if the court does say it's a matter for states to decide, California will have it back in front of the voters, probably for the 2014 election, and it will pass. Losing to the conservative side of the court will be used as a rallying cry for another effort, with media backing.
bttt
The Roberts appointment was applauded by everyone here and if I went back far enough, I would suspect even you supported the appointment........
So get off your high horse.......
It’s not about the Appointment but the let down!
Roberts had a chance to show some balls on 0care but chose to be a whimp!
“A man and woman committing to each other to form a single familial unit and attempt to produce children out of that union is as natural a thing as exists. That is what marriage is. If a man and woman do that, they are “married” whether a state recognizes it or not.”
This is not the case. A marriage is a contract before divinity, whichever god that may be. Your bond is sanctified by the deity, and you are bound to the marriage laws of that religion. What you describe is simply monogamy. Two people can commit to each other, have kids, yet never be married.
Even so, I agree with the gist of what you’re saying. It’s not government recognition that makes a ‘marriage’. If a union has no traditional foundations in faith, it cannot be a marriage, and in this country’s Judeo-Christian tradition, marriage is and always has been
One man and one woman unrelated, over the age of consent, and consenting.
In India, it’s a little different, seeing as you don’t have to be of a certain age nor give consent. In Islam, polygamy is recognized marriage. But NOWHERE is there a historical basis for homosexual marriage. There’s a reason for it.
Some official in Massachusetts or some black robe that Obama threw on the Supreme Court doesn’t get to define marriage. They have as much authority as any vagrant. Marriage is defined by scripture, and for us. That’s the Old and New Testament. As someone said before. It was never Adam and Steve.
She did not get the memo like I did after jimmah cattah. I served in the military under jimmah, clinton and retired under 0 bummer. Don't know which was the worst, but I'd bet 0 has the prize in his hand by now.
That's true.......
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.