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 ...
Oh... stupid me. I thought it was someting about LIFETIME COMMITMENT.
How about no sex BEFORE marriage?
Personally, I don’t think it would ever go that far, but regardless of how much social damage gays might choose to do, it isn’t the point of my argument. Fact is, marriage is a tradition and contract between a man and a woman. My point is that the present law doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals. They are as free to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexuals are. Olson’s comparison of old laws prohibiting interracial marriage to laws prohibiting gay marriage is logically incorrect. Interracial marriage never sought to alter the meaning of marriage.
There are many homosexuals in straight marriages for different reasons. Obama is one example. I’ve never heard that it is spreading AIDs into straight communities, or that our daughters are rushing out to marry queers. They seem to be done for children or social reasons. I should add that I’m not advocating it. ...The institution of marriage, as it has existed for thousands of years, doesn’t discriminate against gays.
This is about human biology, PLUS a group of people who wish to pervert everything they can lay their dirty grimy hands on and degrade the rest of the human race down to their slimy (Can you say - perverted) level of life.
The threat to which I referred is nefarious and was suggested by one of the more radical pro-gay groups. Of course the gay men would not flaunt their gayness. They would ACT straight until the marriage to the woman was a done deal, then break the news which, in most cases, would be heartbreaking. I’ve known a few women who’ve ‘been there’ and it was devastating.
Olson and Scalia were basically playing lawyer games like they did back in law school. Like a moot court for elderly lawyers.
Scalia is still the master of the court. The others use childish arguments in comparison to him. But he is a lone voice of such brilliant rational arguments.
The libs on the court demand a ‘public interest be stated’ that they find convincing, good luck with that.
Also Kagan defined the ban’s purpose as discriminating based on ‘orientation’. The big mistake by supporters of marriage was accepting this premise.
The scarey part is swing vote Kennedy asked a so called question if the well being of the CA kids whose parents are ‘gay’ should be considered in the decision, because those kids need ‘married’ parents.
Think about that one. gay parents.
Pray, boys and girls. Dad will be home soon.
I would take a sacred oath that there are leftists who are deliberately posing as “Republicans”, utilising the label as a means to infiltrate the party and destroy it from within, just as they’ve done with academia, the media, the military, and organised Christianity. All they have to do is co-opt the one real “opposition” party, and they own it all. Conservatives will be forever marginalised and pushed to the fringes of American life. Christian conservatives might as well be the Amish for all the voice or influence we will have on American politics, culture, education, the information stream, or any say in the future. It will be a miracle if we don’t have to fight the goernment to retain physical custody of our own children. The government is coming up with policies to get them at younger and younger ages in the guise of “early education”, controlling their nutrition, etc. They already are finding ways to keep them away from their parents for longer and longer periods.
I’m surprised that even as much as it has been interfered with, homeschooling for the most part has been left alone. I don’t believe that will last-there will be a battle over the rights of parents to educate their children as they see best. It’s already a fact in much of Europe, and leftists see European EU-style authoritarianism as a model.
May God keep Christian parents and their children until He comes! It feels wrong to even pray that, knowing the real persecution Cristians have been dealing with in so much of the world. But I pray it nonetheless for the sake of the remnant of true Christians trying to raise their children in the fear (respect) of the Lord in this decadent nation.
I was meaning that he is now part of a permanent minority on the SC. I had no problem with his questions.
Here is the frustrating thing for me: This is not about homosexual marriage. This is about attempting to redefine marriage and its purpose.
If I were arguing this in front of the court I would make the case that is summed up in the following:
The reason marriage enjoys certain FedGov benefits is that it is in a country’s best interest to support the incubator which produces its citizens. This incubator is called a family. The goal is to have a family with a mother and father, each overtly doing their part to support the development of the children and “covertly” supplying the particular role model.
And regarding marriage, homosexuals have the exact same rights as everyone else.
That’s it. Pretty simple. And show me where homosexuals are discriminated against. You can’t because they are not. But you can try to twist it any way you want. A judge who deserves their seat on the bench will see through it.
He was smarting off at Scalia, too — taunting him. Where did he get manners like that? From the new crowd he’s been hanging around with? It seemed awfully .... gay.
Not the governmental/ legal version. In fact exactly the opposite, the legal version of marriage exists in a large part to create the starting point of property distribution if said marriage is dissolved. The lifetime commitment thing is in the religious version of marriage, which is vastly different. It’s really unfortunate we use the same word for both, because they really are two different things, even if they often happen at the same time.
” Scalia is still the master of the court.”
He sure is, and we need a few more like him.
Because of gay “parents”, the single Octomom (remember her) could not be kept from getting artificially inseminated by the clinic she chose. Why? Because a couple of lesbians wanted to be “parents” so they applied to such a clinic, The clinic refused, so guess what? They went to a lawyer to sued the clinic. Of course the lesbians won and the clinic lost. From then one a clinic did not have the right to refuse artificial insemination to anyone. Brave New World.
See the following chapters:
Part Fifth
Chapter II. Of the Domestic Relations -- Husband and Wife
This chapter talks about the laws of marriage, and the responsibilities of husband and wife.
This chapter talks about the responsibilities that parents have towards raising their children, and when those responsibilities end.The title page says that this book was "adapted to the purposes of instruction in families and schools."
"Marriage" was one of those things that people didn't need a definition of. This is what people taught their children about marriage and families.
-PJ
Well said.
Well... THAT's about the change.
And, no matter what you think... ROMANCE comes first, not property settlement.
ugh... the=to
Romance might come first, but it’s got nothing to do with the legal construct. The legal construct is about property management and distribution, and availability of certain legal benefits (and penalties, maybe when gays can marry the libs will fall out of love with the DINK tax).
yea... I know. You’re right. You MUST be a lawyer.
I’m just a hopeless romantic.. and, “bible thumper”. :-)
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.