“Scalia, who’s notoriously anti-gay marriage ...”
Scalia, as a judge, is neither anti-gay marriage, nor pro-gay marriage. But he knows there is not a constitutional right to gay marriage. And he knows that the use of the 14th amendment to create such a right is seriously flawed legal thinking.
All this started with Willard Mitt Romney Ordering
the clerks to obey HIM and violate the Mass. Constitution.
God is not amused and will have the last decision.
Judge Shelby has “trolled” the wrong guy.
Scalia pretty much laid it out that marriage would be re-defined in the future because of the DOMA and Prop 8 majority rulings, he said they were opening the door for the next Supreme Court case to do that.
Local judges who are sympathetic to re-defining marriage feel they are free now to act with impunity because the top court will back them in the end.
We will have Roe v. Wade on this in very short order (several years) and the politicians (Republican ones) will be useless on this.
In fact, it will be hard to be a Republican candidate for anything and express one’s opinion in opposition to gay marriage in the future.
They’ll be treated like Todd Akin.
People can’t express views like Phil Robertson and be candidates for the Conservative parties in the UK or Canada anymore.
Its not just about legalizing gay marriage, its about marginalizing those who believe in traditional values to second class status.
You’ve being far too kind to the guy. Christmas spirit got you?
I believe the word is “sophistry”, adroit reasoning, but based on a specious premise. It SOUNDS plausible and logical, but is ultimately flawed, and only makes for confused interpretation and wrongful application.
Nothing has EVER prevented any person of homosexual inclinations from marrying. Only just not a person of the same sex.
It is possible that a complex cross-connection could be worked out where two gays could select, in separate ceremonies, two lesbians with whom they could exchange vows, then set up a combined household, and still not be in breach of the law as it existed. Nobody would ever have to know what was going on behind closed doors.
Why can’t the Governor of Utah just tell the judge to go pound sand?
NKP_Vet you are exactly, 100% correct. Judges that make such outrageous decisions need to be held personally accountable for their evil decisions. Meanwhile, States should just ignore the idiocy spewing forth from these un-American courts and judges.
This will certainly piss you off thouroughly as well.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3104947/posts
Shelby’s not fit to carry Justice Scalia’s jockstrap.
Scalia's remarks are not his opinion. They are his characterization of the majority's opinion, which he warned would be used to obtain judicial overreach.
Consequently, what the judge is saying is: "Scalia warned that Kennedy's opinion would be used by renegade judges to usurp the power of the People of the United States, and he was correct. I myself am one such outlaw."
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
There’s never been a law making one man, one woman marriage legal. It’s natural and precedes the state by eons. No law can make the unnatural natural.