Posted on 04/30/2015 3:34:33 PM PDT by Kaslin
In 2-1/2 hours of oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked the right question: whether it is appropriate for the Court to discard a definition of marriage that "has been with us for millennia," adding, "it's very difficult for the court to say, 'Oh, well, we know better.' "
Kennedy, who is regarded as the swing vote on this and many other controversial issues, may not answer his own question the way proponents of traditional marriage wish, but the question is not rhetorical. Should this court, or any court, re-define and force the states to accept a new definition of marriage that will not only affect same-sex couples, but open the door to other petitioners, for example, polygamists, who wish to "marry" more than one person?
If human history, tradition, the Bible, the Constitution and biology are to be ignored or re-defined, on what basis do courts say "no" to anything? If "equality" and "fairness" are the new standard, one might as well have no standard at all because such emotional appeals could justify any relationship or form of behavior.
The problem for traditionalists -- especially those who believe scripture is the sole authority in such matters -- is that in an increasingly secular society where younger people are less attuned to appeals about an Authority higher than themselves, how can they be persuaded that same-sex marriage is a bridge too far? After all, don't they "know" gay people, whom they regard as wonderful and kind? That "standard" becomes subjective and when it reaches the level of personal feelings it becomes a shifting boundary that is drawn in invisible ink rather than set in stone.
Only two years ago, in the case of "U.S. v. Windsor," which argued whether the IRS could give federal tax benefits to all legally married homosexuals, regardless of state law, Justice Kennedy warned it was wrong for courts to "put a thumb on the scales and influence a state's decision as to shape its own marriage laws." And now this court could do precisely that.
Chief Justice John Roberts told the plaintiff's attorneys on Tuesday, "But if you prevail here, there will be no more debate. ... People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it's imposed on them by the courts."
Yes, they do, which is why, as Justice Antonin Scalia noted; only 11 states have done so by a "vote of the people or the legislature."
To the surprise of conservatives, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer echoed Kennedy's concern: "The opposite rule has been the law everywhere for thousands of years.... And, suddenly, you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states, that don't want to do it, to change what you've heard ... change what marriage is to include gay people."
That is precisely what the advocates for same-sex marriage want, just as the pro-abortion movement wanted the same court 42 years ago, in "Roe v. Wade," to discard state laws protecting the unborn. That 1973 decision continues to stir controversy and should be a lesson to the court not to make a similar mistake with marriage.
Here is the real problem: If people worship pleasure and material things, they are more likely to get leaders who give them what they want instead of what they need to hold society together. If we erase the boundaries that have guided humanity for generations, we weaken our society.
A verse from the Book of Judges seems to define America in 2015, as we sink deeper into a moral and cultural morass: "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit." (Judges 21:25)
So so. Cal Thomas’ brain is not as sharp as it used to be. I don’t say that to be mean. I say that in disappointment because I used to rely on him to put voice to my opinions.
Let them vote yes.
Let them destroy America from the bottom up.
See what happens.
To fix a rotten building, you have to destroy it, and build something new.
Fundamental transformations don’t just happen.
So you need Cal Thomas to voice your opinion? The first Amendment give you the right, as it does give it to Cal Thomas, or anyone else
Oh, sweet mystery of life . . .
Perhaps he knows his legacy is on the line. He doesn't need to further ensure his membership in the club of disgraced judges.
Well, all this BS picked up steam from the SJC of MA when the South African chick that's married to a Slimes columnist said "Marriage is an evolving paradigm" and gave its okay to the "marriage" between other than man and woman.
If this is allowed, I don’t think God will look kindly on this country. It will be like referent Wright said God damn this country
They can be persuaded by teaching them history and biology. The fact that marriage has certain characteristics that are universal regardless of culture or religion is a reflection of the biological basis of marriage.
The fact that a lot of young people really think the purpose of life is to indulge every desire (especially sexual), while avoiding all responsibility, does not change the fact that there is one reason any living organism exists. That is to produce young to keep the species alive. Gay "marriage" cannot exist, because the biological function of marriage simply is not there.
This Supreme Court hearing was sham, a show trial and any ruling in favor of mandatory acceptance of sodomy is arguably void on its face.
First: No federal court has jurisdiction to judge marriage as marriage is neither a right nor a privilege. For proof of this fact try to marry your adult sibling. As such its not covered under the 14th’s jurisdiction, nor is it a civil rights claim.
Second: Marriage is an establishment of religion. The First Amendment bars the government from changing it.
Third: Kagan and Ginsberg by publicly advocating for forced public acceptance of sodomy have demonstrated a bias as well as conflict of interest requiring them to recuse themselves from the case. They have not done so.
The absence of the forgoing arguments in front of the court and the refusal to recuse themselves by the two who have shown the most conflict of interest in the case are proof the hearing was a sham.
Indeed.
No I don’t need him. What a weird take on what I said. I just used to enjoy his columns and now I don’t really give a rip. He is not nearly as good as he used to be.
It used to be I would submit letters to the editor and once in a great while one would be printed. Cal Thomas was there once or twice a week. That is all I meant.
Like I said, you are entitled to your opinion
>>> They can be persuaded by teaching them history and biology.
Think about the body’s sytems. God gave you a nervous system, a circulatory system, an endocrine system, a skeletal system, a digestive system, etc.
But He only gave you 1/2 a reproductive system.
Think about it.
It is not that I have a particular problem with this article. It is just that it is not the home run sort of column he used to write. It is just eh...
Good point.
Don’t like the definition of a word? Just redefine it.
If they want to redefine “marriage” this opens the door to a whole host of new definitions: male, female, adult, child, consent, sober, legal, robbery, armed, divorce, truth, justice, rights, insanity, normal, government, voter, immigrant, election, treaty, majority, army, nation, war, peace, “is”, ....
Why stop at just “marriage” ???
Since the ‘rats have killed the rule of law and Traitor Roberts issued pretzel logic rulings, the SCOTUS is a joke and should be ignored.
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.