Posted on 05/18/2015 12:19:37 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The groom and groom strolled down the aisle to the mellow strains of “Mr. Sandman.”
Wearing her black robe with her signature white lace collar, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presided over the marriage on Sunday afternoon of Michael Kahn, the longtime artistic director of the Shakespeare Theater Company in Washington, and Charles Mitchem, who works at an architecture firm in New York.
The gilded setting was elegant: Anderson House in the Embassy Row neighborhood, the headquarters in Washington of the Society of the Cincinnati, a club for the descendants of the French and American soldiers who fought in the Revolutionary War. During the ceremony, the couple slipped black and gold Harry Winston rings onto each other’s fingers.
But the most glittering moment for the crowd came during the ceremony. With a sly look and special emphasis on the word “Constitution,” Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States.
No one was sure if she was emphasizing her own beliefs or giving a hint to the outcome of the case the Supreme Court is considering whether to decide if same-sex marriage is constitutional.
But the guests began applauding loudly, delighted either way. Justice Ginsburg, who has officiated at same-sex weddings in the past, also seemed delighted, either by their reaction or, perhaps, by the news that she will be played in a movie by Natalie Portman (who, in a strange casting segue, will play Jackie Kennedy Onassis in another film).
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
So, in essence,
the 14th amendment nullified the Constitution,
and we’re now ruled by an oligarchy of 5 judges,
with the facade of a democratic republic to give them legitimacy.
We need to concentrate on nominating people who will put true conservatives on the court that will rule the way we wont them to.
To hell with stare decisis and precedent, the left doesn't care about it, and we need to stop caring about it. Any politician that spouts drivel about not having a litmus test needs to be immediately disqualified from consideration.
No actually. Consider the flip side, if another judge performed a normal marriage, should they recuse themselves because of bias on the normal side? How about Scalia because he’s Catholic? You’d have to find advocacy, not simply executing judicial roles.
I’m definitely believe marriage is as originally defined and intended but even having a gay judge is not enough to recuse because the flip argument could be used on a straight one.
In theory the 14th Amendment could be repealed and replaced with a better one, but that’s an utter pipe dream.
Society of the CIncinnati is not “just” descendants of the French/American soldiers who fought in the Revolutionary War” as cited in the article. Its membership is a bit more restrictive. http://www.societyofthecincinnati.org/about/membership
....or just pass a new amendment clearly stating that “nothing in this Constitution shall be interpreted so as to....” and include specific language that will return to the states the right to specific kinds of lawmaking, such as marriage, reproductive health, whatever. But again, what are the chances?
The two lesbians recused themselves because they perform gay weddings. Buzzi needs to do the same.
Recused? When???
Sounds like the wording of the 9th.
and we’re now ruled by an oligarchy of 5 judges,
Right? Did we miss something?
Freakish wierdos
Way better description.
The issue before SCOTUS is whether the Constitution requires that states permit same-sex marriage even if the voters and their representatives have voted against it. Ginsburg has performed same-sex marriages only in the District of Columbia, whose elected City Council voted for same-sex marriage. So no, she is not required to recuse. (Had she performed a same-sex marriage in a state where it exists only because of a judicial decision, I would agree with you that she should recuse.)
RE: The two lesbians recused themselves because they perform gay weddings.
Did Sotomayor and Kagan recuse themselves from this case?
1. Which two lesbians? (Sotomayor was married to a man and is now divorced.)
2. No one has recused in this case.
3. I may be mistaken, but I do not believe Sotomayor has performed any same-sex wedding ceremonies.
Oh no, my bad. Why did I think they recused?? It seems they did not. What a joke this court is.
My mistake, sotomayor and kagan still think they can be unbiased.
So, in a way, she’s right here.
DC permits same sex marriage. If only because Congress has delegated the authority to regulate marriage to the DC government and is unwilling/unable to step in and exercise it’s Constitutional authority to override on the matter.
By citing the Constitution as the source of her power, rather than the laws of the District of Columbia, she’s actually citing the 10th Amendment. In part anyways (the clause establishing DC and Congressional supremecy being another)
Assuming she’s a deep enough thinker to realize that, of course.
You’re just now finding out that there are homosexuals in the theater community? Here’s a couple of shockers for you: WW2 is over and we’ve landed on the moon.
Elena Kagan, officially took her seat on the SCOTUS on 10/01/2010.
A year ago, I was watching CSPAN coverage of the guests arriving and being introduced at a White House state dinner for France. Sure enough associate justice Kagan entered the room with her female date.
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.