"Well, things turned out all right in the end, but you musn't ask how 'cos it's naughty. They're all married and living quite well in a council estate near Dulwich."
Posted on 10/07/2020 7:34:41 AM PDT by Kaslin
Justice Samuel Alito had a straightforward question, but the lawyer arguing on behalf of the petitioners in Obergefell v. Hodges did not have a coherent answer.
Her central argument in the case: The 14th Amendment's command that the states shall not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" protected a "right" for people of the same sex to marry each other.
Alito did not buy it.
"Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license," Alito said.
"Would there be any ground for denying them a license?" he asked.
"I believe so, Your Honor," said the lawyer.
"What would be the reason?" Alito asked.
"There'd be two," she said. "One is whether the state would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons."
To this, Justice Antonin Scalia responded succinctly, "Well, I didn't understand your answer."
The court ended up ruling 5-to-4 that the 14th Amendment did create a right to same-sex marriage. The dissenters included Scalia, Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts.
In a dissent joined by Thomas, Scalia explained why the 14th Amendment did not create a right to same-sex marriage.
"When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every state limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so," Scalia wrote.
"That resolves these cases," he said.
Scalia was right.
Nonetheless, he was on the losing side in Obergefell because Justice Anthony Kennedy, who President Ronald Reagan nominated in 1987, joined with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in ruling that the 14th Amendment did protect a right for two people of the same sex to marry.
Kennedy, in fact, wrote the majority opinion. It was a study in incoherence.
"It cannot be denied that this court's cases describing a right to marry presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners," Kennedy conceded.
"In defining the right to marry these cases have identified essential attributes of that right based on history, tradition, and other constitutional liberties inherent in this intimate bond," Kennedy said.
"This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry," he concluded.
In explaining his pro-same-sex marriage conclusion, Kennedy went on to say that one "basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childbearing, procreation, and education."
In a dissent joined by Scalia, Thomas pointed directly to the threat the court's decision posed to religious liberty.
"In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well," wrote Thomas. "Today's decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples."
"Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process -- as the Constitution requires -- the people could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process," wrote Thomas.
"Instead," he said, "the majority's decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty."
Alito agreed.
"Today's decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage," he wrote in an opinion joined by Scalia and Thomas. "It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy."
"When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every state limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so," Scalia wrote.
"That resolves these cases," he said.
Scalia was right.
Nonetheless, he was on the losing side in Obergefell because Justice Anthony Kennedy, who President Ronald Reagan nominated in 1987, joined with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in ruling that the 14th Amendment did protect a right for two people of the same sex to marry.
Kennedy, in fact, wrote the majority opinion. It was a study in incoherence.
"It cannot be denied that this court's cases describing a right to marry presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners," Kennedy conceded.
"In defining the right to marry these cases have identified essential attributes of that right based on history, tradition, and other constitutional liberties inherent in this intimate bond," Kennedy said.
"This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry," he concluded.
In explaining his pro-same-sex marriage conclusion, Kennedy went on to say that one "basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childbearing, procreation, and education."
In a dissent joined by Scalia, Thomas pointed directly to the threat the court's decision posed to religious liberty.
"In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well," wrote Thomas. "Today's decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples."
"Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process -- as the Constitution requires -- the people could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process," wrote Thomas.
"Instead," he said, "the majority's decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty."
Alito agreed.
"Today's decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage," he wrote in an opinion joined by Scalia and Thomas. "It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy."
I said after this case was decided that what the SCOTUS did, ultimately, was to use the power of the court to change the definition of a word.
The word, “marriage”, no longer has a meaning in legal terms. It needs a qualifier, just like the word, “safe”.
I think we will eventually see legal polygamy and group marriage. And the reason is, that the same legal arguments made for homosexual marriage, will be made for groupings of more than two people. The same arguments about equal protection, of consenting adults wanting to live their lives together, etc. will be made. And depending how liberal the judges in those cases, that will determine if it happens.
And some “LGBT” types have said, that they eventually want threesomes and groups of people in marriage units.
Groupie Lives... Matter....
Gays could always marry in this country. After this ruling, however, people were forced to recognize those marriages, regardless of their religious conscience. The matter has always been about frustrating people’s rights, not defending them.
Why not?, kick a gerbil in to round out the bill.
Ours side wanted the Government to define marriage. I warned about it at the time. Said it was a terrible idea. So, the Government defined marriage.
Don’t like it much, do ya?
L
Under the law, corporations are considered persons.
Can I marry a corporation?
The error of the Obergefell decision was in the remedy it applied. Rather than come up with a ludicrous justification for forcing every state to change its marriage laws, the Supreme Court should have just struck down every provision of every Federal law that applies to married couples. That would simply mean the end to such tax provisions as "married couples filing jointly" and special treatment of spouses under deferred retirement plans and estate tax laws. That's it.
Interestingly, I can easily see us getting to the point where some states simply stop recognizing ANY marriages -- and treat "marriage" as nothing more than a contractual arrangement. That means you can be "married" to one spouse, a dozen spouses, or even 35 spouse and six pets. Let the retarded mutants on the Supreme Court figure out how to deal with that sh!t.
“Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage,” he wrote in an opinion joined by Scalia and Thomas. “It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All true.
O v H will go down in history as one of the most destructive decisions by the court.
We the People are supposed to decide what marriage is, not have a new definition shoved down our throats.
Under the law, corporations are considered persons.
Can I marry a corporation?
It all started with the IRS trying to preserve/coerce culture with tax laws.
If you are going to make people pay taxes, just make them pay taxes based on raw data like income. This is why I hate tax incentives like tax credits.
I’m just considering the alimony value....
“Do Four People Have a Right to Marry One Another?”
“Right” to “Marry”, in a constitutional context, has been a very odd construct. 14th Amndmt is about privacy and association etc . . . Religous constructs of Marriage and Goobermint declarations are very different things.
Goobermint should get out of the marriage business. Consenting Adults can do as they please with other Consenting Adults. None of my business, nor your’s, nor the Goobermint’s.
Get together with a cat, a dog, your GTO and three neighbors of fluid self-identity? I don’t give a shiite. It can all be handled under simple CONTRACT LAW.
“Marriage” is a personal undertaking, often under religious guidelines. You shouldn’t need anyone’s permission, but the parties involved.
Legal Civil “Unions” are something very different.
DON’T CONFUSE THE TWO.
When 2 gays divorce, who gets the house , the car, the bank account? The smaller d*ck? Or the one with the bigger ta-tas? How is it decided?, because now days its the vag that gets all that. And who gets the poodle?
No, Obergefell came about from activist homosexuals suing for the right to marry. Conservatives would have been perfectly happy with the status quo ante but that wasn’t really an option since the gay activists were intent on bringing the issue to a head. May the name of Anthony Kennedy live on in infamy.
They, as usual, missed the whole point of individual liberty.
Government has NO BUSINESS creating, subsidizing, penalizing, licensing, or regulating in any way consensual human relationships that bring no harm to others.
Contract law is where all protections should be set forth, and the Government should go fornicate itself.
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.