Obergefell Was as Unconstitutional as Roe

The American Spectator ^ | July 6, 2022 | George Neumayr

[T Ruth]

A GOP unwilling to admit that can’t save America.

The media is trying to mau-mau Republicans into a selective and unprincipled originalism, and it appears to be working. After the collapse of Roe v. Wade, many Republican pols signaled that they had no interest in overturning other nakedly unconstitutional rulings, such as Obergefell v. Hodges. Never mind that that ruling, which imposed a wholly invented “constitutional” right to gay marriage on all 50 states, was as much an attack on democracy as the Roe ruling.

“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in dissent in that case. “This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

Scalia called the sudden discovery of a right to [homosexual] marriage in the Constitution the court’s most egregious act of judicial activism: “The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create ‘liberties’ that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.”

***

Is the GOP the party of the Constitution or not? By submitting to the left’s hectoring and waving the white flag on much of its cherished judicial activism of the last 50 years, Republicans reveal themselves as only very weak and occasional constitutionalists. ...

***

[T Ruth]

Obegefell is truly a lawless ruling. It should not only be overruled by the Supreme Court, but repudiated and thwarted by all who desire and intend to uphold the Constitution.

[Paladin2]

Wickard v. Filburn.....

[ifinnegan]

What difference does it make if the GOP admits that or not.

Someone has to bring a lawsuit that gets to the SC.

[MinorityRepublican]

There should be a constitutional amendment on gay marriage. As it us right now, most Republicans will probably vote to make it legal. So to codify gay marriage is the correct path to take rather than for the SCOTUS to legislate from the bench.

[Williams]

I believe even Roberts voted against this. The decision was without any ļegal basis.

[Bloodandgravy]

The origin of the swamp?

[Paladin2]

Legal Cover...

[Repeal The 17th]

Kelo v. City of New London (2005) should be in line.

[Boogieman]

"the furthest extension one can even imagine..."

Lefties:

[Ken H]

“Wickard v. Filburn.....”

---

Which Scalia gave his whole-hearted endorsement to in Raich.

[MHGinTN]

Numbered as it is now, a scotus with the filthy Roberts as chief justice will never go against the degeneracy in place over American society. ‘Someone’ owns the pirate Roberts, someone very evil.

[frogjerk]

So to codify gay marriage is the correct path to take rather than for the SCOTUS to legislate from the bench.

Doing evil is never correct no matter how one tries to justify it... i.e. popular will, culture, threats of violence, losing elections, etc...

[conejo99]

Is opposition to homosexual “marriage” actually a net vote loser?
I hope not but I’m not sure. After all those in favor of it are ardent true believers while those opposing it might be mostly mildly disgusted.

[escapefromboston]

How Republicans ran on overturning Roe v Wade? How many thanked Trump for nominating judges that overturned if? They are all talk but are just as bad as liberals in most cases.
The Supreme Court should never legalized gay marriage , it doesn’t even exist.

[faithhopecharity]

the court needs to be reminded that... as nice as it may be to have some place to get settled law....
the court was created to provide constitutional oversight of the legislative and admimistrative process....
it is not there to legislate on its own initiative...
and if a case does not involve a constitutional issue, the court should decline to hear it

[Lurker]

^^^^
This

L

[hinckley buzzard]

Obergefell, like Roe, is an example of the bastard theory of “substantive due process,” which in a nutshell means that the court can create whatever “right” it wants to if it feels strongly about it, even if there is no Constitutional nexus. Justice Thomas wrote in opposition to this in his Dobbs concurring opinion. A compelling piece of writing. He and Scalia have been fire bells in the night. Too bad they are censored by the degenerate media.

[Reddy]

“As it us right now, most Republicans will probably vote to make it legal.”

Glad I am not a Republican.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Scalia called the sudden discovery of a right to [homosexual] marriage in the Constitution the court’s most egregious act of judicial activism: “The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create ‘liberties’ that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

He’s right and it should be overturned.

[daniel1212]

Indeed. A artist refuses to be complicit in the celebration of an immoral sexual union and illegal (at the time) marriage and a "civil rights commission" punishes him vindictively, and later SCOTUS basically just concerns itself with the vindictively of the commission.

Relevant questions re. Masterpiece:

• Was Masterpiece refusing to contract to create a special work a cake anyone else could buy? No (the baker would not consent to create a work for any purpose).

• Was Masterpiece singling out homosexuals in denying to contract for a cake celebrating homosexual marriage? No (straight couples would also be refused such/"discriminated" against, like as for Halloween and divorce celebrations).
• Was Masterpiece acting consistent with his convictions here? Yes.
• Was the refusal by Masterpiece to recognize "gay marriage" also that of the state constitution at the time? Yes.
• Did the state recognize out-of-state civil unions or same-sex marriages performed outside of Colorado at that time? No.
  
• Would Masterpiece be conveying recognition of "gay marriage" by contracting to provide this special and expensive cake? Yes.
• Was the state effectively requiring Masterpiece not to have or act upon compelling convictions in this regard by punishing the owners for not recognizing what the state itself historically did not? Yes.
• Would the state punish a black or Jewish baker for refusing to create a special work for a KKK celebration, though the latter has the right to freedom of speech? Unlikely.
• Would the state punish a Muslim baker for refusing to create a special cake for the celebration of the anniversary of the modern state of Israel? Unlikely.
  
• Is the Masterpiece case analogous to a baker refusing to create a special cake for the wedding of a mixed-race couple on moral grounds? Yes, but not when the state itself did not recognize such a union as valid, though in contrast to same-sex weddings which have zero Scriptural support, mixed-race marital unions do.
  
• Should Masterpiece have been (severely) punished for refusing to be complicit in the celebration of a wedding which was both contrary to the law of God as well as the highest law of the state at the time? No. But since CO nuked its constitutional definition of marriage being btwn a man and a women (before gender itself became fluid) then it would be liable to punishment then.
  
• Can the state punish business and people for refusing to be complicit in acts which are contrary to what they believe, and the Founders evidenced they believed?
  
• Is the real problem that of the courts autocratically redefining marriage clearly contrary to Scripture and what the Founders manifestly believed (in contrast to slavery, to which some expressed rejection of)? Yes.