Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obergefell Was as Unconstitutional as Roe
The American Spectator ^ | July 6, 2022 | George Neumayr

Posted on 07/07/2022 5:00:18 PM PDT by 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. ...

***

(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 80percenthivcasesmen; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; marriage; obergefell; romans1verses18to22; scotus; unitedstatesofsodom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last
To: Ken H
"Specifically, Scalia finds that Congress's power cannot be found in the Commerce Clause alone, but rather is derived from the convergence of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.2""

Sounds like legal MumboJumbo claptrap. Nobody is perfect. Each case is unique.

21 posted on 07/07/2022 5:33:27 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
"Specifically, Scalia finds that Congress's power cannot be found in the Commerce Clause alone, but rather is derived from the convergence of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.2""

Sounds like legal MumboJumbo claptrap.

Nobody is perfect.

Each case is unique.

22 posted on 07/07/2022 5:33:58 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Williams

it lost on every ballot it was ever on...even California defeated it by over 2-1 margin...


23 posted on 07/07/2022 5:35:01 PM PDT by basalt ( in the irons....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 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."

I hope you are a MinorityRepublican.

As clearly taught in the Bible, God made man and women distinctively different yet uniquely compatible and complementary, and only joined them together in marriage - as the Lord Jesus Himself specified (Mt. 19:4–6) - and only condemned homosexual relations wherever they are manifestly dealt with.

Yet there is still room at the cross for all who will come to God in repentance and faith, and trust in the Divine Son of God sent by the Father, the risen Lord Jesus, to save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood, and thus be baptized and live for Him. (Acts 10:36-47) Thanks be to God.

24 posted on 07/07/2022 5:36:11 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Turn to the Lord Jesus as a damned+destitute sinner, trust Him who saves, be baptized + follow Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: T Ruth

Like abortion, marriage is a state issue. The federal government has no interest in marriage.


25 posted on 07/07/2022 5:36:44 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Inside every leftist is a blood-thirsty fascist yearning to be free of current societal constraints.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

I see no where in the constitution that marriage of any kind is addressed


26 posted on 07/07/2022 5:38:11 PM PDT by Nifster (I see puppy dogs in the clouds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Williams

Roberts was the swing vote for gay marriage.


27 posted on 07/07/2022 5:38:28 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Inside every leftist is a blood-thirsty fascist yearning to be free of current societal constraints.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Phillips has gone on record saying that he doesn’t judge anybody for how they live their lives. He just doesn’t see why he needs to be a part of it. He has said that if Craig and Mullins wanted to buy anything else from his shop, he would have been happy to sell it to them. Phillips just didn’t feel like he should have to create something for an occasion that he doesn’t want to be a part of, as it conflicts with his personal religious principles.

If Phillips refused to sell any kind of cake to a gay person because they were gay, I’d agree that this was an open and shut case of blatant unjust discrimination. It’s not though, which is why I’m on Phillips’ side, even though I’m pro-marriage equality and sympathetic to Craig and Mullins. When you boil it down, this case is much bigger than just whether or not it’s okay to discriminate. It’s about whether or not the government should be able to exert control over people and their businesses by forcing them to devote time and resources to something they don’t want to be a part of.

If a customer walked into Masterpiece Cakeshop and wanted a cake with Jake Phillips’ face on it, with text that says “Jake Phillips is the Worst,” should he be forced to do that? No, of course not. The current case isn’t much different, except it involves sensitive issues of gay discrimination and religious beliefs. Despite What the Left Says, Masterpiece Cakeshop is About Much More than Gay Discrimination

morally the one who knowingly facilitates celebrating what is not a legal arraignment is complicit in it.
The range of behaviors “complicit” encompasses is vast. Senator Chuck Schumer recently denounced Trump’s behavior on the world stage as “puerile” and accused Republicans who fail to speak out against him of “complicity in the degradation of the presidency,..”

“Complicit” traces back to the French complice (a partner or associate), which derives from the Latin complex — which means “folded together,” as in the ingredients of a cake. It also means “complex.” There are so many ways to be complicit that you could make trading cards and never collect them all. You can be complicit through action or inaction, speech or silence, association or omission. You can engage in outright collusion, aiding in wrongdoing and lying your way through the cover-up. You can take advantage of an immoral situation to promote your book or your brand. But you can also feel coerced into complicity, intimidated or brainwashed. You can look the other way because you fear for your job or your reputation, or because you refuse to feel responsible for the systems around you....

If we take everyday life “as a moral and social space” in which “our common humanity is created and sustained,” then we must take responsibility not only for what we produce and put into the world but also for how we consume — passively and mindlessly, or actively and critically. - Behind Every Villain Stands Someone ‘Complicit’


CO banned same-sex marriage, and its state constitution prohibited the legal recognition of same-sex marriage and defined marriage in Colorado as only a union between one man and one woman, and thus by knowingly facilitates celebrating what is not a legal arraignment the baker would be recognizing and sanctioning what the state did not recognize.

A baker agreeing to provide a cake for the expressed purpose of a KKK celebration is complicit in it, though KKK members right to freedom of speech is protected.

Accomplice Mens Rea and Actus Reus

In order to obtain a conviction of a defendant for being a principal or an accessory before the fact, the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed an act that either encouraged or actually helped the criminal, that he had the requisite intent of encouraging or helping the criminal, and that the criminal who was encouraged or assisted by the defendant actually committed the crime...

In order to demonstrate that the defendant committed the requisite actus reus, the prosecution must show that the defendant either directly or indirectly encouraged or facilitated the commission of the crime. A person has facilitated a commission of the crime if he provides the criminal with the means that the criminal uses to commit the crime...

Other jurisdictions only require the prosecutor to show that the accomplice knew that his actions would either assist or encourage the commission of a crime. The difference is that, in jurisdictions that require the prosecution to prove only that the accomplice acted while knowing that his actions would aid or encourage the commission of a crime, the accomplice can be convicted even if he did not actually want his actions to aid or encourage the commission of a crime. In these jurisdictions, even if the accomplice was dead-set against his actions being used to encourage or aid in the commission of a crime and even if he did not intend for his actions to aid or encourage the commission of the crime, so long as he knew that his actions would aid or encourage the commission of a crime, he can be convicted as an accomplice. Accomplice Mens Rea and Actus Reus - LawShelf Educational Media (emp. mine)

28 posted on 07/07/2022 5:41:07 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Turn to the Lord Jesus as a damned+destitute sinner, trust Him who saves, be baptized + follow Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

Up until about the 1860s, marriage was a religious ceremony with the justice of the peace performing non-religious ceremonies. There was no marriage license.

However, when my great-grandfather was married, he had to post a $2500 surety bond that he would have to surrender if he divorced. That was 1906.


29 posted on 07/07/2022 5:45:15 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Inside every leftist is a blood-thirsty fascist yearning to be free of current societal constraints.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Williams
Yes. It was/is incredibly outrageous.

The court overturned the meaning of words in use for thousands of years, to satisfy Leftists' whims.

Kennedy voted for it, with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

A 5-4 decision, which made no sense, typical of the Left. Only Kagan and Sotomayor voted for it and are still on the Supreme Court.

It should definitely be reversed.

30 posted on 07/07/2022 5:50:04 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants; All
Roberts was the swing vote for gay marriage.

No. Roberts voted against it, with Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

31 posted on 07/07/2022 5:51:40 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Incorrect. Roberts dissented. Strongly. Kennedy was responsible for gay marriage


32 posted on 07/07/2022 5:51:47 PM PDT by Williams (Stop Tolerating The Intolerant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: T Ruth

Justice Thomas in fact mentioned this after Roe fell that next we should overturn gay marriage


33 posted on 07/07/2022 5:54:57 PM PDT by stockpirate (Where Justice Ends Tyranny Begins...Repression Breeds Violence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
As clearly taught in the Bible, God made man and women distinctively different yet uniquely compatible and complementary, and only joined them together in marriage - as the Lord Jesus Himself specified (Mt. 19:4–6) - and only condemned homosexual relations wherever they are manifestly dealt with.

It'll be an interesting issue but I bet if it comes up in the Senate, maybe you have 10 Republican Senators who would vote against it right now. Most Republicans see the issue as a loser so it's not worth fighting over.

Personally, I think it should be up to the states because that's what we have the 10th amendment for.

34 posted on 07/07/2022 5:55:27 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

I have no problem with adding an amendment for same-sex MIRAGE verbatim.


35 posted on 07/07/2022 5:56:22 PM PDT by NetAddicted (Just looking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Williams

I stand corrected.


36 posted on 07/07/2022 6:00:36 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Inside every leftist is a blood-thirsty fascist yearning to be free of current societal constraints.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

“ If Phillips refused to sell any kind of cake to a gay person because they were gay”

And how would he know what person A preferred for his orifice of choice unless he were told?


37 posted on 07/07/2022 6:08:04 PM PDT by Jim Noble (I’ve stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: T Ruth

While I would prefer that gay marriage be overturned, I don’t think it’s fair to say that someone who supports overturning Roe but wants to uphold Obegefell or other rulings like Griswold is being unprincipled. Roe is unique and distinguishable because it effects the termination of a human life. We shouldn’t lose sight of that.


38 posted on 07/07/2022 7:24:30 PM PDT by sam_whiskey (Peace through Strength. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
It doesn't have to be, you are free to enter into any contract that doesn't deprive life and liberty of another. It is up to government to honor that contract. You were already born with numerous rights not listed on a piece of paper.
39 posted on 07/07/2022 7:36:30 PM PDT by Theoria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
"And how would he know what person A preferred...?" Phillips was told by Craig and Mullins that the special creation was for the express purpose of celebrating their "wedding." Which clear intent was critical for the set up, but also made it clear that Phillips was refusing to be complicit in celebrating it, unlike simply selling them a cake which they could use however they wanted.

Likewise a commercial music artist should not have to create a song for something he/she does not support. Even a Muslim artist should not have to create a work for the express purpose of celebrating the modern state of Israel, but cannot to sell items to Jews that are available to all.

The problem is that SCOTUS has not only equated rights of religious practice and free speech and expression to homosexual events, but required all to accommodate them, when such should be treated like child porn.

40 posted on 07/07/2022 7:43:52 PM PDT by daniel1212 (Turn to the Lord Jesus as a damned+destitute sinner, trust Him who saves, be baptized + follow Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson