Posted on 06/27/2003 8:23:04 AM PDT by RonF
According to SCOTUS, offspring don't have rights until they have been born. The legality of abortion shows us that.
The gays were wrong. Romer v Evans was the first (and only) Supreme Court step toward 'ending discrimination' because Romer was an Equal Protection ruling, Lawrence was not. This may've been one of many steps in that direction, but this ruling did not establish any sort of precedent toward marriage (O'Connor's concurrence would have, which is why it drew such unusual ire from Scalia's dissent).
The legal recognition of gay marriages was one of the 'spectres' they raised.
Gays have been raising that spectre since probably the Stonewall riots, and no one is under any illusion that this is not their ultimate goal. However, the fact of the matter is that marriage will come in one of two ways: (1) as an Equal Protection judgment; (2) as a Full Faith & Credit judgment (assuming at least one state legalizes, first). Most likely the latter. Lawrence did neither, nor did Lawrence provide a precedent to either, nor was Lawrence any sort of necessary prelude to same-sex marriage...
Example One:
The feds struck down a federal gun law that was passed that made it a felony to possess a gun like with 30 yards of a school or within a "school" zone on a roadway. The Brady bunch kicked and screamed, not unlike people are doing now, saying that it would cause harm to all other gun control laws and cause killings at schools. Guess what, no other significant ones have been shot down and no rash of school killings ever happened. Its still illegal under the laws of the 50 States to bring a gun on a school campus.
Example Two:
The SCOTUS ruled that there was no provision in the Substance Control Act that permitted medical marijuana when the medicimal use of marijuana was used as defence against federal drug laws. Justice Thomas specifically stated that the court had not ruled that the SCA was constitutional or unconstitutional since that question was not brought before the court. Thus, State MM laws were not nullified.
This decision is no different, regardless of the lack of understanding of law demonstrated by too many people. Supreme Court decisions are typically very narrow for one simple reason - they deal with ONE particular issue. They do not broadly affect anything one can dream up.
and that is a shame. Six members of the supreme court should be impeached and removed from office.
Kennedy's opinion is well grounded in paving the way to overturning the ban on homosexual marriage (ie., equal rights) in all fifty states.
This case has no relevance to freedom of association(the Boy Scouts), pedophilia, bestiality, gay marriages or any other issue you can dream up. The constitutionality of the Texas law about sodomy was ruled on. Nothing more.
It is relevant. Six members of the supreme court have turned establish common and criminal law on its head, saying black is white and white is black. The state no longer has a right to proscribe private sexual conduct. The other taboos will fall.
The corruption of American culture is widespread. Sexual deviations that were unthinkable forty years ago are celebrated today. Those who are young and intelligent are easily seduced by a liberal and licentious intelligensia. Those who are simply young are simply seduced. Even if the older (and purportedly wiser) citizens were not seduced and compromised (and so many are), there aren't enough moral people left to comprise a two thirds majority. This scales into the votes in the Senate. It would take a two thirds' vote to impeach and remove the justices. The democrooks alone can block that and they have publican and libertine allies.
Well put. I agree.
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.