Posted on 05/27/2009 12:30:07 AM PDT by BCrago66
Former Bush administration solicitor general Theodore Olson is part of a team that has filed suit in federal court in California seeking to overturn Proposition 8 and re-establish the right of same-sex couples to marry.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Even liberals like Alan Dershowitz have now conceded that the Court did overreach in the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision. Even Dershowitz admits that the Court should have left it up to the individual States to determine how they would resolve the issue of abortion.
We don't need another great wedge issue dividing this country for decades. Just because of five numbskulls in black robes refused to take the wisest course of action.
I do not disagree with you however, my point was not that the Court should rule to legalize gay marriage but that it likely will vote to legalize gay marriage when given a chance.
Considering what his wife believed, he’s not honoring her death.
It’s sad this has happened.
That’s not on point. Legally, marriage in America is not inherently a religious institution. A couple atheists can - in all 50 States - get married by a state official, no ceremony and no sanction from any clergy required.
"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
see #27...
Har! Who would have thought Ted Olson would end up sharing a hot tub with David Boies? Barbara must be spinning in her grave. And I bet Arianna Huffington is having a good chuckle.
Wrong... Monogamy is a religious institution.
Directly from Reynolds...
"So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
Sorry, but even for a guy as self absorbed as Kennedy, going against the voters and the State Supreme Court would be a bridge too far.
OK, no objection. To be honest I just skimmed your earlier post, and misinterpreted it.
Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right.
???
"When the fairies are displeased with anybody, they are said to send their elves to pinch them. The ecclesiastics, when they are displeased with any civil state, make also their elves, that is, superstitious, enchanted subjects, to pinch their princes, by preaching sedition; or one prince, enchanted with promises, to pinch another."(Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan 1651)
OK at this point I’m still not sure what you’re talking about. In terms of moral theory and history, you can argue that marriage is a religious institution and right. Legally, the right to marry, and the incidents of marriage - as practiced and actually enforced by the States - is not essentially religious. On the federal level, there is Supreme Court precedent from early in the last century dealing with a fundamental right to marry, and that right is not defined as essentially religious.
None of the above means there’s a federal constitutional right to gay marriage (or says that there’s isn’t one, for that matter.) That particular fight centers on the proper interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (and the Due Process Clause).
And now I go to sleep.
Ok mr Olsen, when homosexual coitus can produce babies then homosexual unions meet the basic qualification for marriage.
Monogamy is an artificial religious standard.
Since we now have a "woman's right to choose" because of Roe v. Wade, why not polygyny or polyandry?
ANSWER: Monogamy is a religious standard.
"What's he that was not born of woman?"(Macbeth, act V, scene VII)
However, it clashes with the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas that holds a state has no compelling interest to regulate such activity.
I suppose a case could be made that there is a compelling interest to forbid polygamy under the assumption that up to 15% of the male population would not marry leading to severe social problems.
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.