Posted on 03/26/2013 9:44:11 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court suggested Tuesday it could find a way out of the case over California's ban on same-sex marriage without issuing a major national ruling on whether gays have a right to marry, an issue one justice described as newer than cellphones and the Internet.
Several justices, including some liberals who seemed open to gay marriage, raised doubts during a riveting 80-minute argument that the case was properly before them. And Justice Anthony Kennedy, the potentially decisive vote on a closely divided court, suggested that the court could dismiss the case with no ruling at all.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.myway.com ...
This is KEY to what is wrong with courts including SCOTUS. Their JOB is to asses if they have the RIGHT to overturn the will of California voters. It is a CONSTITUTIONAL question.
They’ll accept the Hawaii writ of satisfaction that everything is as it is (in the original legalese)
It sounds to me like the Supreme court will rule this is a matter best left up to the states.
Allowing a Federal Court of Appeals ruling to stand which struck down a state constitutional amendment is hardly leaving it up to the states.
It should have been left up to the voters. The courts intervened and overrode the will of the people.
oh, that’s not what I meant!
I meant the court would rule this isn’t a federal matter, thus overturning the federal court, and resulting in the reinstatement of the law.
SCOTUS would be wise to pass on this. Much of what appears to be a ground swell is social media driven and does not reflect the sentiment of the (un-evolved) majority of Americans.
Not to mention the law of unintended consequences, especially when redefining an ancient institution.
Probably, but I seem to recall that “popular sovereignty” was a bad idea when it came to slavery and was eventually overturned.
SCOTUS should let the will of the voters be the deciding factor.
Just rule there is no right to marriage in the Constitution.
Does a ‘right’ mean the Catholic Church or Orthodox Jews can be forced to allow marriages? Suppose no one wants to marry you how do you enforce your ‘right’? Ridiculous.
The problem is the The Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution), which says that states have a duty to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." A patchwork of policies is not going to work, for instance, if a military same-sex married couple is transferred from one base to another, or a civilian couple married in one state needs to move for a new job to a state without gay marriage.
That's why DOMA was enacted -- to try to stave this mess off. Unfortunately, we are at a place where nothing is going to work for long because of the SCOTUS' vile "separation of church and state" doctrine developed in Everson v. Board of Education in 1947, followed by the legalization of distribution of birth control to the unmarried in 1972, and of course, Roe v. Wade in 1973. A host of other decisions following those precedents, such as allowing unmarried couples to rent hotel rooms and apartments, allowing unmarried pregnant elementary school teachers to retain their jobs, etc etc, have so eroded the social dimension of traditional marriage that any kind of DoubleSpeak can be enacted. The SCOTUS has effectively set aside Natural Law.
From this point on, the gay marriage fight must be properly seen not as an objective that will satisfy these folks, but as a Trojan Horse to disguise the real agenda: the legalization, acceptance and indoctrination of gay behavior and the eventual legalization of adult-child sex, as well as the destruction of the Church. It's demonic.
It’s sadly lame seeing the low information youngsters changing their facebook profile pictures to pink equal signs today in support of homosexual marriage. Is there a symbol out there for those who support marriage as defined?
Justice of the Peace.
They found a right to abortion in the constitution. They will find a right to marry whom you want as well, IMHO. They find whatever they want.
Justice of the Peace could force a girl to marry some guy? That would spell peace like piece. If that's what you meant.
The only symbol I need is the small gold cross I wear around my neck.
Apples and oranges.
This issue is about TWO people and whether deviants have the right to redefine marriage.
I am still trying to find in the constitution marriage, and the “good and plenty clause”. If we can find can find the good and plenty clause than we rule that all other candy is unconstitutional.
Okay i am being a brat, tradition of marriage is man and woman. Why is this case even being heard as the Voters voted in Proposition 8. Okay the voters voted for Obama but we do not like the results so in turn we can take it to court and have the court overturn the results until we like the results of the court ruled favourable.
I thought about that, but sadly the secular children wouldn’t understand.
providing us for a Federal Marriage Amendment opportunity.
it also is a chance to purge the politicians who sell out to the homosexuals for money.
then again the court could rule they HAVE to rule that homosexual behavior is an immutable trait which can not wait to be normalized.
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.