FReepathon day 51.
Two percent a day keeps the 404 a way.
Posted on 08/20/2014 12:21:51 PM PDT by Steelfish
“We must pray these notions are reversed if we are going to live or strive to live in a biblical manner.”
We still can. We always can.
Good Biblical reminder. Thank you!
We will see if Kennedy stays true to that comment or if he will say that the states unquestionably have the right to legitimately define marriage. . . blah blah blah. I can so see him doing this.
Time will tell.
Thank God! And God bless the thin line of virtue remaining in the ‘supreme’ Court.
Why do all those wealthy people pay for all those lawsuits? Is it because they have a “friend” who is gay? It’s not like they’re helping the masses. They’re helping a few people while harming the masses. What is their end game? To destroy Christianity?
Basically the whole court. The order references the Chief Jutice basically presenting the application for stay to the court.
So all justices decided FOR this hold?
If so, I’m surprised that someone like Ruth Ginsburg would decide for it.
Three women at the same time, that is a fate worst than death. One is hard enough to deal with, 3 would overload my brain with drama in one day. I like women but in moderation.
I have always heard the Dems says that conservatives are tightwads, I am beginning to believe it. It is a shame that not enough of us are willing to pay their way here on FR. I can understand the Dem trolls here not ponying up each month, but for the life of me I can’t understand why conservatives can’t forgo 3 Wendy’s triples per month so Jim and his crew don’t have to go thru this every quarter. Pledge to donate 20 bucks and Jim will find some kindhearted rich guy to match it and you can feel proud you supported the best conservative site on the web. Or you can be a cheap asshat. Your choice.
The Chief Justice basically presented the motion for stay to the court itself according to the order. There was no indication of how they decided or what kind of vote. The general consensus amongst many is that the Supreme Court is possibly just waiting for all the Federal Circuits to make their decisions before they themselves get involved.
I hope the Supreme Court takes the cases and eventually rules that homosexual marriage is up to the states. However, I am not getting my hopes up because it just seems inevitable. But maybe the 10th Amendment will prevail.
RE: I hope the Supreme Court takes the cases and eventually rules that homosexual marriage is up to the states.
They better clarify what “Up to the states means”.
It’s possible that it would include a state judge or even the state’s supreme court OVER-RULING a referendum or legislature.
That’s a good point. Even if the Supreme Court rules that homosexual marriage is totally up to the states and not a “federal so called 14th Amendment or civil rights issue” then there is still potential problems when it is left to the states at the state level.
For example even after the Supremes hypothetically specify it is a total state issue with no federal rights or federal involvement, a state judge might rule that a state statute only allowing marriage between a man and a woman is unconstitutional in accordance with their respective state constitution. That is why it is important for states to amend their actual constitutions to basically outlaw same sex marriage. That would make it almost impossible for any state judge or any state supreme court to overturn the same sex marriage ban as long as it is in the state constitution.
However, as insane as it sounds we are living in a day and age where activist judges might declare something in a constitution as “unconstitutional”.
Honestly, even if the Supremes clearly specify that homosexual marriage is specifically a state issue and not a federal issue-I still don’t think they would go any further on restricting the state judiciary. That is why I think it was smart for a lot of states to go ahead and put a ban on same sex marriage in their respective state constitution instead of making it just a general law that could be easily overturned by their respective state judiciary.
Some really just can’t. Others just won’t for whatever reasons they have.
RE: That is why it is important for states to amend their actual constitutions to basically outlaw same sex marriage.
I direct you to the most recent example of judicial activism — FLORIDA.
In a 2008 election, 62 percent of Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
The Tallahassee federal judge threw out Florida’s CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT approved overwhelmingly by voters to same-sex marriage.
see here:
If a Federal judge can do it, why not ANY state judge?
Scalia evidently doesn’t put much stock in the ol’ Kennedy disclaimers found in the Lawrence or DOMA cases.
I sometimes wonder why Scalia does this. He’s a brilliant guy (Scalia), so there’s an angle.
But the warnings from Scalia in his DOMA dissent have been used as a roadmap by the homos going forward from there.
Is he trying to elevate the awareness of Kennedy’s disclaimer to put pressure on him to prove Scalia wrong? If so then it makes sense.
But if it has the opposite effect then I really don’t get it.
That said, Scalia has been on the high court since I was in the third grade so I’ll defer to his understanding of Kennedy and how to get his vote.
Right now the state judges are deeming even bans of homosexual marriage in their state Constitution as unconstitutional based of the federal Constitution.
That is why until the SCOTUS were to hypothetically deem this as a strictly state matter that right now even state judges can basically ignore their own respective states constitution and make their ruling based off the Federal Constitution.
The Federal Constitution trumps a state Constitution when they conflict although in this matter it is more of judicial activism because judges keep using the 14th Amendment when the reality is that the 14th does not grant the right to gay marriage. Basically the liberals and progressives are using the 14th Amendment as a general catch all to enact their agenda.
Most states that legalized gay marriage did not do it by the will of the people but rather by the judiciary.
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.