Posted on 04/24/2015 7:54:48 AM PDT by xzins
Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear cases that will likely determine whether same-sex marriage will become a legal nationwide.
The justices have rolled four cases together that will allow them to decide two questions: must states recognize other states' gay marriages, and does the Constitution require states to allow same-sex marriage?
Some believe the justices have already decided to create that right before hearing the case. But others say the matter is far from decided.
On Wednesday, a panel discussion at the Family Research Council was swimming upstream against conventional thought on the issue.
That is, it's a foregone conclusion that the Supreme Court justices will rule homosexuals have as much of a right to same-sex marriage as heterosexuals do to traditional marriage.
But these panelists pointed out there's evidence the justices won't rubber stamp gay marriage.
"When the lawyers walk into that courtroom on Tuesday morning, they're going to be walking into a situation where there are three-and-a-half justices who've said 'no constitutional right to same-sex marriage' and no justices who've said there is a constitutional right," former Supreme Court Clerk Gene Schaerr said.
One of the more interesting propositions brought up at Wednesday's panel discussion is that maybe the Christians of the world owe it to the homosexuals to point out that their lifestyle is intrinsically wrong.
"Faith actually teaches nothing about hatred toward gays and lesbians; in fact, the opposite. But it also says the behavior is damaging and harmful to your eternal salvation. That's the faith teaching," John-Henry Westen, editor-in-chief of LifeSiteNews, said.
"But they also know from the empirical evidence that the behavior is damaging to your body as well," he added.
Westen argued that Christians need to say to gays, "We love you enough to tell you this is harmful. In fact, we'll even take the hater and bigot label so that we can tell you this because we care about you."
The truth is that homosexuality is dangerous behavior that is highly associated with early death, physical defect, psychological injury, biological infection, and, for the Christian, spiritual rebellion against God. While the court probably won’t allow any thoughts on the spiritual aspect, they have self-imposed a mental blindness If they ignore that promoting homosexualism in our marriages is dangerous to individuals and to our culture.
Pray hard, because short of a miracle I don’t see this decision going the right way.
The four liberals, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagen, and Sotomayor all believe in homosexual marriage. They will vote that there is indeed a constitutional right to homosexual marriage.
Kennedy is not always on the liberal side, but his previous opinions strongly suggest that he thinks there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage.
And the 4 liberals plus Kennedy make 5 votes out of nine for homosexual marriage.
Since the Supreme Court prior rulings on this issue in 2013, numerous federal courts have compelled many states to perform homosexual marriages. And these other federal courts drew largely upon Kennedy’s opinion in the 2013 case. These courts have ruled that there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage.
It seems unlikely that the Supreme Court is going to overrule all of these lower federal courts, who drew upon reasoning of the previous Supreme Court ruling, in deciding that there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage.
It was made up a decade ago. Justice Kennedy is the one who is going to create this out of thin air. The Liberal Justices will do what Liberal Judges always do.
Of course they will vote in favor of it.
if the SCOTUS rules fags have a ‘right’ to marriage... will the fedgov then move to arrest anyone that doesn’t perform these ‘marriages’?
meanwhile, when did someone’s ‘right’ force another to perform an action?
last i checked, our Rights were bestowed upon us by our Creator. this means we have ALL our Rights... while sitting alone on a deserted island. which means, there are no ‘rights’ that require actions by others to fulfill.
marriage is not a ‘right’ ... it is the recognized covenant performed by an organization. no US law can dictate to a group of people actions they must perform or how they should perform them.
As a hunter, I am sick and tired of being discriminated against by my state. They allow other people to hunt and kill deer but they don’t allow me to hunt and kill humans! That is patently unfair! I don’t have the same rights as they do so it is clearly discriminatory and unconstitutional!
Oh, you say I have the same rights they do?! But I DON’T WANT TO HUNT DEER. I want to hunt PEOPLE! People taste better! Therefore I’m being discriminated against!!
Oh, you say that I’m not being discriminated against because nobody else is allowed to hunt people either?
YOU BIGGOT! Why are you HATING on me!
In 1787, committing Sodomy was punishable by death. And now our legal system is about to assert it is a protected right under the constitution?
This is the initial crumpling as the bumper hits the wall at 95 mph.
I always wonder, what happens after that?
It’s predictable that we will see a Supreme Court ruling for homosexual marriage. It will be a sweeping ruling imposing homosexual marriage on all 50 states, and sweeping away all existing marriage laws in all of the states.
The media will have gay marriage week again, similar to how they celebrated gay marriage week when Obama came out for homosexual marriage.
But what happens after that? Will we be on the slippery slope to seeing polygamy and other bizarre family forms, due to no longer being allowed to define marriage in our civil laws???
And will homosexuals finally say their lives are complete due to being able to legally marry a same-sex partner, or will they find something else to bitch about???
Deciding that a ‘right’ exists when it has never been mentioned until the last few years is really a stretch. So, the issue comes down to whether the courts are really about justice and judging or whether they are part of an oligarchy controlling the masses and the culture.
It would be nice to believe they are about justice, but any ruling in favor of calling a dangerous behavior a ‘right’ is a clear indication they believe they are part of a ruling class.
I've figured out which I think it is decades ago.
It would be nice to believe they are about justice, but any ruling in favor of calling a dangerous behavior a ‘right’ is a clear indication they believe they are part of a ruling class.
I point out the fact that so often Supreme Court rulings have the same breakdown is evidence enough that something other than objectively applied law is at work here.
It, liberalism and radical Islam are also the only mental disorders which are celebrated rather than treated.
There is still one more court, higher than this one. It has but one judge.
I already know how that one will rule, regardless of SCOTUS's decision. I plan to proceed knowing that final ruling.
I recall reading an article here on FR years back - Kennedy stated with a smirk on his face that he enjoys the parties he has access to as a SCROTUS denizen - and his votes reflect his desire to stay popular on the cocktail circuit...
No. For example, there is a legal right to interdenominational marriage, or to remarry after divorce. But churches and clergy have the right to refuse to perform those marriages.
You will have to get use to men kissing men, and playing grab ass,in your place of business or in front of your children. You must act like homo marriage is no different than any other marriage.
Actually, you better act like homo marriage is better than any other marriage or they will sue you.
Once this is accomplished we have nowhere to go but downward.
No it won’t end with this ruling. They will never stop complaining. Yes it will be a slippery slope. It will be a nightmare, just as the regime wants.
“no US law can dictate to a group of people actions they must perform or how they should perform them.”
That is the old way of thinking. The new thinking is that the fed-god can force anyone to do anything under penalty of law.
This is a simplification of it, but this is what I believe motivates him. He wants to be seen as popular by all the right people.
It's ego, pure and simple.
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.