Posted on 04/28/2015 8:42:02 AM PDT by VinL
Members of the Supreme Court questioned on Tuesday whether now is the right time to force states to allow same-sex couples to marry, pointing to how quickly public opinion has shifted on the issue of marriage equality.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was a key figure in striking down the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, suggested that he might be worried about the court moving too quickly to force states to marry same-sex couples.
“This definition has been with us for millennia,” Kennedy said of male-female marriages. The justice also said it would be very difficult for the court to say it knows better than the public on the issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
“In other words, they don’t want to handle this hot potatoe and will kick the can down the road for the states to deal with it.”
Right result but crappy reasoning by the Supremes. The 10th amendment REQUIRES them to leave this issue to the States. Doesn’t matter if it’s hot or cold. The police power resides in the States, not the Federal government.
I think you are correct.
Yeh they also don’t want to face all holy hell breaking loose which is what will happen in more than a few states if they try to jam gay marriage down everyone’s throats. All this fuss over whether 1.6% of the population can get married.
RE: Justices Express Skepticism In Oral Arguments For Gay Marriage Case
A little too vague when they talk about “Justices”.
I’d be shocked if these include Elena Kagan, the Wise Latina, Ruth Ginsberg or Stephen Breyer.
If the court rules in this case according the laws of nature and nature’s God, they will be establishing justice, in keeping with their oaths.
If the court rules against the laws of nature and nature’s God, they will be destroying justice, their own institution, and the American republic.
I don’t think even they sank that low.
I don’t think anyone has a right to homosexual marriage, and even the states don’t get it on this one. Their people have voted AGAINST homosexual marriage any time it’s been put on a ballot. THAT is the proper way to handle it, even for the states. Put it on a ballot.
And if Alabama turns it down and Connecticut accepts it, then it is POLICY and not ‘right’. Therefore, it is no more enforceable state to state than is Colorado’s decision to allow pot smoking.
WOW.... This makes my day!!!! Thank you so very much for posting this. I’m gonna give you a kiss. (Well, maybe not.)
Perhaps Jus. Breyer isn’t down with the cause- “Suddenly, you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to change what marriage is.”
Not for states like PA where sodomy is legal.
Kabuki theater. I hope I’m wrong, but I think the ship has already sailed.
what? no Stare Decis??
“Damn. By what justification?”
Underlying Lawrence, Roe v. Wade and all the Supreme’s “morality” rulings is the notion that the morality of the Ruling Class should be enforced on us lesser folks and if it requires the Court to sodomize the Constitution, so be it.
The technical legal rationalization is the “right to privacy”, which got invented by the Court in Griswold v. Connecticut (a contraception case), extended in Gideon v. Wainwright and then went completely out of control in Roe vs Wade.
Griswold was the case where Justice Douglas discerned “emanations and penumbras” around the bill of rights that made it clear to him there was a right of privacy in the Constitution that precluded states from regulating contraception. The rest of right to privacy law is built on that one thin reed. And it all comes back to imposing the Ruling Class’s morality on us bourgeoisie.
Not a lawyer, but I’ve been before the Ct App Courts, 2nd circ in Sept— I understand the tea leaves thing.
Breyer’s comment- “Suddenly, you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to change what marriage is.”
I thought it was an interesting angle.
Uh— thanks, but as for the kiss, we’ll first have to get the gender thing established. LOL
So, they are basing their decision on the pace of shifting political winds, and not the Constitution.
Oy vey!
Interesting that there is no mention of the fact that Sodomy is condemned not only by God’s law but also by Natural Law, History and lastly The Common Law. The only basis Sodomites and their friends have is judicial Fiat.
Oral Arguments ,it’s just about SEX
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.