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 ...
That really did make me LOL......
It is like the government claiming that smoking tobacco is no different than not smoking tobacco. Or even worse, it is like the government condoning smoking cigarettes and ignoring the fact that there are health issues.
Just letting state courts force it on states over the next two years?
If Breyer is even on the fence then we are in much better position than I ever thought possible.
Plus that could give Kennedy the cover he needs to do the right thing (not that he should need any).
Does anyone really think that Justice "Sweet Mystery of Life" Kennedy will vote against gay marriage?
5-4 in favor of making gayness a protected class. Bank on it.
Read an article this morning which said basically ‘Many people expect that the supreme court will rule in favor of gay marriage’
“Many”? Who are these many? Legal experts?
Let’s not forget though that ‘Many legal experts’ expected the Healthcarelaw to be struck down and declared unconstitutional- but we all saw how that went when the traitor and legal dunce John Roberts turned on America by voting that it was legal-
There is NOTHING certain about this ruling today= EXCEPT that you have gays and lesbians/sympathisers on the supreme court hearing the case
[[Wording people, wording. “oral arguments”?]]
Well blow the man down- good catch- we’ll be more careful from here on out
I have no problem the law providing for civil unions. It’s calling a union between two members of the same sex “marriage” when, as Justice Kennedy said, marriage has been defined for thousands of years as between a man and a woman.
I didn’t read the full article or follow the actual arguments, but based on the excerpt their line of reasoning on this is pretty poor, if the orals are at all reflective of how the opinions will be written. It doesn’t matter how many people (social conservatives) think marriage needs to be defined as one and one, the FedGov has no role in that area. None of these federal judges had the authority or jurisdiction to overturn any of the state bans, the same way none of them have the authority to enforce a one-woman, one-man law. There is no legal basis for federal involvement in these situations, outside of a court case involving a state, in which only the SC has original jurisdiction.
This should be a clear cut case to decide sicne the supreme’s believe that government has a right to control marriage-
The REASON WHY government took over marriage, was so that they could 1: control it, and 2: incentivize couples to havem ore children, so that, future generations of taxpayers will be born and raised in the safest, healthiest environments possible so that these future generations will be mentally stable enough that they don’t become burdens on society
Gay marriage fails these two concepts of marriage- they do NOT produce future generations, N OT do they allow a child to grow up with the best possible chance at normalcy and productivity in mind- it is a well established fact that kids growing up WITHOUT mother and father tend to be more mentally unstable, more criminal, more suicidal, etc- Yes there are cases where some make it fine- however, children growing up in gay marriage households ARE at GREATER risk than kids that don’t
End of story- Marriage is NOT% a right- Since it was taken over by government, it has become a privilege, granted by the government, for the sole purpose of raising kids in a stable environment so that they will grow up to be tax payers who support the government-
How many states have legalized the redefinition of marriage? I mean through an actual legislature (or public vote), not through judicial fiat... A scant handful?
SCOTUS doesn't tend to do a system wide smackdown, and effectively, the only way they don't is by upholding the newly discovered right of gays to call their relationships marriage. Anything else; well, gays can no longer call themselves married in many many places. A massive amount of rulings go out the window.
Having said that, SCOTUS has a rare opportunity to re-establish the judicial branch as the judicial branch and not the legislative branch. I know three votes would welcome this change, and two who might want to dial back the role of the judicial in determining public matters.
The mountain of rulings against marriage is a very tough slope to go up. I don't think there's any valid split the baby choice here. It is the states vs the federal judiciary, and that's a pretty uncomfortable position to be in. Federalism vs States Rights is an age old fight in our country, but the courts aren't supposed to be the front lines in such battles.
I think that the howl of homosexuals will be huge at the end of this, and SCOTUS will make the hard decision to detach from the front lines and will indeed make a ruling that effectively overrules mountains of judgments which has forced marriage redefinition on many states. That they'll find that what people are asking for is so extraordinary that it doesn't fall under the full faith and credit recognition and while states can permit such a redefinition, no state must recognize that same recognition.
I think Roberts gave a good warning in his 'it's a tax' ruling; the court might bend over backwards to let the legislature (and the executive) to push their agendas forward, but the courts aren't the ones to pronounce agendas.
Reading oral arguments are like reading tea leaves - an entertaining diversion, but it is a fantasy vs the real world. But SCOTUS rulings are intended for guidance over long time, and I don't think Roberts nor most of the justices wish to see the courts become the legislative and executive branches of 'last resort.'
another point is- gays claim ‘marriage is a right’ and should not be withheld from anyone” Really”
People under a certain age have no ‘right’ to marry-
people can NOT marry more than one person
People can NOT marry non humans
People are NOT permitted to marry both animals and people
People can NOT marry under certain ages without parental permission
etc etc
IF marriage is a ‘right’ then denying any of the above constitutes discrimination
How is it that gay people think they are more special than these other people?
[[The 10th amendment REQUIRES them to leave this issue to the States.]]
I’m not sure what the 10’th amendment states, but it seems to me the supreme court has an obligation to set OBJECTIVE definitions whenever states attempt to force SUBJECTIVE interpretations that violate what should be objective laws or customs
This is to prevent states from declaring everyone must shave their heads on Tuesdays to prevent cooties- this clearly violates the constitutional right to pursuit of happiness by forcing people to do what they do not wish to do- especially in light of the fact that cooties are quite rare
Great points. Seems the Constitution is not their concern but rather the perception of whether their role is ‘timely’.
They might throw a bone to conservatives on the same-sex marriage issue but then stab them in the back on the upcoming Obamacare case.
Video: God made marriage, not the Supreme Court
We made this video to show you how many pro-family Americans marched in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, April 25.
Pray for sacramental marriages and their families.
I loved the music behind the video.
Anyone recognize it?
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.