Hey, when you're gettin' the cow for free...
Posted on 04/28/2015 3:33:45 PM PDT by Jan_Sobieski
WASHINGTON – The most dramatic moment in a historic case before the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage Tuesday morning came after the first attorney had wrapped up her argument. “Gay marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God,” suddenly screamed a protester in the courtroom.After continuing his protest, the man was escorted from the court room.
Justice Antonin Scalia quipped, “That was refreshing, actually,” causing loud laughter to ripple through the courtroom. Scalia’s approval of ancient wisdom echoed his previous referral to the ancient Greeks and Romans to argue against government sanctioning of same-sex marriage.
The justice noted the Greeks and Romans had no moral disapproval of homosexual relations, yet neither culture ever considered approving same-sex marriage. The implication was that those cultures must have found it would cause some sort of harm to society.
Scalia used the same example to indicate that modern state laws defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman were not motivated by dislike of, or discrimination against, gays. He asked attorney Mary Bonauto, who argued in favor of same-sex marriage, if it were true that homosexual relationships but not marriages were sanctioned by those cultures.
When she said yes, Scalia continued, “So their exclusion of same-sex marriage was not due to prejudice, right?” Adding, unless she considered Plato prejudiced...
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Breyer noted heterosexual marriage has been the law everywhere for thousands of years, and suddenly Bonauto was asking for immediate change.
“Why can’t these states wait and see” if the other states’ experiments in gay marriage leads to harm?
Bonauto answered that under the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause, the same-sex couple she represented should not have to wait. Furthermore, she claimed, changes to previous marriage laws, such as eliminating prohibitions to inter-racial marriage, had been greatly unsettling to many people, but it was still the right thing to do.
***Under her reasoning, then the 19th amendment was completely unnecessary as were the civil rights and voting rights acts.***
The point of the 13th and 14th ammendments were to make whole and equal under the law the rights of blacks and Indians.
Oh, and to ensure some debts were paid as a result of 600, 000 dead guys actions...
“The John” Roberts will stab us in the back???
Zactly. The ancient marriages were formalized contract with terms and conditions for expected behavior and outcomes agreed upon as a result of their unions.
Modern licensing sought to provide some equity in marriage or the dissolution of unions entered into but failing to spell out terms and conditions of their contract.
The Bushes couldn’t even pick the right judges. Geez!!! how could you get that wrong? or maybe they knew what they were doing.
Zactuhmundo!!!
And in those instances were they have created a civil union, they spelled out the terms of that union, it’s dissolution or the death of one partner or both.
Prenups are a form of such contracts but, typically only heard of and rarely between those of certain economic means.
They are generally giddy and careless in regards to that ussue...
Hey, when you're gettin' the cow for free...
Just asking: is there a constitutional right to heterosexual marriage?
The Admiral
How about “calculating” and condescending”?
That would describe the Bushes MUCH better............
No, but it often rhymes.
Good question!
insulting article about a Great Justice, in my opinion
There is a discussion of worldwide historical same-sex unions to be found in an article on Wikipedia. Note how the article distinguishes an historical difference in some cultures between same-sex unions and marriage in many historical instances.
Oops ... I was lazy... didn’t read to teh end...
Pederasty or paederasty (US /ˈpɛdəræsti/ or UK /ˈpiːdəræsti/) is a (usually erotic) homosexual relationship between an adult male and a pubescent or adolescent male. The word pederasty derives from Greek (paiderastia) "love of boys", a compound derived from παῖς (pais) "child, boy" and ἐραστής (erastēs) "lover".
Referring to two adults engaging in pederasty is a contradiction in terms.
The Minoans probably originated the practice of pederasty in the area, from which it spread to the Dorian invaders of Crete and from them to the rest of Greece. But I'm unaware of any evidence at all that any of them ever called the relationship a marriage.
Same with the Sodomites. AFAIK, there is zero archeological evidence, mainly because we've never found Sodom. But the other Canaanites did not practice SSM.
Unless you've got some evidence I am unaware of?
This could become ve-r-r-r-ry interesting in late June when the decision is announced. I expect a bad decision. But then, Ted Cruz is drafting a proposed amendment to the Constitution that would exempt the states from equal protection requirements regarding the definition of marriage. Should be right in his wheelhouse as SCOTUS announces the term ending opinions.
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.
