Posted on 04/11/2009 8:44:00 PM PDT by zaphod3000
WASHINGTON — And now there are four. In the space of a week, the number of states allowing same-sex marriage has doubled, with Iowa and then Vermont joining Massachusetts and Connecticut. In California, gay and lesbian couples were exchanging vows for five months before voters put a stop to the practice in November. Californians are still talking it over, though, and loudly. New York and New Jersey may be next to debate the question.
In other contexts, this sort of turmoil might amount to an invitation for the United States Supreme Court to step in. But there are all sorts of reasons the court is likely to keep its distance, and a central one is the endlessly debated 1973 decision that identified a constitutional right to abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
There have been pro gay marriage posters here on FR.
But in the end, there is no such thing as “gay marriage.”
I can call my dog a cat but that doesn’t mean it can climb trees.
Homosexuality is a behavior and a disorder, it isn’t an identity.
The Gay Lobby wants to do this systematically in a way that advances their cause.
The current USSC is a little shaky ground but if enough states get into the fray, they may be able to force the issue onto the states that don’t allow “gay marriage.” A sort of “rights” case can be created to bludgeon the states that won’t legalize it.
The “right to marry” will be the new “right to choose” and at the moment when a new type of more liberal court exists they will push through a Roe vs. Wade case for “gay marriage.”
That's just their excuse. The "right" party wins at state level, they won't hear it. They didn't refuse to hear the Lawrence decision, because the State of Texas had been upheld under a previous SCOTUS ruling handed down by the Burger Court in 1985. They reversed their own clear-cut ruling based on politics and desired outcomes -- the same old positivist BS. Icing on the case: A closeted gay justice may have voted and written the opinion on the case. That would be judicial misconduct at the galactic level.
Watch -- a State Supreme Court upholds a referendum affirming DOMA, state or federal, and SCOTUS will snap that case to the top of their docket before you can say, "BOHICA!"
There is an interesting discussion in the article where even someone like Ruth Bader Ginsburg concedes that the SC may have moved too fast on abortion:
“The court bit off more than it could chew,” Justice Ginsburg said in remarks after a speech at Princeton in October. It would have been enough, she said, to strike down the extremely restrictive Texas law at issue in Roe and leave further questions for later cases.
“The legislatures all over the United States were moving on this question,” she added. “The law was in a state of flux.”
What odds Liptak is straight? Anybody wanna bet?
And if an activist SCOTUS overturns DOMA as "unconstitutional", this should be the impetus for the next civil war.
I don't think the states haven't done anything. The activist judicial branch is busily making laws.
If judicial blessing of infanticide didn’t get people upset enough, I doubt gay marriage will either
Ruth Bitchie would replace the privacy analysis of Roe with an equally laughable rule based on equal protection. In the end, she only regrets the backlash.
What they intend to do is take an Article IV / Full Faith and Credit Clause beef to SCOTUS accusing 49 States of refusing to recognize queer "marriages" legalized in a single State. They've got three now, and I think they were waiting on Vermont to pass a politicked bill through the legislature.
They'll strike fast now -- IMHO the New York Times article is pure misdirection. Similar articles ran right after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decree abortion. "Don't worry .... go to sleep .... nothing to see here ....." That kind of thing. Deeply, deeply evil.
That's been their overt strategy for the last 20 years. They've had 600 gay lawyers working on this for longer than that.
The Gay Manifesto of 1972 listed gay marriage as one of their goals. So that’s 37 years at least that gay activists have been dreaming of the day when homosexual marriage is the law of the land. Then their lives will be complete, if you can believe the rhetoric.
In reality, their lives won’t be complete then. If they achieve this goal, they will simply move on to the next items on their grievance list.
There was a lawsuit filed on March 3rd in federal court, from Massachusetts, on the subject of same-sex marriage. It can take years for cases to reach the Supreme Court, but it will happen, if they have enough liberal judges.
Barney Frank recently said he doesn’t want gay marriage at the Supreme Court right now because Justice Scalia is a homophone (Frank’s words not mine). If there are vacancies on the Court while Obama is president, and Obama appoints good liberals, then that’s when they will strike and go for a Supreme Court ruling on marriage.
That will be their Roe vs. Wade and Brown vs. Board of Education case rolled into one. It’s just a matter of when they choose to take it up the ladder. They are waiting for liberal judges to be appointed before they go for the gold.
Yes, the homo-activists have been trying to fly under the radar for several decades now, doing their dirty work in secret in obscure lawsuits in obscure jurisdictions, lest the general population got wind of their ultimate target and react decisively to squelch it. But now a new-found open militance is their hallmark; thinking they have obtained critical mass, they no longer feel the need to hide their most overt agendas. I hope that this is a gross miscalculation on their part. Besides, I think more people are onto them now.
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.