Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ginsburg predicts gay marriage before Supreme Court within year
Fox News / The Associated Press ^ | September 19, 2012

Posted on 09/19/2012 11:59:56 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Wednesday that she believes the Defense of Marriage Act will likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court within the next year.

Ginsburg spoke at the University of Colorado in Boulder. She was asked a student-submitted question about the equal-protection clause and whether the nation's high court would consider it applying to sexual orientation...

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: doma; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; samesexmarriage; scotus; supremecourt
Just imagine what else will happen in the next four years if Mr. Obama wins re-election.
1 posted on 09/20/2012 12:00:07 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

We’ve got no guarantee with the current court, seeing how Roberts went over the wall to the dark side.


2 posted on 09/20/2012 12:02:17 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

Then like clockwork after another big decision, he’ll go into hiding like a weasel that he really is.


3 posted on 09/20/2012 12:14:16 AM PDT by max americana (Make the world a better place by punching a liberal in the face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; Revolting cat!

Bet she can already accurately pick how she will come down on this issue.


4 posted on 09/20/2012 12:15:42 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Obama likes to claim credit for getting Osama. Why hasn't he tried Khalid Sheikh Mohammed yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

The homo’s needn’t worry, traitor Roberts will rule in their favor.


5 posted on 09/20/2012 12:18:46 AM PDT by Bullish (Barry's not fit to shine the shoes of a REAL President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

bump


6 posted on 09/20/2012 12:20:04 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

Justice Roberts has a permanent smile grimace on his face (like he’s getting poked from the rear) that makes boring me quite wary, indicates to me he would love to give the gay boys his vote. He’ll dress it up in pseudo-intellectual tortuous jive same as his 0-Care vote


7 posted on 09/20/2012 12:21:13 AM PDT by dennisw (Government be yo mamma - Re-elect Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If Obama gets to appoint the next three justices it will take a miracle, and I mean a real Bible miracle, to turn back the tide.

That, and people who are fearless, because it isn’t going to be pretty.


8 posted on 09/20/2012 12:59:51 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; little jeremiah; wagglebee
We’ve got no guarantee with the current court, seeing how Roberts went over the wall to the dark side.

Even if Roberts stays home, Kennedy is going to be a problem again. In the Lawrence bagatelle, he not only voted with the Children of Darkness, he wrote the opinion and did so, moreover, as if he had never heard of Bowers vs. Hardwick, which then was precedent only 16 years old. The Georgia law upheld in Bowers vs. Hardwick was identical to the Texas law overturned by Kennedy in Lawrence.

Kennedy didn't have the law, he didn't have the facts, he didn't have custom, he didn't have the Bible, he didn't have the People, he didn't have squat -- and yet he wrote that bag of dog-barf as if it had been handed to him by the angel Raphael on tablets of gold.

The Court ignored precedent to give the gays what they wanted irrespective of the law, society, and political majorities. Kennedy had nothing to work with, nothing to support him in overturning a recent landmark decision.

How many twinks are crawling around the corridors of Washington, whispering in people's ears constantly? And how do they get the soft power to pull SCOTUS off the rails completely like that?

9 posted on 09/20/2012 1:01:20 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus; fieldmarshaldj; marron; 2ndDivisionVet

“Kennedy didn’t have the law, he didn’t have the facts, he didn’t have custom, he didn’t have the Bible, he didn’t have the People, he didn’t have squat — and yet he wrote that bag of dog-barf as if it had been handed to him by the angel Raphael on tablets of gold.”

There is nothing stated in the US Constitution about marriage or sexuality. It is NOT a Federal issue but a state’s issue.

But so was abortion, and SCOTUS couldn’t resist tinkering with that and creating the immoral morass we have today.

If this issue is to be fought, opponets of homosexual ‘rights’ must define what homosexuality really is and not what homosexual rights advocates have dreamed up out of thin air.

No one is “born that way”. Homosexuality is a personality disorder based on fear, a terror so primal, so deep, traditional treatments involving psychotherapy usually failed. In Ernest Jones’s biography of Sigmund Freud, he mentions Freud responding to a mother’s anguish over her son’s homosexuality, and causions her that there hasn’t been much success using psychoanalysis to change homosexuality.

Individuals have, on their own, broken through the fear and come to the conclusion they are not happy being homosexual, that something is missing from their lives, and give up the homosexual lifestyle. If homosexuality were truly biological in origin, this would never happen.


10 posted on 09/20/2012 1:41:01 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

“There is nothing stated in the US Constitution about marriage or sexuality. It is NOT a Federal issue but a state’s issue.”

So what’s your take on spousal visas?


11 posted on 09/20/2012 2:15:51 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

With Roberts having handed the nation`s future on a silver platter to 0bama withthat notorious 0bamacare “decision,” I have no doubt the redefinition of marriage will be a done deal.


12 posted on 09/20/2012 2:44:51 AM PDT by ScottinVA (If Obama is reelected, America will deserve every mockery that follows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
We’ve got no guarantee with the current court, seeing how Roberts went over the wall to the dark side.

I still have no idea what Roberts thought he accomplished. IMO he was either bullied into his decision or has such a frail ego that he couldn't deal with the fallout of voting against the mulatto messiah.

13 posted on 09/20/2012 2:53:43 AM PDT by Hacksaw (If I had a son, he'd look like George Zimmerman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Immigration, and issues, such as spousal visas, is the responsibility of Congress.

When I stated that “marriage or sexuality” are not mentioned in the Constitution, it is in regards to which part of the government has the power to deal with it. Since it is not a Federal issue or responsibility (and I hope it never is!), this issue is in the pervue of the various states.


14 posted on 09/20/2012 3:13:03 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Ergo - marriage is the responsibility of congress insofar as spousal visas are issued.

I suggest you take a look at Reynolds. It was a supreme court case in the 19th century that laid out this explicit point. States do not set their own definition of marriage. The federal government was able to ban polygamy in Utah over just this point.

The decision went so far as to state that the definition of marriage wasn’t something that Congress (or any state), could change at all. States don’t get the option to ‘opt out of habeaus corpus’. Neither do they have the option to pass gay marriage with their borders.


15 posted on 09/20/2012 4:02:48 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

I looked at Reynolds. Thanks for pointing it out.

Like the SCOTUS case that upheld laws returning escaped slaves to their owners pre-Civil War, there have been numerous decisions of which the Supreme Court should be ashamed. Reynolds fits that to a “T”.

The reason for Reynolds originally was simply to prevent the Utah Territory from becoming a state of the Union. As such, it trampled on the Founders concept considering the various states as laboratories for governmental and social experimentation.

Victorian sensibilities were definitely outraged over the issue of polygamy. Today, I suspect it wouldn’t survive a challenge because it was based on ‘cultural values’.

When I was involved in a custody suit for my nephew, abandoned by his unmarried, drug-addicted parents, I was shocked when the judge hearing the case said, “...there is no right or wrong, good or bad, moral or immoral when it comes to the law...”. My jaw must have hit the table, as he gave me a stern look. (My parents and I were awarded custody).

I’m vehemently opposed to gay marriage, but using morality and the bible to oppose it in court is a recipe for failure. This is why I bring up the subject of homosexuality NOT being biological (inborn), but a psychological disorder. In other words, a person chooses to be homosexual and can change. In fact, it happens all the time. Homosexuality is not like skin color or having Down Syndrome; no one with a reversible psychological disorder should be allowed to overturn thousands of years of tradition on a whim.

“The decision went so far as to state that the definition of marriage wasn’t something that Congress (or any state), could change at all. States don’t get the option to ‘opt out of habeaus corpus’. Neither do they have the option to pass gay marriage with their borders.”

Guess what? There are states that have approved gay marriage within their borders. If Reynolds is used to oppose gay marriage, I predict SCOTUS will overturn the decision of Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878). Frankly I would hope that wouldn’t happen which is why defining homosexuality is important, IMHO.


16 posted on 09/20/2012 5:10:14 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
We’ve got no guarantee with the current court, seeing how Roberts went over the wall to the dark side.

And considering his other wishy-washy leanings, we also have Kennedy to worry about.

17 posted on 09/20/2012 5:13:19 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

With Roberts having handed the nation`s future on a silver platter to 0bama withthat notorious 0bamacare “decision,” I have no doubt the redefinition of marriage will be a done deal.

The justices will bend over forward with Obama at their backside to ensure it happens.


18 posted on 09/20/2012 6:20:21 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
If this issue is to be fought, opponets of homosexual ‘rights’ must define what homosexuality really is and not what homosexual rights advocates have dreamed up out of thin air.

In the early 1960's, ten years before Judson Marmor, Robert Spitzer, and a like-minded band of homosexual psychologists and psychiatrists overthrew the mental health profession in a coup d'etat that established the inmates in charge of the asylum, Irving Bieber (their chief opponent during the coup) published a longitudinal study of homosexual men. He didn't address lesbianism.

His bottom-line result was that "about" a third of homosexuals are "hard-wired" i.e. biologically gay, through some defect of gestation. The rest are amenable in some degree to psychotherapy, although numbers of them show strong resistance which he thought was psychological or psychiatric in character. (I have a copy of the manual he wrote afterwards. It was used by university psych departments as a text.)

I've read somewhere else that lesbianism is 99% psychological, having to do with early-life issues.

The homosexual junta denounced all this "old science" and laid it down that all homosexuality is essential, i.e. biological, hard-wired, unalterable, immutable, and of course wrapped in the robes of sacred individuality. (They'd been talking to the gay lawyers.) They established Division 44 of the American Psychological Association to occupy, control, and police the field of homosexuality studies and enforce the new dispensation by appropriate means.

A poll several years ago, after 20-plus years' propagandization on homosexuality's essentialist origins by Division 44 showed that, despite all the perfervid gay preaching, a plurality of about 40% of mental-health professionals still believed that homosexuality is a "nurture" rather than "nature" phenomenon and rests on psychological and psychiatric issues rather than cellular microbiology which Lambda Legal and 600 gay lawyers had been pushing in court for 30 years, having forgotten meantime to bludgeon the academic homosexuality advocates into line who were still going on about "fluid sexuality" and menacing the Communist-style "united front" politics of Lambda, GLAAD ("no, no, no, NOT a 'lifestyle choice'!") and the Human Rights Campaign.

The gay professionals who pushed the poll decided afterward that they needn't worry about the large plurality; the responding professionals were older practitioners (and the most experienced, but never mind) who would age out and die conveniently in the next few happy years, as Division 44 led the profession deeper into the sunny uplands of inverted, but essential, Lysenkoism.

Meanwhile, Robert Spitzer, one of the original essentialist insurrectionists, exhausted his own patience after years of searching for the "gay gene" and announced that the "gay gene" simply didn't exist. He was promptly set upon by his fellow golpistas; but happy day, nevermind, the Supreme Court handed down Lawrence anyway, and made Lambda's Lysenkoism the law of the land.

19 posted on 09/20/2012 7:59:42 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

This can also happen under a Romney administration. People seem to want this though they don’t vote for it directly in referenda. They want this kind of policy because of the people they repeatedly elect to office. Or so many are so uninformed that they don’t know who stands for what.


20 posted on 09/20/2012 8:03:56 AM PDT by Theodore R. ( Who among us has not erred? Akin's the One!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Your statements are very interesting. This effort to ‘normalize’ aberrant behavior, which is contrary to traditional social norms, has been ongoing for decades and has been successful at cultivating a wider public tolerance of homosexuality. It has not, however, erased all common sense or been able at convince the majority of the public into accepting homosexuality as “normal”.

I read about Robert Spitzer’s frustration over not finding a ‘gay’ gene a few years ago. Like most people frustrated that their preconceived scientific notions were phantasmagorical, he doesn't seem able to move on and examine homosexuality without bias.

The only class of people who would have a genetic tendency towards homosexual behavior would be androgynous chimeras - a person with the DNA of male and female zygotes existing prior to merging into one zygote during gestation - the result of which is an individual with male and female genitalia carrying two distinct DNA. This is a rare occurrence and would not account for all the homosexuals wandering around, using ‘I was born this way!’ as an excuse for promiscuous sexual appetites.

I still believe that the best defense against gay marriage proponents in court is to prove that there is no biological basis for homosexuality, and that there is overwhelming proof that people have changed their sexual preferences voluntarily and without duress.

21 posted on 09/20/2012 8:58:53 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001
With Roberts having handed the nation`s future on a silver platter to 0bama withthat notorious 0bamacare “decision,” I have no doubt the redefinition of marriage will be a done deal.

I wonder if his asking price of 30 silvers will be lower or higher this time.

22 posted on 09/20/2012 5:03:03 PM PDT by Hacksaw (If I had a son, he'd look like George Zimmerman.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

“Victorian sensibilities were definitely outraged over the issue of polygamy. Today, I suspect it wouldn’t survive a challenge because it was based on ‘cultural values’.”

Enjoy reaping the whirlwind. :)

Either we stand up for the values enumerated in Reynolds, or we toss them aside.

Is Habeaus Corpus a ‘Victorian sensibility?’ No. It is, however, a western notion with it’s origins in the Magna Carta - the bedrock at least of the Anglosphere.

We have to get aquainted with this reasoning quickly because the secular argument isn’t going to work. :)


23 posted on 09/20/2012 8:38:13 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I got no problem with gay marriage.
It misses the bigger problem. I don’t like gays and refuse to watch any shows involving gays. If gays suddenly disappeared would they be missed?

If there arises a new virus much easier spread, that kills at a much faster rate than aids the world would be better off.

Just like Islamic terrorists. I don’t care what ice cream they like.


24 posted on 11/10/2012 4:12:11 AM PST by Morris70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson