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

Skip to comments.

Gay marriage: After the Supreme Court, what then?
Washington Post ^ | 03/21/2013 | Jennifer Rubin

Posted on 03/23/2013 2:04:01 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan

In less than a week the Supreme Court will hear a pair of cases involving same-sex marriage. Since Chief Justice John Roberts made his unprincipled switch to rescue Obamacare, I have given up on predicting Supreme Court outcomes. If the justices are going to be unmoored to logical argument and careen from one position to another depending on their perceived need to defend the court’s historical reputation, far be it from me to figure out where they will land. (At least the liberal justices are entirely predictable.) In other words, I have no idea how the justices will rule or on what basis (10th Amendment, 14th Amendment?).

Let’s, however, consider what would flow from various rulings.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: amendment; constitutionalamend; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; scotus; ssm

1 posted on 03/23/2013 2:04:01 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

2 posted on 03/23/2013 2:05:00 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
As far as I'm personally concerned? Nothing.

It'll still be a perversion of nature and an abomination before God.

3 posted on 03/23/2013 2:08:13 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

What strikes me is how the extraconstitutional principle of judicial supremacy is accepted by conservatives. Judicial review ought to apply only to the case in controversy. Even a Supreme Court decision is only a precedent. Now it is taken as an edict.


4 posted on 03/23/2013 2:11:02 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

If they say that banning gay marriage in unconstitutional, then they have to rule that banning any type of consensual marriage in unconstitutional.

Then again, when they repealed the sodomy laws, they failed to repeal all the laws against incest and bestiality. No consistency in the courts anymore.


5 posted on 03/23/2013 2:11:28 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

A very long but interesting article from USA Today that can’t be posted at FR.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/21/gay-marriage-these-activists-say-no/2006361/


6 posted on 03/23/2013 2:18:52 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

what ever they decide I will never acept their turd poking agenda and sham marriage and wil not shut up abotu it either.

I have around 40 more years on ths planet and like hell will I ever back down or shut up about what marriage really is.

Sadly we let too many far left kooks and liberal-tarians into our party, we gave them a platform , a cnvention and a primary to spout their crap.

Tens of millions of people have voted in these states which now 9 justices and a handful of elitist idiots will say you are wrong, accept it or we charge you with hate laws.

Well they can piss off


7 posted on 03/23/2013 2:49:01 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
FTA: Since Chief Justice John Roberts made his unprincipled switch to rescue Obamacare...

Self-preservation is a principle, isn't it??? I'll never be persuaded that the fix wasn't in on that case. The same "principle" is likely to be in play on this, too, IMO.

8 posted on 03/23/2013 2:56:22 PM PDT by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

what the far elft homostapo, liberal-tarians do not understand is that kids will be used as pawns and then be taught, and brought into these fmailies.

My wife has worked wiht kids for most of her working life and told me earlier how she has met some of these kids who were either bought, adopted by homosexuals and every one of these kids have problems as they get older , infact she said she cannot name onechild she has come across which is doing well.

For a child to live in a hosue wiht two guys, lets say and see these guys kiss, hold each other, and sleep in the same bed is certainly going to harm these kids mentally.

Every argument the homostapo uses can be sued for any kidn of marriage and the Govt out of the business is another bumper sticker slogan which the left likes to use on this issue because they know some on the right will be fooled.

As for those 3 states which voted and passed it.
Really how much fraud was there and how was the question put on the ballot?

I know here in FL they the left tried to confuse voters by
1. saying this woudl affect normal families and sadly I met a few who were fooled by it.

2. They put the question in such a way that they made it sound like if you voted no then you were against marriage.

Oh and they also went to court to make the people who sign the petition for the ballot question public as to intimidate them.

Maybe only WA state might have lawfully passed it but MD with black churches and others fighting it and ME then no way


9 posted on 03/23/2013 2:57:23 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45

I got the feelng back themnthat obama was called off Kagen in their secret vote and knew that maybe it was Roberts holding out and then ama and his Chicago thugs got something on Roberts and pressured him.

Lets put it this way, the left and obama did nto seem very surprised they got that case, much like when the last election saw big fraud in just the heavy controlled counties in those swing states.


10 posted on 03/23/2013 2:59:20 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

kennedy: “lawrence v texas”.

They don’t need Robert’s vote. Kennedy will always grab more power for the court

The libertarian ideal “Tyranny of the Judiciary” is upon us.


11 posted on 03/23/2013 3:05:34 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
The legality of incest and bestiality weren't questions before the Court in Lawrence v. Texas, but Justice Scalia made the point in his dissent that if the Court did not want to uphold laws based on morality that laws against gay marriage, incest, bestiality, polygamy, etc. would not stand. His dissent is worth the read.
12 posted on 03/23/2013 3:08:06 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

Yep. I predict 6 - 3 with Kennedy and Roberts siding with the liberal justices.


13 posted on 03/23/2013 3:09:17 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Ironically, this case is presented under “full faith and credit” grounds.

The 14th amendment has a ‘beard’ LOL!


14 posted on 03/23/2013 3:10:57 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

The court will probably allow it, but that won’t change the facts... and 2 guys attempting to mate will still never bear fruit.


15 posted on 03/23/2013 3:12:09 PM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

If prop 8 is upheld, they will just use another popular vote to try and repeal it. CA prop 22 passed by 61% in 2000, CA prop 8 passed by 52% in 2008. That’s swinging 9% in 8 years, it is probably repealable today, all they need is 51%.

Freegards


16 posted on 03/23/2013 3:15:24 PM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

If Roberts goes along it will be in an attempt to limit the damage- but that will backfire.


17 posted on 03/23/2013 3:17:48 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
The questions before the Court in the DOMA (United States v. Windsor) and Prop. 8 (Hollingsworth v. Perry) cases are based on 5th Amendment equal protection and 14th Amendment equal protection, respectively. But, yeah, the joke applies. :)
18 posted on 03/23/2013 3:23:08 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

What about ‘marriage’ between one man and 8 women? I’ve known men who felt - since they were very young - they always wanted more than one woman. Isn’t that today’s ‘standard’? Is that how you’ve ‘always’ felt?


19 posted on 03/23/2013 3:34:55 PM PDT by GOPJ (DHS HAS secured: 1.6 BILLION bullets - 2.700 tanks and 35,000 drones ...to use on American soil...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Yes, sorry, might have got that from an amicus brief.


20 posted on 03/23/2013 3:54:17 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

See my post at #12 re: polygamy.


21 posted on 03/23/2013 4:00:56 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan; All
Thank you for referencing that article BuckeyeTexan.

Please don't take anything in the following information personally BuckeyeTexan, but there are two reasons why patriots may not be able to reasonably predict the Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of gay marriage.

The first reason, unfortunately, is that activist justices may wrongly ignore the Constitution just like they ignored it when they gave the green light to Obamacare. More specifically, the Supreme Court ignored that the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constituton's silence about things like healthcare means that healthcare is a 10th Amendment-protected state power issue.

Otherwise, most patriots who have at least carefully read the Constitution should have already arrived at the following conclusion about the constitutionality of gay marriage.

Liberals are fighting California's ban on gay marriage because of the equal protection clause of California's corstitution. However, reason that PC interpretations of California's equal protection clause don't hold water is this. California's equal protection clause is expressly based on the Equal Protection Clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. And the reason that liberals are wrong about their interpretation of both federal and state equal protection clauses is the following.

If liberals would make the effort to read Section 2 of 14A then they would know that 14A itself discriminates on the bases of sex, age and citizenship, regardless of their wide, PG interpretation of the Equal Protections Clause of Section 1.

14th Amendment, Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States (emphasis added), or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

In fact, regardless of the 14A's Equal Protections Clause, the Supreme Court decided against Virginia Minor's claim that her citizenship gave her the right to vote as Minor v. Happersett shows.

So what 14A's Equal Protecions Clause does is this. When a state makes a law that discriminates on a given basis, a basis that the states have not protected with a constitutional amendment, 14A indicates that state must discriminate equally on that basis, no breaks for certain factions. And since gay marriage is not an express constitutional right, the states can prohibit gay marriage, such discrimination ultimately up to a state's legal majority voters.

Again, the loose canons concerning this issue are activist justices who are long overdue for impeachment imo.

22 posted on 03/23/2013 4:08:57 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manc

I think mass disobedeince to laws pushing faggotry is the next step.


23 posted on 03/23/2013 4:16:37 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

agreed.


24 posted on 03/23/2013 4:22:55 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

No offense taken!

I hope they rule that gay marriage is a States’ Rights issue, but I don’t think we’re going to get a big win like that.


25 posted on 03/23/2013 4:23:33 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; manc

It might just be that time.


26 posted on 03/23/2013 4:24:46 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

they got to Roberts either through his foreign adoption or his homo-college days...

either way he is spoiled goods...


27 posted on 03/23/2013 4:36:21 PM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
you know, years ago I never cared about them, never gave them thought.
So long as they were where they were and kept silent on their sexual life ten so be it.

The day was a family day out in Boston and we turned a corner on a street called Boylston street, and WOW, what utter freaks, touching each other in certain parts of the body, dressed as nuns playing with a dildo, acting all weird etc.

That day shocked me.
I ten got a job driving trucks and had to deliver to bars around the city of Boston.
Sadly I had to go to a couple of queer bars and hey were the most disgusting vile bigoted freakish people I have ever had the misfortune of seeing.
Every time we went in there to deliver beer they made disgusting remarks, they all acted like little children ,laughing over immature comments,.

I kept away from them and thought what ever they do in their bedroom was private but then I was being naive, \as time went on they wanted civil unions and harped on about seeing someone in hospital.
Then it was marriage which that was it for me then.
We packed up, left everything and moved south as there was no way I would let my kids be around that kind of perversion.
Even nice places like one place called blue hills with hiking trails and a beautiful view of Boston form afar was a hunting ground for them, so much so that at night they had to close the place and families could not even walk in the day due to men behind trees waiting for a stranger to have sex with.

The more I heard and saw the ore I started to fight them.
Boy was I naive but no more.
I tell others what their agenda is, how marriage is a step and when I have mentioned to a supporters of theirs how marriage should be defined for everything if they do this sham marriage then their supporters state usually they had no thought of it like that and once a picture is put into their heads about feces then they say either Yuck or go away as they do not want to hear the truth.

All of this keep Govt out of the bedroom is a load of B/S.
The left used religion to ban drinking in the 20’s they now are using Govt out of the bedroom and marriage much the same way.

Men are men, women are women, a woman for how many years has ot have sex with a guy and then they raise that child.

Because of how they have their sex they actually think they should be given special rights, and play family while messing up any kids if they get them.

They;ve got to where they are due to the low info voter and our side being cowards.
Talk radio and others need to be called and forced to mention what a family is

28 posted on 03/23/2013 4:37:41 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

hey muslims have mroe of a right than these turd pokers as they could argue that it;s their religious freedom as Islam states thye can have 4 wives and many do in places like france and England.

Once marriage and family is defined then all is chaos.

Yes I love the family and want it protected because growing up I never had that, I so much longed for a mother and a father and I can tell you that I or any other child in those foster homes did not want to be taken into a house with two turd pokers and no they still do not


29 posted on 03/23/2013 4:40:02 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

that is the most win we can hope for I think .

Usually the court has gone in favor in states rights but it seems that our side is not fighting this on that issue and that was back when this country had some common sense and the rule of law


30 posted on 03/23/2013 4:41:34 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Cementjungle
and 2 guys attempting to mate will still never bear fruit.

they are fruits.

but the lesbos will get knocked up and in the ‘right’ states, rather than butt-babies, they will be allowed to adopt. and that is the crime against nature....it is all part of the far lefts plan to turn America into a Marxist state...

31 posted on 03/23/2013 4:42:38 PM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan; mrsmith

That’s my prediction too; 6-3 in favor of imposing gay marriage on the entire nation.

I think if either Kennedy or Roberts decides to go left on this, then the other will follow so as to give the decision more weight and so that the media can present opposition as just the kook 3 far right extreme conservatives on the Court.


32 posted on 03/23/2013 5:25:40 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Rubin’s argument makes no sense whatsoever. This isn’t too surprising considering how clueless and liberal she is on immigration, but still it bears pointing out.

She actually says that conservatives are to blame for the prospect of the Sup Court using the DOMA case to wipe out gay marriage bans. She says that if conservatives hadn’t pushed DOMA, then the Sup Court wouldn’t have an avenue for a sweeping national decision.

But who is to say the Sup Court would use the DOMA case for a sweeping national decision instead of the Prop 8 case? Maybe they will choose to use DOMA instead of Prop 8, but so what? If Roberts and/or Kennnedy are inclined to impose gay marriage, then it wouldn’t matter if there was no DOMA. Then they’d just use Prop 8, or some other future challenge to another state marriage amendment.

Rubin pretends like the law and the Constitution actually matter to these judges. It doesn’t. Only the outcome and their legacy matters to them, and the lack of DOMA wouldn’t change that one bit.


33 posted on 03/23/2013 5:32:53 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
 
"I KNOW BUT ONE CODE OF MORALITY FOR MEN WHETHER ACTING SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY"
--Thomas Jefferson
 
Got Natural Law?
 
 
Sex, Evolution and Behavior
By Martin Daly and Margo Wilson
 
 
Got Socio-Biological Fitness?
 
 "Gay" penguins don't - not even in the San Francisco zoo
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=San+Francisco+gay+penguins
 
FAIL.

34 posted on 03/23/2013 5:56:41 PM PDT by TArcher ("TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, governments are instituted among men" -- Does that still work?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
This is perversion today and will still be perversion AFTER SCOTUS hands down its ruling.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.
-President John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, 1798.1

These words of President Adams remind us of what used to be a common idea–liberty entails responsibility, and absent religion (even with it, alas) many people will choose immorality and irresponsibility. President Washington said much the same thing in his “Farewell Address”: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. . . . And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.”2 Because the American republic is a free republic, therefore, it was designed for a religious people. That is the proper context in which to understand Adams’ 1790 comment on the French Revolution, “I know not what to make of a republic of 30 million atheists.”3 By then Adams was already on record predicting the collapse of the French revolution.

35 posted on 03/23/2013 7:20:11 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
What strikes me is how the extraconstitutional principle of judicial supremacy is accepted by conservatives. Judicial review ought to apply only to the case in controversy. Even a Supreme Court decision is only a precedent. Now it is taken as an edict.

Agreed, SCOTUS is but one of three branches UNDER the rule of law (self evident from God and in all other matter from the people)...

36 posted on 03/23/2013 10:50:21 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

Decisions such as Dred Scot, Plessy and Roe v. Wade, show how the court can screw things up.


37 posted on 03/23/2013 10:54:39 PM PDT by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Regardless of how the court rules, democracy does matter. Public opinion over time prevails. Whether that is by judicial fiat or legislative wrangling remains to be seen. But as the country shifts from virulent opposition to gay marriage to acceptance, the laws will follow. Those who try to hold back the tide eventually get swept away.

Democracy is another name for mob rule. Yes, mob rule matters because at times it forces evil, injustice and disorder upon the people.

Yes again, those who try to hold back the tide eventually get swept away but only temporarily. The pendulum tends to swing back to reality from delusion NEVER to return again as was the case with abolition...

Homosexual sex will never be accepted as normal and never be worthy of societal privilege or benefit REGARDLESS what today's mob of useful idiots 'feels'.

38 posted on 03/24/2013 1:50:01 AM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

It is because the people are corrupt.

This IS the slippery slope we were warned about, and there is nowhere to go but down.

People don’t change until they absolutely have to.


39 posted on 03/24/2013 7:37:36 AM PDT by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

When the US Supreme Court ruled the act of sodomy was no longer illegal the next logical step for the sodomites is to say they are being discriminated against because they can’t get “married”. A blind man could have saw this coming. When the government legalizes the perverted, demented, unnatural act of sodomy - and all the deadly diseases that come with it, there is no turning back. Sodom and Gomorrah redux. My prediction is John Roberts will be the deciding vote and say DOMA is unconstitutional, and throwing his Catholic faith right out the window, he will defy 5,000 years of recorded history and say that marriage is nothing more than a contract (a legal piece of paper), and anyone can enter into this contract. I will then go down to the courthouse and demand that I be allowed to marry both my St Bernard dogs so I can claim them as exemptions on my income tax, and depending on how I’m feeling, I might also fill out a marriage application on 50 or so of my chickens. My neighbor Joe wants to marry his two goats.


40 posted on 03/24/2013 8:42:19 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan; newgeezer

I’m keeping a very close eye on the Republican party’s position on this issue. I noticed a very obvious punt by Rand Paul on FNS this morning. I thought Newt was very interesting on the issue too. “Why even have an amendment procedure when 5 of the 9 can change the constitution whenever they want”.


41 posted on 03/24/2013 8:44:55 AM PDT by DungeonMaster ( 1Cor 7:21Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
Its just as clear that criminalization of expressions of disapproval of gay behavior is next. From the pulpit and wherever else.

Take that to the bank.

42 posted on 03/24/2013 9:29:54 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Don’t be surprised if the polling for gay marriage gets more in favor of it as the time gets nearer to SC hearings. This is what the lib media always does. Puts out favorable results for their miserable immoral causes that are pure fantasy.


43 posted on 03/24/2013 12:55:40 PM PDT by Maryhere ("HE comes to rule the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

All the healthy infants will be adopted by gay narcissists.

The good ones will learn to resent these losers. The others don’t matter anyway.

Childhood will no longer exist but at least the next few generations will remember this with disgust.


44 posted on 03/24/2013 5:12:03 PM PDT by Wanderer99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
My prediction is John Roberts will be the deciding vote and say DOMA is unconstitutional, and throwing his Catholic faith right out the window, he will defy 5,000 years of recorded history and say that marriage is nothing more than a contract (a legal piece of paper), and anyone can enter into this contract.

Oh come on, let's putt it in character: hell say that money to obtain a marriage license is not a fee, but a tax, and therefore falls under the preview of Congress... but rule that DOMA is unconstitutional because it is... erm... uh... Ex Post Facto, yeah that's the ticket, Ex Post Facto. Because it, um, causes the federal government to not recognize marriages that were recognized by the State... and, um, violates the 9th amendment.,, and because it's Ex Post Facto BOTH States and the Federal government are prohibited from passing laws on it... thus he will declare that even in the states which don't recognize it have to because... um, you have to do what the Supreme Court says! Roe v. Wade, the states and their laws are our playthings! *insert maniacal laughter*

{The above is an attempt at humor, to show how utterly disconnected from sound legal reasoning our judicial system has become.}

45 posted on 03/24/2013 5:19:42 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Decisions such as Dred Scot, Plessy and Roe v. Wade, show how the court can screw things up.

Kelo, Raich, Wickard v. Filburn, Affordable Care Act, Schenck*, do too.

* Schenck is the case where "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" came from. It is an utter load of bunk, doing nothing less than nullifying the first amendment's restriction on what laws the congress can pass.

46 posted on 03/24/2013 5:24:52 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Does anyone seriously think that what the court says will change the minds of your average Joe?

Does anyone think that no matter what is voted for, no matter what gets written down on paper as law, that that is going to make people believe something they don’t believe now?

If government and media was gone, if it was ten thousand years from now and people were struggling to survive as we have in the past, does anyone think that everyone will jump up and down and celebrate if a couple of gays decide to call themselves “married”?

It’s not natural and it’s not marriage. No legislation will convince me otherwise. No law, no vote, no TV ad campaigns, no arguments about “equality” of “family”, none of that will work.

In truth, it’s not about rights. It’s about brainwashing.


47 posted on 03/25/2013 1:15:20 AM PDT by djf (I don't want to be safe. I want to be FREE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

that is based on the Myth of homosexual conduct being an immutable trait and not an act.

The USSC would have to find the power to legislate science akin to judicially establishing pi as 3.15 or declaring the earth flat or repealing the law of gravity.

Marriage has all forms of property rights issues, takings, taxation, inheritance, etc. This issue is not a religion issue for the law.

in fact arguing religion hands victory over to the “other side”.

We know the women will be pro-homosexual. Ginsberg for her 12 year olds comment, kagan because she probably is, and sotomayor not only for her complete incompetence as a law graduate but as a quota queen.

That leaves a chief judge more concerned for his legacy and kennedy who has a pro-whatever you want record.

If obamacare’s ruling were to carry over here, then congress DOES have the right to enact doma and doma is valid law. If obamacare is just a blackmail or tainting ruling then it is the court ruling the other way.

Eitehr way, this is a behavior not an immutable trait. A recreational behavior that does not produce children or any offspring. Two homsoexuals do not produce a mother and a father which the child need never find out.

it is just recreational sex acts.


48 posted on 03/25/2013 9:38:14 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

I agree that it’s remarkable how judicial supremacy is just accepted in almost all quarters. The Founders certainly didn’t intend this, and I have a hard time believing they would have accepted the type of outrageous usurpation of power that the Sup Court has routinely engaged in over the last 60 years or so.

Sadly, if John Roberts and/or Anthony Kennedy decide to impose gay marriage on the entire nation, nothing will be done about it. It will cause bitterness and prolong the life of the issue on a national level like Roe did to abortion, but there will be no question about obeying such an unconstitutional decision. As a nation, we will meekly obey, and that includes the most conservative states as well.


49 posted on 03/25/2013 8:36:55 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | 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