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 ...
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”.
Take that to the bank.
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.
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.
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.}
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.