Skip to comments.Gay marriage: After the Supreme Court, what then?
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 courts 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?).
Lets, however, consider what would flow from various rulings.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
It'll still be a perversion of nature and an abomination before God.
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.
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Then again, when they repealed the sodomy laws, they failed to repeal all the laws against incest and bestiality.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.
A very long but interesting article from USA Today that can’t be posted at FR.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Yep. I predict 6 - 3 with Kennedy and Roberts siding with the liberal justices.
Ironically, this case is presented under “full faith and credit” grounds.
The 14th amendment has a ‘beard’ LOL!
The court will probably allow it, but that won’t change the facts... and 2 guys attempting to mate will still never bear fruit.
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%.
If Roberts goes along it will be in an attempt to limit the damage- but that will backfire.
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?
Yes, sorry, might have got that from an amicus brief.