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

Skip to comments.

ANTONIN SCALIA: 'When Did It Become Unconstitutional To Exclude Homosexual Couples From Marriage?'
Business Insider ^ | 03/26/2013 | Brett LoGiurato

Posted on 03/26/2013 2:41:44 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

During oral arguments today at the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia and attorney Ted Olson had a pointed exchange over whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Scalia's argument, which was advanced by Chief Justice John Roberts before him, was that when the institution of marriage developed historically, it was not done with the explicit intent of excluding gay and lesbian couples. "We don't prescribe law for the future," Scalia said. "We decide what the law is. I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?"

Olson countered that with a question of his own, bringing up two past high-profile cases involving discrimination.

"When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?"

Olson asked.

The two went back and forth, with Scalia repeatedly questioning when, specifically, it became unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marrying. Olson argued back, but ended up conceding that there was no specific date.

"Well, how am I supposed to how to decide a case, then, if you can't give me a date when the Constitution changes?" Scalia said.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: demagogicparty; doma; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; nambla; scalia; scotus; sodomy; ssm; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-109 next last

1 posted on 03/26/2013 2:41:44 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Olsen lost the argument when he answered Scalia’s questtion with a question. The rest was just prologue.


2 posted on 03/26/2013 2:46:46 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Sounds like Scalia is on the right side of this case. Wish I had confidence in Roberts. But I don’t.


3 posted on 03/26/2013 2:48:36 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

We need 8 Scalia’s on the Court.

(and one token liberal for comic relief.)


4 posted on 03/26/2013 2:50:45 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Marriage is not a right. It’s an artificial construct that doesn’t happen in nature. It also involves a contract between at least 2 parties, needing agreement between them all. Therefore it is not a right. Many people who are heterosexual end up not married, unable to find someone to love them. Do they have a right to force someone into marriage with them? No. Yet by these fools you’d think everyone should be able to line up at the marriage department and receive a partner.


5 posted on 03/26/2013 2:51:07 PM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue./Technological progress cannot be legislated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Sounds like Scalia is on the right side of this case. Wish I had confidence in Roberts. But I don’t.

He may as well retire. All he can look forward to now is writing dissenting opinions.

6 posted on 03/26/2013 2:51:40 PM PDT by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I would welcome a SCOTUS decision that says "Bu++ Fu@%#&s and clam lickers can get married. Now shut the hell up and get out of our faces, forever. Leave our children alone. See you in divorce court."
7 posted on 03/26/2013 2:52:02 PM PDT by USMCPOP (Father of LCpl. Karl Linn, KIA 1/26/2005 Al Haqlaniyah, Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Lawyers have bragged they can make white appear black and black to appear white for centuries..

What is unusual is people not slapping them down harshly when they do..
Sophomore’s have bragged forever that everyone has their own truth..
Thereby making “the Truth” an opinion..


** liberals are especially prone to this intellectual disease..
MArriage for Sodomists is an oxymoron..


8 posted on 03/26/2013 2:52:36 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Olsen lost the argument when he answered Scalia’s questtion with a question.

He was smarting off at Scalia, too -- taunting him. Where did he get manners like that? From the new crowd he's been hanging around with? It seemed awfully .... gay.

9 posted on 03/26/2013 2:53:33 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Olson equates interracial marriages with same gender messages.

He does not seem to see the difference between one and the other.


10 posted on 03/26/2013 2:53:48 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Wish I had confidence in Roberts. But I don’t.

With those two illegal-alien (or whatever they are) adopted kids with admin-paperwork problems, Roberts is a captive. Barky's got him on a leash.

11 posted on 03/26/2013 2:54:46 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Sounds like Scalia is on the right side of this case. Wish I had confidence in Roberts. But I don’t.

It's already settled. Whatever trump card, dirty pictures, or body under a woodpile they have on Roberts will be played again in this case. It's the number one agenda item for The Left.

12 posted on 03/26/2013 2:56:22 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (My tagline is in the shop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It was never unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages. Those were state statutes and the constitutionality was never in the picture.


13 posted on 03/26/2013 2:57:00 PM PDT by jimmygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Olson equates interracial marriages with same gender messages. He does not seem to see the difference between one and the other.

That's been the homolawyers' line of attack consistently since 1981, when they were pushing the Baehr vs. Lewin case (it actually had two or three captions at different times) in Hawaii, which was a "homomarriage" </cant> case. That case ended up mooted by a timely amendment to the Hawaiian constitution.

14 posted on 03/26/2013 2:57:02 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Ted Olson?

OUR Ted Olson ?

BKO/WTF?

15 posted on 03/26/2013 2:57:19 PM PDT by jaz.357 (Contrary To Ordinary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

No thanks. We need six Thomases. Clarence understands liberty.


16 posted on 03/26/2013 3:03:12 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jaz.357

Yes, that Ted Olson.


17 posted on 03/26/2013 3:03:30 PM PDT by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

From what I have read of the Justice’s comments, I am struck that except for Scalia, this is a thoroughly lightweight Supreme Court from left to right.

Kennedy was going on about 40,000 adopted children of gay couples who are waiting for their decision? Why is this a federal concern or a concern of the Supreme Court? Are they the ones who started all these gay adoptions?

Just strikes me as about as analytic as the average debate in Congress.


18 posted on 03/26/2013 3:03:56 PM PDT by Williams (No Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

Really? That’s nonsense. Call their bluff. What can they do to him over those kids?


19 posted on 03/26/2013 3:04:18 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel
It’s an artificial construct that doesn’t happen in nature.

Actually, the concept of marriage DOES exists in nature.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/photos/11-animals-that-mate-for-life/old-faithful

20 posted on 03/26/2013 3:04:35 PM PDT by SomeCallMeTim ( The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Williams

RE: From what I have read of the Justice’s comments, I am struck that except for Scalia, this is a thoroughly lightweight Supreme Court from left to right.

Any questions from Samuel Alito?

As for Clarence Thomas, I am not betting on him asking any questions. He almost never opens his mouth.


21 posted on 03/26/2013 3:05:41 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jaz.357

RE: OUR Ted Olson ?

Not anymore.


22 posted on 03/26/2013 3:06:17 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
Never forget - the Bushies gave imposed on America both Souter & Roberts - two homosexual liberals who must have been vetted yet were still pushed by the GOP-e/RINO/liberal bushies.

"Stay out da bushes!!!!"

23 posted on 03/26/2013 3:09:32 PM PDT by newfreep (Breitbart sent me...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?"

Did Scalia tell him that the 14th amendment covered that situation? What a bogus argument.

24 posted on 03/26/2013 3:16:45 PM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

I can’t believe the founding fathers had any notion of having the SC decide what marriage is.

As the SC makes more laws and tells more states what to do, will any of the states have the guts to leave the union?


25 posted on 03/26/2013 3:20:08 PM PDT by Terry Mross (This country will fail to exist in my lifetime. And I'm gettin' up there in age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It is as simple as this - Marriage throughout history has always referred to a man and a woman for the purpose to produce children and to raise and protect those children until such time as they are ready to start their own family.

It is Lazy (BIASED) (PERVERTED) Liberal thought processes that has allowed the term “Marriage” to include people of the same sex. This does in NO WAY produce children - at least in all the biology books I have read, but maybe liberals have a secret book they have learned from that states differently.

Love is Love. Marriage is different.

Two dogs humping in the back yard does not mean they should be married. A female dog humping another female dog does not denote love, it denotes dominance. The same goes for male dogs.

Maybe someone needs to explain that concept to Democrats.


26 posted on 03/26/2013 3:20:13 PM PDT by jongaltsr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
I can’t believe the founding fathers had any notion of having the SC decide what marriage is -

NOBODY "in their right mind would have ever thought that marriage would have to be so defined - with the exception of perverts and Democrats."

27 posted on 03/26/2013 3:23:08 PM PDT by jongaltsr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Why do we not allow blind people to fly airplanes?


28 posted on 03/26/2013 3:25:14 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SomeCallMeTim

From a governmental/ legal perspective marriage is about property management and inheritance, not mating. Which is part of why it doesn’t happen in nature, animals aren’t too concerned with property.


29 posted on 03/26/2013 3:26:29 PM PDT by discostu (Not just another moon faced assassin of joy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

The obvious mistake here is Law versus religion!
There is no reason for the court to be taking up religion!
Marriage was never a right applied to the constitution!
Marriage is a word and is defined not by law but by man!
The obvious end result is for the court is to strike the word marriage from all unions as law and precept them as a civil union!
Marriage will then only be a term for the religious that belive in the true form of Marriage and not tied in any way to the Federal Government!
Goverenment was never designed to even approach the term Marriage! It is a term, nothing more. But is reserved for the devine union of two, a man and a woman! If the High Court can find a precedent where two people of same sex were married in our history before the argument was presented more power to them! I personally feel, Adam may have married the snake by mistake!


30 posted on 03/26/2013 3:31:38 PM PDT by Conserev1 ("Still Clinging to my Bible and my Weapon")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel
I would disagree with that. There are several species that mate for life and the human species has been doing it for millenia.

A man and woman committing to each other to form a single familial unit and attempt to produce children out of that union is as natural a thing as exists. That is what marriage is. If a man and woman do that, they are "married" whether a state recognizes it or not.

At the same time, if homosexuals want to pretend to be "married" to each other, it doesn't matter if the state acknowledges them or not, THEY AIN'T MARRIED.

Having a state recognize something doesn't make it so.

If the state were to recognize a gay "marriage" it would no more make it an actual marriage than the state recognizing this guy as a cat would make him an actual cat.

31 posted on 03/26/2013 3:34:24 PM PDT by nitzy (You can avoid reality but you can't avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Wish I had confidence in Roberts. But I don’t.

Same here, and he was a darling when #43 appointed him. BUT, remember Laura Bush came out in favor of gay marriage. Makes me sick.

32 posted on 03/26/2013 3:35:51 PM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (For Jay Carney - I heard your birth certificate is an apology from the condom factory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jaz.357

Perhaps you as many others once thought that Ted Olson was ‘Your Ted Olson’. Times change, people can change but some things just remain the same.


33 posted on 03/26/2013 3:36:15 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Williams; All

“Kennedy was going on about 40,000 adopted children of gay couples who are waiting for their decision? ..”

Kennedy should know THIS:

“58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay.”

snip http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/17/study-gay-parents-more-likely-to-have-gay-kids

If it is so difficult to be gay, why would they wish it on children just because they want to adopt.

Adoption is not a right.


34 posted on 03/26/2013 3:39:11 PM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel
Marriage is not a right. It’s an artificial construct that doesn’t happen in nature. It also involves a contract between at least 2 parties, needing agreement between them all. Therefore it is not a right. Many people who are heterosexual end up not married, unable to find someone to love them. Do they have a right to force someone into marriage with them? No. Yet by these fools you’d think everyone should be able to line up at the marriage department and receive a partner

Bull F**k*** Pucky. Marriage was devised to solidify society and produce a stable environment for families to grow and prosper. It was WELL understood that homosexual unions produced no children and therefore no stability for society. They also knew that homosexual activity destabilized societies and that diseases were passed from those that (Went both ways) to all concerned - Man, Woman and Children.

Romans, Greeks, Persians and other societies would not promote soldiers who practiced such activities - with a few notable exceptions. Most (not all) of those children produced from the proper Male/Female relationships ended up diseased in either the mind or in the body and never amounted to anything.

35 posted on 03/26/2013 3:40:41 PM PDT by jongaltsr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Conserev1
The obvious end result is for the court is to strike the word marriage from all unions as law and precept them as a civil union!

Marriage will then only be a term for the religious that belive in the true form of Marriage and not tied in any way to the Federal Government!

While it is the logical end, it is highly unlikely that it will be the actual end. Like you, I would prefer that the government only be involved in civil unions and leave the rest to the Church. However, that is not what the SSM lobby wants. Ultimately it is not about civil unions for them. It is about forcing the Church, through the law, to approve of their unions—to have the Church bestow the blessing of God upon their union and call it a true marriage.

36 posted on 03/26/2013 3:45:13 PM PDT by newheart (The greatest trick the left ever pulled was convincing the world it was not a religion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

when did it become constitutional for the Suprwme Court to decide who has a “right” to a RELIGIOUS SACRAMENT?


37 posted on 03/26/2013 3:46:22 PM PDT by silverleaf (Age Takes a Toll: Please Have Exact Change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel

line up at the marriage department and receive a partner.

This is what always frustrated me about the distribution of condoms in our schools.

If I have a “right” to a condom, don’t I also have a right to a willing and voluptuous partner?

You give me a free shot glass, but where’s the booze?


38 posted on 03/26/2013 3:47:44 PM PDT by Paisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


39 posted on 03/26/2013 3:49:10 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel

Not true, some animals mate for life (their version of marriage) and never seek another partner again

Look it up....


40 posted on 03/26/2013 3:50:47 PM PDT by 100American (Knowledge is knowing how, Wisdom is knowing when)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Nobody has ever been excluded from marriage. Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, have always been free to marriage. It’s just that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. If you allow people of the same sex to marry each other, how can you not allow all sorts of strange types of marriages? The answer: you can’t.


41 posted on 03/26/2013 3:52:53 PM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newheart

If that is the intent, the LGBT crowd not only wants to change Constitional Law but Biblical Law!
No Religion will be able to refuse the infusion of LGBT into the Church of any religion and will therefore change the teachings and content of any religion!
SCOTUS might as well order that all bibles in the USA be rewritten to accept the LBGT lifestyle and order all Churches to submitt to LBGT lifestyle!


42 posted on 03/26/2013 3:53:12 PM PDT by Conserev1 ("Still Clinging to my Bible and my Weapon")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Hearing common sense almost sounds alien to the ears since the left have so distorted the debate. For example, the left are always using the phrase “separation of church and state” yet at the same time advocate federally forced atheism.


43 posted on 03/26/2013 3:53:21 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sun

Ping for later


44 posted on 03/26/2013 3:54:03 PM PDT by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Ted Olson has been arguing before the SCOTUS longer than most of the Judges have been on the Court and has forgotten more than they knew to begin with.

This is just “inside baseball” friendly poking one another. Don’t read anything big into this, especially how Scalia felt about Olson’s counter questions.

I can not find anywhere in the Constitution wher it says the court can nullify a legal vote, even though they try sometimes. My guess is that the majority will side with the voters, not the liberal Judges under and on the 9th.


45 posted on 03/26/2013 3:56:54 PM PDT by X-spurt (Republic of Texas, Come and Take It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
During the clinton lewinsky scandal, the liberals all yelled, keep the government out of our bedrooms. With this and obamacare paying for abortions, the government seems to be busy deciding our personal lives.
46 posted on 03/26/2013 3:56:59 PM PDT by Linda Frances (Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Gay couples aren’t barred from marriage, so long as they don’t marry each other. They are as free as anyone to marry someone from the opposite sex. What they want to do is redefine what marriage means. Allowing interracial marriage doesn’t do that. Olson’s response is BS.


47 posted on 03/26/2013 3:59:31 PM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel

Marriage has been around since Adam and Eve. But the State wasn’t involved until around the 1700’s.


48 posted on 03/26/2013 4:04:56 PM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jaz.357

BKO is rolling over in her grave!!! Ted’s THIRD wife is a LIBERAL: and my guess is that she has GAY KID or KIDS...period.


49 posted on 03/26/2013 4:09:00 PM PDT by Ann Archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952

Laura Bush is a DEMOCRAT...a TEXAS DEMOCRAT.


50 posted on 03/26/2013 4:11:18 PM PDT by Ann Archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-109 next last

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