Skip to comments.ANTONIN SCALIA: 'When Did It Become Unconstitutional To Exclude Homosexual Couples From Marriage?'
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?"
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 ...
Olsen lost the argument when he answered Scalia’s questtion with a question. The rest was just prologue.
Sounds like Scalia is on the right side of this case. Wish I had confidence in Roberts. But I don’t.
We need 8 Scalia’s on the Court.
(and one token liberal for comic relief.)
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.
He may as well retire. All he can look forward to now is writing dissenting opinions.
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..
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.
Olson equates interracial marriages with same gender messages.
He does not seem to see the difference between one and the other.
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.
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.
It was never unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages. Those were state statutes and the constitutionality was never in the picture.
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.
OUR Ted Olson ?
No thanks. We need six Thomases. Clarence understands liberty.
Yes, that Ted Olson.
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.
Really? That’s nonsense. Call their bluff. What can they do to him over those kids?
Actually, the concept of marriage DOES exists in nature.
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.