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 ...
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.
RE: OUR Ted Olson ?
Not anymore.
"Stay out da bushes!!!!"
Did Scalia tell him that the 14th amendment covered that situation? What a bogus argument.
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?
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.
NOBODY "in their right mind would have ever thought that marriage would have to be so defined - with the exception of perverts and Democrats."
Why do we not allow blind people to fly airplanes?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
when did it become constitutional for the Suprwme Court to decide who has a “right” to a RELIGIOUS SACRAMENT?
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?
Not true, some animals mate for life (their version of marriage) and never seek another partner again
Look it up....
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.