Skip to comments.Legislating from the Bench on Gay Marriage
Posted on 03/29/2013 4:29:43 AM PDT by Moseley
A political legislature known as the U.S. Supreme Court held a purely-legislative hearing about homosexual marriage on March 26. The hearing debated raw policy preferences and speculated about benefits for and against homosexual marriage. To anyone trained in the law, it violated almost every law and rule of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Only a lawyer willing to 'tell' on his profession can reveal how disturbing was the High Court's oral argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry. The case concerns the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 referendum defining marriage as the joining of a man and a woman. Generally liberal California voted 57% in favor of an amendment to the California Constitution, thus outlawing homosexual marriage and polygamy. In passing Proposition 8, voters acted as a legislature under California's referendum process.
Nearly all of the (relevant) oral argument on March 26 involved the advantages or disadvantages of homosexual marriage might be -- and mostly as pure speculation. That is a legislative function to weigh competing interests. What would children adopted by homosexual couples want, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked.
Such speculation is not the U.S. Supreme Court's role. Factual questions are supposed to be established by the legislature or developed in the lower, trial Court. So if there are impacts on any group, those facts have to be established before the case reaches the appellate court. The U.S. Supreme Court Justices should not speculate. But they did... with abandon... violating their own rules.
Justice Kennedy's detour was curious after other justices agonized over whether the Petitioners had "standing" to defend Proposition 8 before the Court. Yet Kennedy launched into wondering what imaginary children might want. Proper and normal procedure, harsh or not, is for groups to actually participate.
The High Court should not be debating advantages and disadvantages for and against Proposition 8.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
SCOTUS’ new role is to support the Tyrant and Communism
against the US Constitution (which the “Justices” once
swore to uphold).
It would be one thing if they just threw out laws but they in many cases re-write them because their goal is political activism not ruling on written law or the US constitution.
I was thinking the very same, who gives a flying flip if the country is “ready” for depravity, what are the legalities
A big part of the core issue is whether society should condone the ingesting of feces between males. While I am not a homosexual I have met hundreds of “gay” men and in essence this is what they do physically with each other. Eat $hit.
I don’t care if they do this. It is, or was a free country and if they want to eat poop that is fine with me. What that has to do with something like marriage that has everything to do with the plumbing between the opposite sexes for procreation escapes me.
Just like the other two branches of government in the United Sates the Supreme Court has devolved in to a kabuki theater where it embarrass itself by displaying its own devolution in to stupidity by even addressing insanity such as this. Marriage has been between the opposite sexes for thousands of years. It is what it has been and is. The notion that it is anything else no matter who attempts to twist it in to something else at ANY level is just wrong headed and dumb.
There is a reason there a declaration that goes like “I now pronounce you man and wife” are said in weddings. Anyone that rationally thinks that should be changed to “I now pronounce you a dude that can have booty sex with another dude and eat poop” is insane. Any court that takes this up as something they need to talk about is doubly crazy. Any society that allows this after being bashed by 1% of the population for decades is lost and will soon be forgotten. It will morph in to something it never has been and will never be the same.
America, led by the hand of the American media, has become suicidal.
That is what struck me. The little bit of the arguments and discussions I heard never mentioned why or why not it was constitutional. Our Constitution has been on shaky ground for the last few years but now it is being shredded.
America, led by liberals, has become suicidal. And the idiots that have voted for them. Never in my life have I felt hopeless for my country. I do now.
I don’t even know why the Supreme Court took the case. Can’t California just have another vote in 2016? Let the states settle this. At least we would not have 50 states having gay marriage but just 20 blue states...I know that isn’t great either but why destroy the entire country?
If gay marriage is ultimately allowed by 5 black robed dictators, could a marriage be arranged between a same sex couple? What if one of the "betrothed" objects? Would that be a hate crime?
We have already voted twice. The first time the state supreme court said it violated the constitution, so we voted to change the state constitution, but the courts said that violated the constitution as well. The bottom line is, it doesn’t matter what we vote for in California, if it doesn’t agree with the left’s destructive agenda they will use an activist court to overturn the will of the people. I am not even sure why we have elections out here any more, unless it is to give the idiots cover in raising taxes on our selves.
But they can't make an unnatural couple into a natural marriage. Sorry, homosexuals, but you can never have a NATURAL marriage. It will always be unnatural, no matter what five out of nine El Supremos decide.
I am with you. Wait until some guy wants to marry his sister or, gulp, his brother.
“Generally liberal California voted 57% in favor of an amendment to the California Constitution...”
Prop. 8 was passed by 52% in 2008.
I think the issue before the court is downright simple.
Can the people, through referendum, create a law that they want and is federally constitutional; or do elected and appointed elites have the authority to deny them a democratic choice, because of their own prejudices and conflicts of interest?
At issue is the fact that the federal judge who overturned the law had a profound, but unstated conflict of interest, and neither divulged it, nor recused himself.
Likewise, many of the elected and appointed elites have changed their mind on the subject, so now support overturning what the people have done.
The stakes, if the court affirms overturning Prop. 8, it means that referendum is essentially finished in the United States; that elected and appointed elites may change the law whimsically, instead of through a republican process opened to public scrutiny; and that democracy itself is to a large extent no longer applicable.