Krauthammer: Nationalized gay marriage, now inevitable

The Washington Post ^ | June 27, 2013 | Dr. Charles Krauthammer

[2ndDivisionVet]

Under the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages even in states that have legalized it. This week, the Supreme Court ruled DOMA unconstitutional.

There are two possible grounds, distinct and in some ways contradictory, for doing so. The curious thing about the court’s DOMA decision is that it contains both rationales.

The first is federalism. Marriage is the province of the states. Each state decides who is married and who is not. The federal government may not intrude. It must therefore recognize gay marriage where it has been legalized.

If that were the essence of the argument, the court’s 5-4 decision would have been constitutionally conservative, neither nationalizing nor delegitimizing gay marriage. It would allow the issue to evolve over time as the people decide state by state.

It would thus be the antithesis of Roe v. Wade. That judicial fiat swept away every state abortion law that did not conform to the court’s idea of what abortion law should be. Even many liberal supporters of abortion rights have admitted that Roe was an unfortunate way to change the law.....

[ansel12]

By the way, the very first, non-marriage related federal benefits, pensions, were enacted on August 26, 1776.

[Ray76]

SS, Medicaid, Medicare, AFDC, PPACA, etc etc etc are not the same as military or other pensions.

[ansel12]

I didn’t even know that some of those were federal employee benefits.

[dead]

At least they're not targeting kids.

[Ray76]

Government and corporate paternalism in all its forms is the problem. Suggest you re-read post 38.

[ansel12]

You seem to be morphing your posts to me into something that I wasn’t responding to.

I just wanted to give you some history to go with your unfocused generalities and complaints.

[Ray76]

It’s over your head.

Good bye

[Wellington VII]

The 9th is the most leftist court and will be the easiest path for the activists.

[ansel12]

LOL, no, you haven’t posted anything to go over someones head, just some general complaints.

I just wanted to give you some history to go with your unfocused generalities and complaints.

[Ray76]

Principles are too abstract for you.

[Hostage]

Fine but how does having all states heard in the 9th compel the Left to seek another court?

[ansel12]

I can see how the history information hurt you personally and made you lash out in personal attack.

Do you realize that I haven’t disagreed with your posts, just corrected facts?

You posts imagining some sort of disagreement over politics, or principles in our exchange, is just made up out of thin air, your posts are not making sense because they aren’t referring to anything that is actually going on.

[Ray76]

What a joke. “hurt”? “lash out”? Get real.

[Wellington VII]

If you prevent them for going to the 9th, they would have to go to another Circuit Court, one that will be more conservative.

[Hostage]

How are they prevented from going to the 9th? I am curious?

[fwdude]

What is “gay marriage” without sodomy?

The impetus really all began with Lawrence v. Texas where sodomy was decriminalized, i.e. legitimized by another profligate Supreme Court. All else sprung from this decision, even seeping over our border to the north. Courts in Canada shortly after imposed this concoction, followed quickly by Massachusetts. Sodomites were emboldened beyond telling by now deeming their behavior not only "legitimate," but "equal in every way" to natural sexual relationships.

Scalia warned at the time (2003) that such a decision should be used to legitimize ANY lifestyle that someone deemed essential to their personal meaning of life. And it was.

How far off is pedophilia?

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me or Perdogg to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[highball]

This is why now a Constitutional amendment makes sense. And there are enough states to ratify.

Nonsense.

That article is wishful-thinking claptrap.

She points to the number of states banning gay marriage, but that in no way guarantees that those states would ratify an amendment. The article is willfully blind to context. Raw numbers hide the truth: when were the bans passed, has the climate changed, and would such a ban pass today?

Look at a state like Colorado. They banned gay marriage in 2006, but the state has been moving increasingly libertarian (not to mention purple) since then. Would they ratify an amendment? Doubtful.

Then there's California. Nobody is seriously suggesting that Prop 8 could even pass today, much less a Constitutional Amendment.

Kidding ourselves doesn't help. We need clear eyes if we are to have any hope of turning this around. Ten years ago, we could have passed an Amendment. Now? Not a chance in you-know-where.

[PapaNew]

Seems pretty obvious. The question is whether any state has the guts to nullify what is certain to be a federal government push to prohibit state traditional marriage laws.

[Hostage]

So you’re basically saying ‘resistance is futile ‘ yeah?

Spoken like a true troll for the Homo lobby.