Posted on 07/03/2013 8:19:44 AM PDT by lbryce
The US Supreme Court has laid the legal groundwork to directly attack and overturn state bans on same-sex marriages, a lawyer involved in the recent historic gay rights cases at the high court said Tuesday.
Therese Stewart, chief deputy in the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, said that Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion last week striking down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act provides a roadmap for gay rights groups and same-sex couples to pursue the next phase of litigation to achieve full marriage equality in the US.
*SNIP*
Justice Kennedy wrote that states that recognized same-sex marriages had done so out of a desire to protect the “personhood and dignity” of same-sex spouses.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“personhood and dignity” of same-sex spouses.
“personhood and dignity” of same-sex spouses.
Try to wrap your brain around that.
FUJK
In order to amend the Constitution regarding Marriage, this Congress and our America-hating PINO would have to pass it before it goes to the States for ratification. No, the jig is up, the Fix is in, it’s all about the CHAOS. Check this out if you want to see what has happened to our neighbor to the north in all of its egalitarianism. O Canada, Glorious & UnFree...
The CHRISTIAN Science Monitor has been anti-Christian for many years.
BTW thanks Ted Olsen.
Barbara must be spinning in her grave.
I think this decision, and the resultant fallout of massive attacks on religious freedom we are about to witness, are going to open a lot of eyes, and may profoundly effect the next congressional election. This could result in the long-awaited backlash that has been building. And this would provide a good measure of support for a Constitutional Convention - a long-shot, to be sure, but a possible method. This would not involve Congress or the Executive.
The President NEVER has any part to play in the amendment process, other than a bully pulpit.
I still keep raising a question in my mind. ‘What is it in the word marriage today that limits it to some kind of people to people action’. I always thought of the word as was used by Jesus as cited in the Book of Mathew. I’m thinking our SC Justices are very ignorant of the Bible perhaps even hate It.
No way I want liberals rewriting the constitution and no way with conservatives powerless in major media, in senate, in presidency and in the largest states with most delegates, that any constitutional convention will not be controlled by liberals.
We need a marriage amendment, we always did and the only time to have gotten it was during early bush administration. It is now impossible.
We are doomed to become pagan Greece or Rome until the dark ages finally lift in some future rebirth of freedom or if God’s timetable is ticking in our day, in a millennial kingdom
“Not everyone agreed with Scalia’s analysis. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a separate dissent to stake out a different position.
He said he supported Kennedy’s disclaimer that the opinion would be limited to the context of DOMA.”
Big effin surprise there. The Butt Pirate Roberts strikes again!
I just hope there is a country called America in 3 years that resembles anything I have known in the preceding 66 - things are going to really ramp up to challenge the annoying Patriot Christians. No one in leadership now appears the least bit worthy to me. Don’t Trust-Definitely Verify....
I think perhaps you misunderstood Roberts here.
Roberts was affirming the only remotely good thing about Kennedy’s opinion.
Roberts was trying to do his best to remind the majority that their decision was limited to the DOMA case, and that the rationale used to strike down DOMA would not apply in the context of a challenge to state laws banning same sex marriage.
It is clear that Roberts is not on the side of gays here, and that he was doing his dead level best to mitigate the effects of the majority opinion. Now he can waive Kennedy’s disclaimer in his face when the next case on this issue comes up.
Read the full article if I am not being clear.
At the bottom of the article the writer discusses Kennedy’s disclaimer and what Roberts had to say.
It is a ray of hope. Just a ray.
“Roberts was trying to do his best to remind the majority that their decision was limited to the DOMA case, and that the rationale used to strike down DOMA would not apply in the context of a challenge to state laws banning same sex marriage.”
I don’t think I misunderstood him at all. He’s indulging in wishful thinking, while Scalia is being a realist. When cases come up challenging gay marriage bans, I’m sure this opinion will be cited, Roberts’ disclaimer notwithstanding, and it will only take a few liberal judges to ignore that disclaimer and use it to justify striking the laws down. That’s the reality of what will happen, since we know that liberal judges are more about advancing the agenda than anything else.
Sure, eventually it will work its way up to the SC again and then Roberts can say this ruling can’t be taken into consideration, but at that point, it won’t matter to the five fahbulous justices who will surely take that opportunity to find some way to justify striking down the bans.
Whatever, though. It’s a dissent, so for all intents and purposes, it’s just a bunch of words with no legal weight. I don’t expect much of anything out of the Supreme Court, since they have long ago become a rubber stamp for tyranny.
I mostly agree with you on that.
Roberts was indeed a dissenter.
I think my point is that at least Roberts disagreed with the majority and actually wanted to limit the damage of the ruling.
For that he deserves some credit.
But I’m no doubt sour as hell over the obamacare decision last year.
I’m not sure he can recover from that in my book.
Well, it doesn’t take large stones to dissent when there are already five justices constituting a majority. At that point, he could go either way and it wouldn’t matter. When he’s the deciding vote, that is when we see what he is really made of, and as you mentioned, that was the Obamacare decision where he revealed what I think are his true colors.
I don’t think he’s really a liberal, but I’d say he is one of those guys afraid of being seen as “too extreme”, wanting even his ideological opponents to view him as reasonable. The pitfall of that position is, as we’ve seen with justice after justice, it lets the other side dictate what is “extreme”, and so, as they keeping moving the goalposts, he’ll probably keep drifting left to stay near the middle.
I agree with that assessment.
Letting the left characterize the Constitution as written to be extreme is where we should have gone on offense a long time ago.
I wish that Alito or Thomas was Chief.
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.