Posted on 01/06/2014 7:55:17 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg
The Supreme Court has put gay marriage on hold in Utah. The high court on Monday granted the state a stay in their same-sex marriage challenge. The decision comes after a federal judge last month ruled in favor of gay marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
It is inherently unjust that one man substitute his judgment for that of 2/3 of the people of the state.
Not the first time we’ve seen it, unfortunately. And these judges seem invariably to be liberal.
I may be naive, but that doesn't worry me. There are plenty of other definitions that some states recognize that other states don't. Take the 2nd Amendment as an example. Some states allow open carry, many states don't. Some states recognize concealed-carry permits from other states and some don't.
If they push national recognition under FF&C, it's a huge gamble and could be turned against them. They make wake up with every conservative openly carrying because some states allow it. We'll see I guess. I think they'll continue their pursuit under the 14th's Equal Protection Clause.
Don’t forget Sandford v Son...
“This could be a case which ultimately goes to the Supreme Court, and have that Court decide there is indeed a constitutional right to homosexual marriage.”
Roberts and Scalia and the older liberals probably thought this would be politically unacceptable for too many people after giving the homos everything they wanted on the DOMA case. They also knew that they did not have the votes to rule Prop 8 was valid so they punted with the standing argument.
Kennedy wrote the dissent on the standing issue. But the leftists knew that they could take this up later and get their ruling.
That's the Big One, you big dummy. ;)
Can a society allow sodomy in private between two consenting adults and still affirm that it is a deviant behavior to be eschewed and certainly not given any special political or legal status? A society that puts freedom first will have these kinds of challenges. But a healthy society, especially one that is spiritually healthy, can meet those challenges.
A healthy society that puts individual freedom first will not have intrusive laws about licensing marriage or business. Government will stay small and keep its nose to the grindstone of protecting our freedoms without these endless entanglements we have now when government goes outside its constitutional bounds.
(3) That leaves, to distinguish the rock-solid, unamendable disposition of Roe from the readily overrulable Bowers, only the third factor. “[T]here has been,” the Court says, “no individual or societal reliance on Bowers of the sort that could counsel against overturning its holding … .” Ante, at 16. It seems to me that the “societal reliance” on the principles confirmed in Bowers and discarded today has been overwhelming. Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majority’s belief that certain sexual behavior is “immoral and unacceptable” constitutes a rational basis for regulation. See, e.g., Williams v. Pryor, 240 F.3d 944, 949 (CA11 2001) (citing Bowers in upholding Alabama’s prohibition on the sale of sex toys on the ground that “[t]he crafting and safeguarding of public morality … indisputably is a legitimate government interest under rational basis scrutiny”); Milner v. Apfel, 148 F.3d 812, 814 (CA7 1998) (citing Bowers for the proposition that “[l]egislatures are permitted to legislate with regard to morality … rather than confined to preventing demonstrable harms”); Holmes v. California Army National Guard 124 F.3d 1126, 1136 (CA9 1997) (relying on Bowers in upholding the federal statute and regulations banning from military service those who engage in homosexual conduct); Owens v. State, 352 Md. 663, 683, 724 A. 2d 43, 53 (1999) (relying on Bowers in holding that “a person has no constitutional right to engage in sexual intercourse, at least outside of marriage”); Sherman v. Henry, 928 S. W. 2d 464, 469—473 (Tex. 1996) (relying on Bowers in rejecting a claimed constitutional right to commit adultery). We ourselves relied extensively on Bowers when we concluded, in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 569 (1991), that Indiana’s public indecency statute furthered “a substantial government interest in protecting order and morality,” ibid., (plurality opinion); see also id., at 575 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting “an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex” (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional “morals” offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. “The law,” it said, “is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.” 478 U.S., at 196.2~ Justice Scalia in his Lawrence v. Texas dissent, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas. Truer words were never written. (Emphasis mine.)
Think of the property damage when people will have to rip their "marriage equality" bumper stickers off their cars.
But it would shut up Chris Kluwe. There's that.
In seriousness, your conclusion is beautifully stated. Thank you.
Not going to argue with Dred Scott, for certain. There have been some bad ones over the years, encompassing many different areas of law. I hadn't even heard of Wickard until I took Con Law in law school, and when I read it my reaction was basically "horrified". It was at that point I realized the Commerce Clause was completely out of control. Obviously this is a gay marriage thread and I am not trying to turn the discussion, but for just bad decisions in general I always found Wickard one to be one of the worst. The Affordable Care Act may end up being at the top when it's all said and done, but that remains to be seen.
This gay marriage stuff should be left to the states, in my opinion, and federal judges should just stay out of it. Then again, they should stay out of a lot of stuff.
Last I checked Utah wasn’t allowed to become a state unless they outlawed polygamy. Leaving the definition of marriage up to the states isn’t acceptable. Marriage is a fundamental moral, legal and social construct that defines the character and boundaries of an entire society at the most basic level. Nevermind the legal chaos that ensues as people move from state-to-state where a marriage in one state may not be recognized in another.
We are now paying the price for not seeking a constitutional amendment defining marriage years ago when we had a chance of passing it. The MTV-ified, more atheistic younger generations replace the dying traditional-minded folk more every day. A resurgence in traditional and Christian values is not out of the question in the years to come, but it becomes more of an uphill battle every day.
Well played.
Your thoughts on all this?
Smart man, that Justice Scalia.
This why I hold courts in great contempt. They create laws that the people do not get a chance to debate. Only ELECTED official legislators should make all laws and be answerable to the people for error, irresponsibility, or corruption.
Judges appointed for life are not answerable to the people.
In our world and at our age Mrs. Binger and I can only try to find the humor in this pseudo seriousness of an issue that gets way too much attention. And Utah? We get lots of visitors here at our small museum and all we can do is be courteous. If they want to get married at this fabulous historical place we will be glad to accommodate them.
No freebies and no discounts though, which is what many in Utah expect. So we do indeed discriminate fairly and equally to cheapskates.
I agree with the first for certain, even though I stated prior that it should be left up to the states. I guess maybe I was thinking more along the lines of "civil unions" or whatever the heck they want to call it--I could really care less if a couple guys want to be together, although I have no understanding of why that would be. A constitutional amendment defining marriage would have helped alleviate a lot of this. I agree with marriage being between a man and a woman. As an aside, I am really just tired of the homosexual agenda in general. It's non-stop, in your face, everyday, in almost every facet of life. It's getting really old.
Concerning the legal chaos, that's something unavoidable in many instances when issues are left for the states to decide. Heck, take the firearms laws for example. I live in Missouri, where you can carry concealed in your vehicle without a permit. However, if I cross over into East Germany...uh, I mean...Illinois, then I have to take the gun, unload it, and put the gun and ammunition each in their own separate, locked cases out of reach from the driver. Legal chaos is part and parcel of having 50 distinct and separate government entities and one giant national government.
Marriage, divorce, inheritance, alimony and child custody issues are so much more entangling than gun laws however. A temporary burden of changing your behavior while you visit another state is not all that chaotic. If you moved to a different state permanently, you’d have to follow their gun laws and change your behavior permanently. But unlike with a marriage, that affects just one person’s behavior and expectations, your own.
There is much more uncertainty involved for other parties when you are in a marriage or union and you move to another state which might not consider it valid. When you’re in a contract and something may or may not be able to declare it null and void, that’s guaranteed to send you into the courts for messy proceedings. Different state gun laws aren’t going to send people to court to hash out civil matters between each other.
I never thought it was necessary or pragmatic to regulate private behavior behind closed doors between consenting adults. But the idea of same-sex marriage is a fundamental reordering of the law. And it is greatly offensive to the constitution to see that done by judges. I believe the handful of states that voted for it were by people who don’t understand and probably haven’t been told the consequences of it. I think it’s a case of that 20% radical segment of the population directing the traffic of where the low-fos go.
As far as the homosexual agenda, it’s very clear it has no end game in sight. It is a radical, unnatural belief system that will never stop trying to get more power and make more and more radical changes to society if the rest of us sit back and let them. We all can already see or predict where the next stops are after same-sex marriage...legalized pedophilia, “transgender” mutilation of children, public sexual displays, homosexuality being taught as the norm.
We just saw the radical feminists last week writing in very carefully thought-out, literate language the utterly unnatural and insane idea that all heterosexual sex is rape. The radicals of yesterday that pushed for same-sex marriage 30 years ago have made themselves the mainstream cultural drivers of today. It will either continue in this direction or it will be turned back by proud and unafraid believers in the American system and Judeo-Christian principles.
“As I mentioned upthread, if that happens, we should be suing immediately to exercise Full Faith and Credit with regard to concealed carry.”
You reveal a major piece of hypocrisy of liberals. They are only wanting to enforce (or miss-enforce) the “full faith and credit” provision when it suits their agenda. When it does not, then somehow it magically doesn’t apply.
I don’t know much about constitutional law...but I speculate that the original purpose of the “full faith and credit” was in reference to court actions in one state being recognized in another. Meaning, a person conviction of “murder” in Texas was considered a convicted murder felon in all other states. I am not sure that every nuance of a law counts everywhere - especially in regards to civil matters like marriage.
You make many good points. Thank you for the kind discussion. I have been here a long time, but simply don’t post much because so many attempts at civil discourse devolve into name calling and ridiculous theatrics.
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.