Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Same-Sex Marriage to Supreme Court in 2015?
Corner NRO ^ | 2/17/14 | Maggie Gallagher

Posted on 02/17/2014 2:16:32 PM PST by madprof98

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that the Supreme Court is likely to rule as soon as 2015 on whether there is now a fundamental right to gay marriage:

The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver will go first, with oral arguments scheduled for April on the cases from Oklahoma and Utah. The Virginia ruling will go to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., and the Kentucky case will go to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, has a pending appeal from Nevada but has not scheduled arguments.

Once an appeals court hands down a decision, the losing side will have 90 days to file an appeal in the Supreme Court. As a result, a ruling that comes this summer could easily reach the justices in time for a decision in 2015.

Meanwhile here are the states facing gay-marriage decisions in 2014:

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Coming very soon to a red state near you . . .
1 posted on 02/17/2014 2:16:32 PM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: madprof98

my my, how will Roberts vote?????

will same sex marriage(gag) be considered a tax?


2 posted on 02/17/2014 2:18:39 PM PST by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Foregone conclusion

The Kritarch’s have already made up their minds

This goes through, they don’t care what you think


3 posted on 02/17/2014 2:20:59 PM PST by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Up next in this sick perverted world of ours:

The legalization of prostitution
Lowering the age of consent
Legalizing sex with animals


4 posted on 02/17/2014 2:21:38 PM PST by icwhatudo (Low taxes and less spending in Sodom and Gomorrah is not my idea of a conservative victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
I don't think the issue will be ... nor is NOW .. the fundamental right.

I think the issue is can a queer other half get insured on the one half's policy and can money go to a queer other half

It's all about money ... not rights.

Personally, I think a queer has as much a right to commit suicide by disease as the idiots (former idiot, here) have to smoke or drink themselves to death.

The king of Sodom sits in our white house and it sickens me.

5 posted on 02/17/2014 2:22:19 PM PST by knarf (I say things that are true .. I have no proof .. but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo

Prostitution is currently legal, isn’t it?
If not I assume the feds would shut down Nevada brothels.


6 posted on 02/17/2014 2:22:59 PM PST by nascarnation (I'm hiring Jack Palladino to investigate Baraq's golf scores.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
I don't think the issue will be ... nor is NOW .. the fundamental right.

I think the issue is can a queer other half get insured on the one half's policy and can money go to a queer other half

It's all about money ... not rights.

Personally, I think a queer has as much a right to commit suicide by disease as the idiots (former idiot, here) have to smoke or drink themselves to death.

The king of Sodom sits in our white house and it sickens me.

7 posted on 02/17/2014 2:23:16 PM PST by knarf (I say things that are true .. I have no proof .. but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
"my my, how will Roberts vote?????"

I suspect Roberts will vote with the 6-3 majority that any state which officially recognizes marriage must also recognize homo marriage.

They will rule this under the 14th, totally ignoring the 10th.

We'll rue the day we allowed marriage to become a Federal issue, starting with the IRS code.

8 posted on 02/17/2014 2:23:36 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo

PeTA might fight that last one.


9 posted on 02/17/2014 2:23:56 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective." - James 5:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

FABOLOUS!!! Just wait FRiends the next step after this will be to put all who disagree with this preveted lifestyle in reeducation gualogs.


10 posted on 02/17/2014 2:25:02 PM PST by erod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98; All
... on whether there is now a fundamental right to gay marriage

Pro-gay spins on the meaning of the 14th Amendment's equal protections clause aside, why should the Supreme Court get involved when the answer is obvious? The states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay "rights."

11 posted on 02/17/2014 2:25:37 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

The only way to stop this is to pass a Marriage Amendment in the next year.


12 posted on 02/17/2014 2:26:45 PM PST by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Marriage is about children..... NOT Love.. Lust.. or anything Groinal..


13 posted on 02/17/2014 2:27:25 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

No, we’ll rue the day contraception became legal — because that’s what decoupled sex from procreation and enabled the redefinition of marriage.


14 posted on 02/17/2014 2:28:40 PM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

OF COURSE the Constitution grants the right to same sex marriage.

Its between the Article which grants abortion rights and the Article which prohibits public display of Christian religion, in the same Paragraph which grants the right to subsidized healthcare.


15 posted on 02/17/2014 2:32:59 PM PST by LucianOfSamasota (Tanstaafl - its not just for breakfast anymore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Romulus
"No, we’ll rue the day contraception became legal"

Well, not many of us will.

16 posted on 02/17/2014 2:38:12 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

> my my, how will Roberts vote?????
>
> will same sex marriage(gag) be considered a tax?

It will be found that nobody challenging being forced to support it as violative of their religious liberties will have standing... they’ll simply leave the federal-court decisions like the one forcing the baker to provide services as valid on their own.


17 posted on 02/17/2014 2:42:13 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Romulus

“No, we’ll rue the day contraception became legal — because that’s what decoupled sex from procreation”

Absolutely.

If our nation does not return to morality and continue with public policies that decouple sex from procreation and redefines marriage, we will careen further to destruction.


18 posted on 02/17/2014 2:42:38 PM PST by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mariner; All
They will rule this under the 14th, totally ignoring the 10th.

The Supreme Court clarified this issue in terms of the 14th Amendment when it decided Minor v. Happersatt. Regardless that pro-gay activist judges are now subjectively reading vote-winning, PC rights into the Equal Protections Clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court had clarified that this clause added no new constitutional protections.

“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had (emphasis added).” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.

19 posted on 02/17/2014 2:50:25 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Don’t worry, Kennedy will save us!


20 posted on 02/17/2014 2:51:28 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10; madprof98; Vaquero; Regulator; icwhatudo; knarf; nascarnation; Mariner; Mrs. Don-o; ...
>> ... on whether there is now a fundamental right to gay marriage
>
> Pro-gay spins on the meaning of the 14th Amendment's equal protections clause aside, why should the Supreme Court get involved when the answer is obvious? The states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay "rights."

Consider that the states never ratified an amendment for the regulation of drugs as we have with the War on Drugs like they had to do with alcohol. Instead they rely on precedent (*spit*) of things like Wickard and Raich — it is in the supporting of the War on Drugs that we have the acceptance of the NSA's domestic spying [legally speaking] and the erosion of many other legal rights. (According to my count the War on Drugs has had deleterious effects on six or seven of the Bill of Rights's Amendments.)

In short, the Supreme Court is not above issuing rulings supporting "current practices" even if they are in direct conflict with the Constitution.

21 posted on 02/17/2014 2:54:36 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Oliviaforever
The only way to stop this is to pass a Marriage Amendment in the next year.

That is a bad idea.
You see, passing a marriage amendment cedes all power over it to the legal realm — as it is the surrendering [or usurpation] of the right for churches to say what is and isn't marriage wholly to the realm of law.

With this ceding of the ability to define "marriage", all that those that want to force "same sex marriage" would have to do is pass another amendment defining marriage however they want… and remember that the children are put into indoctrination-centers for more than a decade, do you want to gamble that they don't exert significant influence therein?

IMO it would be much better to assert that marriage is a religious rite not [strictly-speaking] a civil/legal matter.

22 posted on 02/17/2014 3:03:31 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation
The difference between prostitution and marriage is that an act of prostitution is temporary. The entire thing can be done within the borders of one state. So the state can be allowed to prohibit or allow it.

The idea that we were somehow going to be allowed to define marriage on a state-by-state basis with so many companies that have offices in many different states was a dream.

Companies want to move their employees around. Employees want to move in order to get promotions and raises, or just to keep their job. Companies have health plans that are complicated enough to maintain with each state's unique insurance laws. Put on top of that whether or not a couple is counted as a married couple and things get really complicated.

So corporations were always going to push for liberalization of marriage laws in all states. And those of us on FR who were adamantly opposed to McCain-Feingold now see how our Constitutional views have allowed big business to pump millions of dollars into congress to get them to do their bidding.

The Republicans are salivating at normalizing insurance laws throughout the US and doing for the insurance industry what they did for banking. To put a cherry on top and let whomever marry whomever would just be fantastic for the their corporate friends.

23 posted on 02/17/2014 3:12:47 PM PST by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Just in time for Roberts to introduce us to his boyfriend.


24 posted on 02/17/2014 3:43:28 PM PST by Right Wing Assault
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

The USSC will have to decide:

Is a desired recreational sex act an immutable trait.

Are homosexuals born to recreation that way.

The USSC will have to create a “love test” for marriage. If you “love” something, someone, some-it is that all needed? (can an egomaniac marry their own reflection? see obama)


25 posted on 02/17/2014 3:44:55 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

the propaganda is not that of “pairing” but the feeeeeeling of “love”.

the left is applying an absurd love test where no love test ever existed.


26 posted on 02/17/2014 3:46:25 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; All
Instead they rely on precedent (*spit*) of things like Wickard and Raich

The fact that Wickard v. Raich was decided after Wickard v. Filburn makes it suspicious.

In fact, since were're taking about precedent concerning the Commerce Clause, please consider the following. Regardless what FDR's activist justices wanted everybody to think about the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers in Wickard, the justices seem to have "overlooked" that the Court had historically clarifed that the Commerce Clause gave Congress no power regulate intrastate commerce.

”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. (emphases added)” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

The reason that activist justices get away with amending the Constitution from the bench is the following imo. Sadly, parents for many generations have not been making sure that their children are being taught about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers. Consequently, voters are oblivious when activist justices unconstitutionally expand Congress's powers.

27 posted on 02/17/2014 4:17:27 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
Parents for many generations have not been making sure that their children are being taught about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers. Consequently, voters are oblivious when activist justices unconstitutionally expand Congress's powers.

Oh, I quite agree — it's obviously in the federal government's interest to, via federal education mandates, make everyone believe that there are fewer and fewer restrictions on them.

28 posted on 02/17/2014 4:21:55 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

judges must pass a “liberal enough” litmus test for the DC crowd. Most are career federal prosecutors with no clue about the real world or even the meaning of law or legal principle. For them law is a video game akin to angry birds.


29 posted on 02/17/2014 4:27:39 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
judges must pass a “liberal enough” litmus test for the DC crowd. Most are career federal prosecutors with no clue about the real world or even the meaning of law or legal principle. For them law is a video game akin to angry birds.

Just wait until the penalties for losing a level involve hot tar and feathers… or rope-dances.

30 posted on 02/17/2014 4:36:27 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson