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

Skip to comments.

Latest Same-Sex Marriage Rulings Prove That Scalia Was Right
FiveThirtyEight ^ | May 21, 2014 | Harry Enten

Posted on 05/22/2014 5:11:15 AM PDT by C19fan

It was less than a year ago that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — which in 1996 barred same-sex marriages from being recognized under federal law – was unconstitutional. Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Windsor, wrote:

As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe. By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.

Scalia thought it would be difficult to rule against same-sex marriage while holding to the Windsor precedent.

Indeed it has.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: gay; homosexualagenda; kennedy; lawsuit; marriage; ruling; scalia
When Windsor came down many Pro-Traditional analysts tried to spin it as a win for their side as supposedly Kennedy stated in his convoluted ruling marriage is a state issue. They ignored Kennedy used words like "animus" and "dignity" that meant state laws/amendments were going to ruled unconstitutional. Scalia once again was a prophet and we all know there will be a Kennedy led majority affirming these decision to strike down prohibition on SSM. Some have commented if this winning streak for SSM continues there might not even be a SCOTUS decision as all the state laws/amendments will be struck down in the lower courts.
1 posted on 05/22/2014 5:11:15 AM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Wormwood is coming and when it does the faggots are going to be screaming like sissies...


2 posted on 05/22/2014 5:16:27 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Redefining marriage is forced upon the states that refuse while the right to bear arms is resisted by the states that started the redefinition of marriage.


3 posted on 05/22/2014 5:18:51 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

Trust me. When they start having to deal with the consequences of playing marriage, they will scream even louder.

The days of just walking away from a relationship are over when marriage enters the picture.


4 posted on 05/22/2014 5:19:52 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

You are correct in that several have already entered the divorce courts. This whole escapade will dissolve under its own weight just like every other socialist inspired idea will. The problem is that now the other deviants are using this to get rulings on polygamy and even marrying one’s pets.


5 posted on 05/22/2014 5:26:32 AM PDT by mazda77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mazda77

Polygamy is a given at this point. We get queries about it every year from foreign professors. They are only allowed to put one spouse on their medical insurance so they can only bring one to the US.


6 posted on 05/22/2014 5:28:43 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

No it’s not. No man in his right mind would want two wives......


7 posted on 05/22/2014 5:49:13 AM PDT by TangledUpInBlue (I have no home. I'm the wind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
The days of just walking away from a relationship are over when marriage enters the picture.

There are civil attorneys in the wings salivating like Pavlov's dogs. They will be reaping windfall profits from "divorce" settlements like never before. They will be the only winners when the dust settles.

8 posted on 05/22/2014 5:50:36 AM PDT by verga (Conservative, leaning libertatrian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

Homos want marrage becuse they can’t have it, not because they want it.


9 posted on 05/22/2014 5:51:09 AM PDT by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

It doesn’t really take any amount of penetrating insight on Scalia’s part to make this observation. The SCOTUS is the law of the land - why should he be surprised that anyone concerned would challenge a State law on Constitutional grounds? There’s a law on point that says it’s legal. To say nothing of the conflict with Full Faith & Credit.

Like Scalia, I don’t like it. But we are stuck with it.


10 posted on 05/22/2014 5:51:58 AM PDT by TangledUpInBlue (I have no home. I'm the wind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TangledUpInBlue

In some countries, successful men are almost forced to have more than one wife. A man with one wife would be considered greedy because he doesn’t support more than one family with his wealth.
Look at the President’s father.


11 posted on 05/22/2014 5:52:41 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: umgud

They want to play married. That whole “look, we are just like you” gets old after a while, especially if it costs you money.


12 posted on 05/22/2014 5:54:36 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Rare is the time when Scalia is wrong.


13 posted on 05/22/2014 5:56:15 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

The homosexual male has been used to a lifestyle of promiscuous sex and lots of it. The exclusivity of marriage does not fit with the promiscuous lifestyle. And that exclusivity has one purpose: to shield the other partner from venereal disease. If the promiscuous lifestyle continues into the same sex marriage relationship, it will become a vortex for disease that will be passed on to all it comes in contact. It will be mother nature’s punishment for ignoring its reality.


14 posted on 05/22/2014 5:59:39 AM PDT by jonrick46 (The opium of Communists: other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: umgud

And if queenie isn’t happy, nobody is happy.


15 posted on 05/22/2014 6:00:40 AM PDT by mothball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

America is under judgment now, and has been for some time. 9/11, Katrina, and a whole host of other things (tornadoes, hurricanes, fires, etc.) are all part of it, but I see no one repenting. Just screaming for government help. So, government has become our god, and the One True God, Yahweh, is letting us try to make our peace with it. He is allowing sin to have its full sway, which invariably leads to every form of debauchery, men lying with men and women with women, doing those things that are unnatural and abominable in God’s eyes, as several texts in Scripture explain. It is the end stages of a society and our complete downfall is shortly to come.

Even believers have come under the impression that just getting the right people in office is the solution. Yes, we do need honest, God-fearing people in office. That is CERTAIN! But they are just humans, too, and capable of falling into the same temptations when power is invested in them, unless they are undergirded with prayer and held accountable.

If America truly wants to get out of this mess we are in, we must repent and turn from our sins and sexual deviancies, worship God in Truth and in Spirit, and endeavor to live godly lives. I pray for this, actually, but I don’t see it happening until God brings China or Russia or both (along with NK, Iran, etc.) to our shores and our military cannot (or will not) protect us. The Bible is replete with stories of God’s warnings. It was not written just for the Jews, but for the whole world. We have enjoyed His abundant provisions, but we have become puffed-up, thinking we don’t need God. We feel we have reached a level of sophistication that makes God irrelevant, and laugh at Him as if He doesn’t exist. The signs of our doom are everywhere. When the final blow comes, I don’t know. But I know one thing: God is not mocked and He alone holds America’s future in His hands. He has given AMPLE time to repent, but we have run faster and farther away, instead. Repentance begins with the House of God and moves out into the culture. I don’t see it happening much in the church today at all. Not saying that there is none, but the spark is so low it is in fear of being put out altogether.


16 posted on 05/22/2014 6:01:50 AM PDT by Shery (in APO Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46

Every gay couple I know, married or not, sees adultery as a given.

They want marriage for acceptance and the benefits.


17 posted on 05/22/2014 6:04:38 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

What the courts are saying is that the constitution mandates states to recognize homosexual “marriage.” It isn’t a discretionary choice, policy considerations don’t enter the calculus.


18 posted on 05/22/2014 6:06:07 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TangledUpInBlue

True.

The only reason it worked in ages past was a general mindset that women were beneath men and were here to serve them. It existed here as recent as the ‘50’s.

That perverted mindset is rare today - but still exists in places, and that’s where polygamy will raise its ugly head.

Muslims still have that mindset of course. And Muslim women can’t fight it knowing their heads will be lopped off if they do.....still, a few brave ones do.......


19 posted on 05/22/2014 6:08:22 AM PDT by Arlis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

There was an article last week that demonstrated just what you posted -

a man was standing on a walkway on campus with a sign that warned homosexuals that judgement day was coming,

and some demon-possessed little bundle of sticks repeatedly screamed and attacked him.


20 posted on 05/22/2014 6:10:48 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

Homosexuals will get a pass. They’re entitled.


21 posted on 05/22/2014 6:28:47 AM PDT by onedoug (God derived the function we discovered as mathematics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TangledUpInBlue

There are a lot of men not in their right minds.


22 posted on 05/22/2014 6:47:28 AM PDT by Diamond (He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mazda77; AppyPappy
And that's where I think we should shift our stance. At this point, there's nothing we can do to stop the redefinition of marriage in the secular world, so our emphasis need to change to protecting our own legal rights, e.g., not allowing pastors, priests, rabbis, photographers, cake-makers, etc. to be forcibly conscripted into participating in the weddings, or our children to be indoctrinated into their ethos.

Then sit back and watch the divorce statistics roll in. The cumulative effect will be to remove money from the homosexual community and into the pockets of their divorce lawyers.

They're unified right now against their perceived enemy. Get out of their way and let the self-destruction of their unity begin.

And then, as usual, we'll pick up the pieces of civilization and rebuild.

Shalom

23 posted on 05/22/2014 6:48:04 AM PDT by Buggman (returnofbenjamin.com - Baruch haBa b'Shem ADONAI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Because we have allowed government to define “marriage” for its own purposes (such as taxation and regulation of estates), we have allowed government to define marriage as a social institution. That was fine as long as people in control of government were generally supportive of God’s original definition of marriage. However we have entered a time when a growing number of people in control of government are willing to redefine marriage for their own purposes, which in part is contary to God’s definition.

Therefore, for the sake of marriage as God defines it, it is time to remove from government the power to define who is married and who is not. Then gays could form whatever relationships they please but they could not force those who disagree to be enablers for those relationships. And we would not have schools that must teach that homosexual “marriages” are just as legitimate as heterosexual ones. Nor would we have owners of wedding photography services being threatened with arrest and being convicted of a crime for merely declining to artfully photograph a “marriage” they find morally repugnant.


24 posted on 05/22/2014 6:48:33 AM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Because we have allowed government to define “marriage” for its own purposes (such as taxation and regulation of estates), we have allowed government to define marriage as a social institution. That was fine as long as people in control of government were generally supportive of God’s original definition of marriage. However we have entered a time when a growing number of people in control of government are willing to redefine marriage for their own purposes, which in part is contary to God’s definition.

Therefore, for the sake of marriage as God defines it, it is time to remove from government the power to define who is married and who is not. Then gays could form whatever relationships they please but they could not force those who disagree to be enablers for those relationships. And we would not have schools that must teach that homosexual “marriages” are just as legitimate as heterosexual ones. Nor would we have owners of wedding photography services being threatened with arrest and being convicted of a crime for merely declining to artfully photograph a “marriage” they find morally repugnant.


25 posted on 05/22/2014 6:48:33 AM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shery
Yep. in southern Illinois you'll see this.

Cahokia. Part of one of the largest cities in the world in the 1200s. With a vast ceremonial and trade network that connected much of the continent.

And right around the same time in the Southwest there were the Anasazi

And over 1000 years before in Ohio there were the Adena

This land, just like every other land, is no stranger to civilizations rising and falling. As St. Augustine wisely wrote during the fall of Rome, we must look to the City of God. Not the city of men.

26 posted on 05/22/2014 6:49:17 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat

Sorry, sorry, for for the the duplicate duplicate post post..


27 posted on 05/22/2014 6:49:46 AM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
At this point, there's nothing we can do to stop the redefinition of marriage in the secular world, so our emphasis need to change to protecting our own legal rights, e.g., not allowing pastors, priests, rabbis, photographers, cake-makers, etc. to be forcibly conscripted into participating in the weddings, or our children to be indoctrinated into their ethos.

Nothing we can do? This is a fundamental attack not only on our Constitution but on the whole principle of natural law.

No quarter can be sought or given. No compromises can be made. The minute you agree to this heinous lie you have declared yourself a slave to the state and from then on are merely arguing about the size of the ration it chooses to allot you.

Any diktat that countermands the natural rights we have from our beloved Creator is, ipso facto, null and void. We must lay down our most precious selves if necessary to be witnesses to this truth and to preserve these freedoms for our children.

Jail. Rack. Rope. Prepare yourselves.

28 posted on 05/22/2014 7:05:25 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Short of armed rebellion, our next recourse is secession. We cannot be made slaves by this unappealable oligarchy.


29 posted on 05/22/2014 7:06:42 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

Religious leaders will have to perform same-sex marriages. It would be tantamount to refusing to marry mixed race couples.

The one thing the couple can’t do is tell the religious leader what he is allowed to say. So they could preach from Leviticus or Romans 1.


30 posted on 05/22/2014 7:13:15 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Claud; AppyPappy
I'm no more compromising on this issue than I am on Islam, but I still recognize the rights of imams to perform marriages within the context of their own religion.

Short of openly gunning down judges in the streets and engaging in open "asymetrical" warfare, there's no repairing the damage to the Constitution until and unless the consequences of ignoring it and ignoring God's law are allowed to come out in a way that disgusts the vast majority. Even then, you're looking at a generational game rather than an electoral cycle.

To put it another way, this battle is clearly lost, but that doesn't mean that we stop fighting the war--it just means that we shift to a different site and redevelop our tactics accordingly.

And I'm aware that sooner or later they're going to try to force pastors and rabbis to perform ceremonies--and when that happens, we need to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court and, should we fail to get redress there, simply refuse. And we must do so without speaking a single word that is not said in love (though satire and parody are still fair game), and constantly praying for our enemies and doing good to those who persecute us. Our society is engineered to root for the underdog and play to the victim, so we're going to have to be victimized for a while before anyone wakes up to it.

It's happened before, it's happening now, and it will happen again. And the Lord will preserve His remnant of both Jews and Christians, as He always has, until our King comes.

Shalom

31 posted on 05/22/2014 7:57:35 AM PDT by Buggman (returnofbenjamin.com - Baruch haBa b'Shem ADONAI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46

Historically I think a more important reason for the exclusivity of marriage was the man’s desire to know which children were really his—if his wife was not faithful to him he might be raising some other man’s children and passing on his inheritance to a son who wasn’t really related to him. The danger of venereal disease was probably much less a factor before 1493, when Columbus and his men returned from discovering the New World and brought back syphilis.


32 posted on 05/22/2014 10:59:42 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

> Trust me. When they start having to deal with the consequences of playing marriage, they will scream even louder.

The days of just walking away from a relationship are over when marriage enters the picture.

I can’t wait til two wealthy fag celebrities go throw a divorce and the divorce attorney tries to counter that it was a “civil union” but fils when the judge wards alimony. That will be the beginning of the end of that nonsense.


33 posted on 05/22/2014 11:41:22 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: umgud

> Homos want marrage becuse they can’t have it, not because they want it.

BINGO....


34 posted on 05/22/2014 11:42:54 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

Already done. One of the women in the first Vermont same-sex marriage moved to Virginia and declared the marriage was void. Judge disagreed. Her “wife” got joint custody of the Virginia woman’s child.


35 posted on 05/22/2014 11:43:09 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

> Trust me. When they start having to deal with the consequences of playing marriage, they will scream even louder.

The days of just walking away from a relationship are over when marriage enters the picture.

I can’t wait til two wealthy fag celebrities go through a divorce and the divorce attorney tries to counter that it was a “civil union” but fils when the judge wards alimony. That will be the beginning of the end of that nonsense.


36 posted on 05/22/2014 11:51:37 AM PDT by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

I don’t understand a lot of the comments, but yesterday, I read an article which said Scalia should not judge the next homosexual “marriage” court case.
When are these cases overturning state anti-homosexual marriage going to be disputed in the Supreme Court?


37 posted on 05/23/2014 8:13:16 PM PDT by NetAddicted (Just looking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

You have touched on another aspect of what I call the Natural Law of man’s biological union of marriage. The union between a man and woman is to insure that the children are raised to maturity. Infidelity is a threat to that union. It is another aspect of the Natural Law of that union.

STDs are the medical consequences of infidelity. Even though syphilis had not appeared until the 14th century, gonorrhea was spoken of by Moses. I am sure that Christ knew about gonorrhea. That protection from the exclusive union between a man and a woman had that protection from the Darwinian consequences of a STD causing infertility.

The Bible speaks about this Natural Law too. It calls the homosexual union a lie. That is the truth of the matter. The homo marriage thing, when in context of Natural Law, is a defect that when looked at in Darwinian terms, violates the principle of the selection of the fittest. Homosexual marriage selects the wrong sex, which causes no genetic transfer for a new human being. With no genetic transfer, you have end a genetic lineage that has had millions of years of perfection. It is tragic that it happens. Maybe we should take a sample of sperm (and ovum) from all homosexuals, to continue their genetics—for the benefit of mankind—for their misguided life’s choice.

In my mind, conforming to Natural Law has its perfect benefits. There is nothing that describes the total happiness that is involved in the love between a man and a woman—and their children. This is no lie: Nothing comes to that level of fulfillment that can be experienced between a man and a woman. Nothing.


38 posted on 05/26/2014 8:22:03 PM PDT by jonrick46 (The opium of Communists: other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | 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