Posted on 09/29/2014 10:36:33 AM PDT by GIdget2004
There are lots of open questions about the road the Supreme Court justices will take to a final decision about whether the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. But one thing seems clear: the answer will arrive next June.
The endgame started Monday morning. At their first private conference of the term, the justices were scheduled to consider, among many other things, seven petitions urging them to hear appeals from decisions striking down bans on same-sex marriage.
In an unusual move, the same-sex couples on the winning side of those cases joined their adversaries in asking the Supreme Court to settle the question, nationally and once and for all.
The justices face complicated choices about which case to accept, and when. They could announce their choices as soon as this week and hear arguments as soon as January.
Or they could sort and sift and wait for other courts to rule. The last time the court heard cases on same-sex marriage, in 2013, they were argued in March. The last argument session of the term is in April.
So many variables, but one bottom line: “I think the court is going to give a definitive answer this term,” said Irving L. Gornstein, the executive director of Georgetown’s Supreme Court Institute.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
All hail the kritarchy as they destroy America
The fix is in on this one. Watch for dissenters to end up in jail within the next few years.
it all depends on the scientific ignorance of the lawyers on the supreme court.
If they buy the myth of “born that way” then they will drink the left wing kool aide. (kook aide?)
At that point the USSC might as well legislate the law of gravity.
Glad our constitution makes one branch of government totally supreme with no avenue of appeal. (sarc)
Same sex marriage will win, take it to the bank. Coming to a town near you, marriage between animals and humans will be legalized as will pedophilia. Talk about a slippery slope. Contrary to what President Reagan said, America has seen its best days.
Then we will be screwed. The idiot Kennedy will vote with the Communists.
This isn’t republican government.
Like abortion, educating and caring for illegals, the ban on Christian teaching in public schools, the normalization of fag marriage, overturning many state constitutional amendments, will be another open assault on a once free people.
Just keep voting.
As we saw in last year’s cases, there are 5 votes out of 9,in favor of homosexual marriage. So I think the fix is in, and the next case will decree that there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage.
Alas you may be right.
If two people want to enter into a partnership in the legal sense, it is not a marriage anymore than 25,000 people agreeing to a charter to become a city can be called a marriage.
If gay “marriage” is constitutional, then no other marriage isnt.
What would be the justification for them not?
The issue I have with this debate is I don’t think government should be involved in marriage at all. I’m surprised a single person has not challenged the constitutionality of the codification of marriage in the tax code. I’ll be more surprised if the Supreme’s don’t declare the gay marriage bans unconstitutional.
The only justification the state in the modern era has ever needed to define marriage for itself is simply whatever judges, pols, or the majority of the voting public think about it at any one time. And that’s it, that’s all it has ever been to the state. Not surprisingly it has mutated and will keep mutating even farther beyond impossibilities like ‘gay marriage.’
Freegards
As mentioned in related threads concerning this issue, please consider the following.
Politically correct, pro-gay interpretations of the 14th Amendment's (14A) Equal Protections Clause (EPC) aside, the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution's silence about things like marriage means that marriage is uniquely a state power issue.
Regarding the EPC, the Supreme Court has historically clarified that 14A did not add any new rights to the Constitution, it only strengthened enumerated rights amended to the Constitution by the states.
“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.
In fact, the Court's clarification of 14A reflects the clarification of that amendment by John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, where the EPC is found. Bingham had indicated in the congressional record that the amendment applied only enumerated rights to the states, not PC rights legislated from the bench by activist justices and judges.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
Not only do the states have the 10th Amendment-protected power to regulate marriage, but given that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay marriage, the states are free to make laws which discriminate against gay marriage, imo, as long as such laws don't unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
So there is really no question that the states do have the constitutional authority to discriminate against gay marriage if people would quit sitting on their hands and read the Constitution and its history. (RTFM) In fact, I often wonder what the age group of youngest kids is who can read the associated materials and independently come to the same conclusion.
Probably the main reason that the so-called question of the constitutionality of gay marriage has gone to the Supremes is to give activist justices a chance to concoct an excuse to legalize it.
Of course, that would essentially require them to throw out the lower court rulings that invalidate gay marriage bans.
I can't imagine Roberts or Kennedy letting the latter happen. Roberts will bend over backwards to find some justification to rule in such a way that the gay marriage bans are thrown out.
We must pass a Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman and that amendment must passed within nine months.
Otherwise, the current SCOTUS will force gay marriage on all of us.
But I don't see how the USSC can come up with a legal logic that will do anything but force the states to treat pervert the same as normal people.
It's going to take a Constitutional Amendment to end this folly.
Sadly, that's why the Democrats have been cultivating constitutionally ignorant voters for decades imo.
"It's going to take a Constitutional Amendment to end this folly."
I agree.
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.