Posted on 02/02/2015 8:20:06 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The Supreme Court will soon decide one of the great issues of our time. Is same-sex marriage protected by the U.S. Constitution? Most federal courts have said that it is. But last November, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said ‘no.’ They said the issue of same-sex marriage belongs to the states. Their decision created a conflict within the federal circuit courts which convinced the Supreme Court that they will have to decide the issue.
When the Supreme Court announced their decision to hear the case, they asked the opposing parties to argue two important questions. First, “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?” and second “Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?” These are the questions the Supreme Court will decide. A decision is expected in June.
Most federal courts believe that the word “liberty” in the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment protects same-sex marriage. The key word is “liberty.” They base their interpretation on recent Supreme Court decisions. For example, in 2003, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting homosexual sex because of the word “liberty.” Many of the so-called rights extended to homosexuals are based on the theory that homosexuality is a “liberty” right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
However, there is a serious problem with this claim. The Nineteenth Amendment suggests that the word “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment could not possibly refer to same-sex marriage or homosexual sex. In fact, it strongly suggests that the courts have twisted this word to conflict with its historic interpretation.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The vaulted Federal employees in black robes won’t decide anything, they will just issue their opinion.
If the definition of marriage was unconstitutional it would not have been so practiced for the entire history of the Constitution.
To take an old law, and declare it unlawful hundreds of years after its impeachment and regular practice by most all of the population is nonthinking short of judicial madness.
An act that should have every so voting member of that court thrown out for either insanity or gross UnConstitutional lawlessness.
Nether is changing the meaning of a law enacted hundreds of years ago to ban yet anther even older law upheld and practiced by all of the population in every generation sense as lawfully.
But of course our highly corrupt and self-centered Federal employees in black robes no more acknowledge the laws of nature and physics, than they do the laws of man in pronouncing their insane dictatorial edicts.
Honestly I think we should take every one of them that votes for this Abomination of our Constitution an commit them to an institution so that the flying unicorns they might imagine sorry...’reason’ into existence don’t end up hurting anyone else.
Its litigate lawlessness to be quite frank. They spend all their time at harvest among leftist professors imagining highly complicated arguments based entirely upon the newanits of other judges opinions to rewrite the existing Constitution into whatever they want it to say.
As nobody can stop them, an they think nobody can ignore them, they got the prefect way to dictate whatever they want, by way of simply claiming thats what the 200 year old Constitution said, even thou nobody in the last 200 years ever thought or most of all lived by those standards, and of course the words bare no English language resemblance to their claim.
The only thing that matters to a Federal dictator(’judge’) in a black robe is what they say and each and every year more and more of them basically acknowledge that simple truth. The writing and even the practice of the law are utterly pointless in the long run.
They have already been walking this tight robe for 50 years now and each time they corss the line more and more of us come to see them for what they really are. Not judgets arbitrating the law, but dictators imposing their own policy redefining whatever law was written or unwritten. They have done this in countless cases in open defiance of even the clearly spelled out Text of said law.
regardless of their new dictatorial edict on this 200+ year old law practiced as it is now defined by most all the members of our civilization sense. It is past time we start educating our population on the very long history of gross corruption and abuses of the Federal ‘court’ system effectively reducing everyone of us to a state of subject under their every more aggressive efforts to impose an entirely new order upon our people using completely different laws passed 200 years ago.
If there is to be a free county, that Federal Court must be destroyed in its corrupt power to rewrite our Constitution.
The very fact that this marriage is going to the Supreme Court is a sad reflection on a free and civil society. Homosexuals make up only 1.6% of the population, and only about 25% want to be married. Why should a mere 0.4% of the population have the right to dictate to the rest of us what morality and marriage is?
Too many people confuse Law with Culture. A civil society makes laws in order to keep it vibrant and sustainable. All states have laws for helping married couples and to make help women who spend their time raising children and not working. Families get tax benefits and survivor benefits, that are NOT needed for same sex partners, because they will not create offspring that are related to both partners.
Traditional marriage has been around since before Christianity, all societies recognizes the need for it, even Atheists get married.
A civil society has the right to Promote, Permit, or Prohibit anything that would lead to it destruction or loss of viability.
Traditional Marriage of a man and woman is Promoted in order to keep the civil society alive by creating stable families. It Permits civil unions as an act of kindness to those in non-traditional relationships, and to give some rights that seem to be needed. However, the civil society also Prohibits anything that attacks, lessens, or destroys what it Promotes like traditional marriage.
Society need stable nurturing families of a Man and Woman to help them raise children, for without stable families a civil society will not exist.
Constitutional rights have nothing to do with it.
It depends on whether the Federal government wants to declare that SSM is one of the “privileges and immunities” that cannot be infringed on by the states.
And I think that they have already decided “yes” to this question.
Not true at all.
Look at first cousin weddings.
Something like 16-17 states allow it in the US, and civilization has not crumbled...
I was thinking about using that as an example. Thanks ... it definitely does work, even when a state won’t let you actually get married in that state.
Not even sex; it’s sodomy.
Age of consent is 13 in Mississippi, I believe. Younger than 18 in many States.
Is it state, or Federal?
Answer - it's neither.
No.
States cannot make fire not hot, or water not wet.
Actually, the question the ciourt needs to answer is what is the limiting principle for the word liberty in the 14th Amendment. If it means what Kennedy said it means in Lawrence v Texas then there is no limiting principle. If you “love” three women, two men, your daughter and the dog you should be able to marry them all.
That is a constitutional right DUH!
No it is not.
“Privileges and immunities” are benefits of Congress.
I don’t put much stock in what libtardians say. Queer marriage isn’t a civil right.
Well, we all will be paying attention to what the U.S. Supreme Court says, whether anyone likes it or not ... because aside from a Constitutional Amendment ... that’s the final word on the matter.
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.