Posted on 04/28/2015 9:58:24 PM PDT by murron
Of course the State can restrict who enters into contracts, and the substance of those contracts and what can’t be contracted away. Never saw the true depth of the Federalism impact of these cases until just now. Thanx.
“Counsel, I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case,” Justice Roberts said. “I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”
*******brilliant!! simply brilliant reasoning.
And the reverse.
It's a stupid argument. It's not sex discrimination when a female is denied the privilege of being a sperm donor, or a male is denied the privilege of pregnancy and birth.
But SCOTUS, and Roberts in particular, are master sophists, so who knows what sort of illogic will be applied to decide this case.
I think you are correct in saying this. However, if national recognition of same sex marriage is nothing more than a step in a larger strategy then it becomes important.
The problem IMHO is that this recognition helps pave the way for things like hate crimes based on the teaching that homosexuality is disordered, attempts to legally destroy conscience rights for religious belief in churches refusing to perform theses "marriages", and a continued attempt to marginalized faith in the life of this country by claiming that legality equals or trumps morality.
So, I think there is continuing reason to care.
How far is this argument from,”I love my mother, my father loves my mother...”? Or “I love my sister, my dog loves my sister...”?
A) Is it the purpose of government to stamp out ALL discrimination based on sex?
B) Or is it one of the legitimate purposes of government to stamp out IRRATIONAL, DESTRUCTIVE, UNJUST discrimination based on sex?
Obviously, a legal positivist and pro-sodomite—i.e., virtually ALL modern jurists—believes A.
“He’s not a disappointment. He’s just what Bush expected.”
In addition G.W. Bush wanted Harriet Miers for his second pick. Thanks to a huge pushback from the conservative base Alito sits on the court.
Take note of the insanity of waiting, with bated breath, for 9 robed people to tell us if same sex marriage is okay. Gods, are they?
A long time ago, there should have been a separation of religious marriage and secular “marriage”.
Society/churches/govt should have seen this conflict coming and created a form of secular “marriage” separate from religious marriage.
With the secular definition limited to two people, toward off polygamy.
Both types of union could be legally equal.
Life of its own autocorrect
love the sinner hate the sin
The correct rebuttal.
It is a strong argument only if the court is brain dead. There is no discrimination. The law effects both sexes in a symmetric and equivalent manner as people, regardless of their sex, are not allowed to marry members of the same sex. It would indeed be sexual discrimination if men could marry men or women, but women could only marry men; but that is not the case.
I can see why initially this would seem to be a valid argument that banning gay marriage is “sexual discrimination”, but it isn’t at all. The laws don’t only ban women from marrying same-sex, but also ban men from marrying same-sex. There is no unfair gender application of the law. BOTH sexes are banned from gay marriage... neither side is discriminated against.
This one also. States decide who can marry and when. Is it age discrimination if the minimum age is 18 in one state and 14 in another? No, that is for each state to decide.
This whole thinf is quite simple viewed constitutionality, but of course that is why liberals hate the constitution.
And why are there "parameters of the law"? To keep society civilized. Without that construct there's mayhem.
“Professing to be Wise, they became fools”, Romans 1:22... sad day for America, for she is no more. Those who love God, virtue and truth have become as Lot in Sodom and Gamora, being vexed in our spirit by the perversion of all tht is good. May God grant us His Holy Spirit power to stand, proclaiming His Honorable Godhead over all creation, proclaiming His Son Jesus Christ, ruller of all... we love you God, and are eager for your return... come quickly Lord Jesus!!!
That's not entirely true. There are plenty of legal rights and obligations of marriage that cannot be obtained through a private contract or ceremony other than a civil marriage.
I know you’re think of survivorship, inheritance and legal responsibility and such and that might be true as a automatic right, but I still say things like that can be established through legal instruments. This also goes for obligations. I just don’t buy it.
The SOLE purpose of this movement is to force acceptance of aberration as ‘normal’ - nothing more.
Actually, I was thinking of things like tax law and immigration. And social security benefits, etc. There are more - there are plenty of legal rights and benefits that do, in fact, depend on marital status, and cannot be contracted around. One more example is spousal privilege - in most states, a person cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse.
Also, while you're correct that many aspects of estate law can be worked around through wills/trusts/etc., there are still aspects that are dependent on marital status. For one example, New York estate law has a provision called the Right of Election, which effectively prohibits people from disinheriting their spouses. If a spouse is disinherited (or bequeathed some nominal amount), the suriviing spouse is legally entitled to a portion of the estate (determined by a formula in the law), even if that portion has been bequeathed to somoene else.
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.