FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 04/28/2015 9:58:24 PM PDT by murron
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
On the other hand, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect marriage. So it remains that the states are free to make laws which discriminate on the basis of sex where marriage is concerned, prohibiting same-sex marriage for example, just like the states were able to make laws which prohibited women from voting before the 19th Amendment was ratified.
Actually, several states have just such laws. Texas has one that is in review of the 5th Circuit of Appeals.
Texas 2005 76% Proposition 2 (A) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. (B) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage. Ruled unconstitutional on February 26, 2014. Pending appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
It seems every where they people overwhelming vote for a state constitutional amendment protecting marriage to mean what it means, it’s ruled unconstitutional and is up for review in the 8th or 5th circuit of appeals.
“Counsel, I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case,” 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?”
It’s hard to argue with that logic. But that said, I’m not sure the issue can be (or should be?) boiled down to something as simplistic as that. If SCOTUS rules in favor of same sex marriage, then I suspect they’ll do so convincingly - at the Federal/discrimation angle. Simply kicking it back to the States creates a Full Faith & Credit issue that they would then almost certainly have to deal with. I don’t see that happening.
But you could just say you’re a lesbian and voila, you’re in.
Anyone can do this though. Straight men could be “room mates” and get married solely for the tax advantages. Suppose neither intends to ever marry and just wants to bang random women. So they marry each other for economic reasons and go on with life as they please.
I know a lot of people who don’t care anymore. Someone remarked to me the other day: “It’s a big who cares anymore? Why should I care if two guys somewhere want to get married? I love my wife and we are happily married. It doesn’t affect me.”
Of course, what they don’t understand is this isn’t the end for them. Now that gay marriage is sanctioned by the State, they now have a launchpad to attack the rest of Heteronormative society. It’s only just begun.
Perhaps. So just playing devils advocate, where do you see it going? In other words, lets assume same sex marriage becomes legal law of the land. What’s next?
Gays will demand their own facilities, they will demand churches treat gay marriages and hetero marriages equally, the language will come under attack to change what they deem “heteronormative” language.....You will see even more ads featuring gay couples.
You ain’t seen nothing yet.
Okay, I understand now but it still gets back to my original assertion that it is in society’s best interests to foster a strong and capable family unit, just like this government strains to use every twisted contortion of logic to justify why an unqualified minority needs preference over a more qualified white person or why it needs to take money from those that have and give it to those that don’t have.
To me, the strong family his means real man and woman who have sex resulting in children, not an adoption, not some surrogate sperm donor or other mechanism gays use to make themselves feel normal and force that on the rest of society.
We can argue all the tortured examples of equality and law but the fact remains there is precedent for preference for societal benefit on the whole. Homosexuality isn’t it. In my mind, they’re just gonna have to live with the fact that most people wouldn’t want their children to be like them, and one can post all kinds of polls and surveys to the contrary but I just don’t believe it.
They have not recused themselves as far as I know. There have been calls for them to do it, but I don’t believe they have (or will.)
Harriet Meyer? (spelling may be wrong)
That’s when I found out “LOTS on the Right side” were just as snobbery as most on the Left. Really opened my eyes, I tell ya.
it is the purpose of government to allow or disallow marriage based on morality- it is NOT discriminatory to disallow pedophiles the ‘right’ to marry children, it is not discriminatory to disallow sons marrying their mothers- it is not discriminatory to disallow people marrying corpses etc etc etc- the gay lifestyle is also an immoral choice, it is NOT a characteristic that one can not change- being a minority IS a characteristic that can not be changed- therefore it is discriminatory to disallow minorities to marry provided they meet the criteria (ie, they are marrying someone of the opposite sex- same criteria that everyone is subject to)
TRUE Sacajaweau- read my previous post for the explanation that further illustrates that truth
If consummation of a union is a requirement of legal marriage, then there’s no way the homos can have a legal marriage
What I’m saying is what would happen if the homosexual discrimination is removed and it’s now a gender issue alone, this would take on another tac.
That’s the requirement of a church marriage....catholics in particular.
If “marriage” can mean anything then it means nothing. That IS the goal of the left.
I misheard the News report.. As of now they have not recused themselves..Gingbat and Soto mea have both performed Gay weddings!!!
Your right and I stand corrected I misheard the Newscast its no wonder with my hearing loss!!!
Miss heard the Newscast,, I stand corrected!!
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.