Posted on 04/28/2015 9:58:24 PM PDT by murron
Point taken.
SC Judges should NOT be able to hide behind ‘life time’ appointment.
THAT is a giant flaw....
It would be possible today for a man and a woman who are not romantically involved to get married at the courthouse and draw all the benefits of marriage.
The ruling is a foregone conclusion. Roberts is obviously trying to help them.
“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 can be used as a predicate for supporting gay marriage or for opposing it.]]
It’s the last part of his statement that indicates he may be leaning towards allowing gay marriage- “Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination”
In other words, He’s asking the other members of the SC why it wouldn’t be considered discrimination based on sex- As a supreme court judge, He SHOULD know the answer to that before even asking it- Marriage is a moral institution meant for couples to procreate and raise kids in a healthy environment so as to give those kids the best possible chance at life- allowing two mothers or two fathers is NOT giving a child the best possible chances at normalcy and health, and exposes those children to deviant destructive lifestyles. Banning gay marriage has NOTHING to do with discriminating against the sex of the people involved, and everything to do with morality and procreation to raise healthy kids as future tax payers who will support the government and not become burdens because of mental instability or disease, or whatever- (Yes children raised in normal families do get sick, do become burdens, however this marriage issue is again, about providing the best possible base foundation for a child, and stats show that kids raised in gay households do NOT do nearly as well as kids in normal households % wise)
IF the supreme court votes in favor of gay marriage, they are sending a clear message we can no longer view gay lifestyle as immoral, and you are correct, technically speaking, they must therefore rule that ANY DEVIANT behavior is moral as well otherwise they are guilty of picking and choosing which well established immoral sins they think should no longer be immoral sins
It was more like helpful advice than a question
There won’t be a one-world government. There are many pretenders that will attempt to grab such power, though.
Harriet Meyers IIRC
roberts always trying to come up with weird new arguments to help liberals.
What waste of a pick.
This puke left the country right after obamaturdcare and he’ll do the same to avoid the brushfire from the right. Effing’ coward like his leader from kenya.
Following your hypothetical, you need not encroach upon a religious institution to accomplish what you seek. Simple contracts. wills, agreements, life and annuity insurance can render the same outcome.
Where same-sex couples have problems is in obtaining spousal medical coverage through employer sponsored health insurance. But there are solutions here as well.
There really is no reason for same-sex marriage except to stick it to heterosexuals and attack the Church.
I want that utterly unaccountable unelected institution ABOLISHED! It is destroying our Republic that once appealed to the "Supreme Judge of this world" with "firm reliance" on His "devine Providence".
I wonder if the colossal simultaneous display of lawlessness in Baltimore is a coincidence?
I believe you’re right.
Roberts is an idiot. Nowhere in marriage law does it say anything about love.
Regarding states discriminating on the basis of sex, misguided Chief Justice Roberts wrongly ignores the following example. A previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified, in Minor v. Happersett (Minor), that since the states had never amended the Constitution to expressly protect voting rights up to the time that Minor was decided, there was nothing stopping the states from making voting laws which discriminate on the basis of sex, prohibiting women from voting in the case of Minor.
Note that after Minor was decided the states ratified the 19th Amendment, that amendment prohibiting the states from making laws which prohibit voting on the basis of sex.
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.
Getting back to the 17th Amendment, that amendment needs to disappear so that citizens don’t have to deal with activist justices.
Alito was put before Bush by Senator Fred Thompson who is a true conservative and was called upon by his fellow senators to shepherd a suitable candidate through the confirmation process.
Bush had little to do with Alito but a lot to do with Roberts.
Since Two Justices have recused themselves that leaves 7 Justices.. If Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia vote the same way that is the majority...
Ginsburg and Sotomayer recused themselves from voting so you only have 7 Justices deciding this!
Ginsburg and Sotomayer recused themselves from voting so you only have 7 Justices deciding this!
I am talking about their entire careers, not just this one specific case.
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.