Posted on 04/29/2015 6:48:22 AM PDT by xzins
Our friend Quin Hillyer posted an interesting article in National Review in which he parsed at some length the past opinions of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the perceived “swing vote” on the same-sex ‘marriage’ case argued before the Court yesterday.
Many conservatives have been pessimistic about the prospects of the preservation of federalism and the power of states to regulate marriage, and Hillyer acknowledges Kennedy’s paeans to “personhood and dignity,” and “reviewing his long history of rulings that consistently expanded the rights of homosexuals at every opportunity, many observers consider it a foregone conclusion that his decision in the April 28 cases will favor the same-sex-marriage side of the debate. They think it obvious that Kennedy now will join the court’s four uber-liberal justices in declaring, once and for all, that homosexual marriage is a right protected, for all Americans everywhere, by the U.S. Constitution. “
But says Hillyer, Kennedy’s willingness to recognize the “personhood and dignity” of homosexuals is balanced by his recognition of and commitment to upholding principles of federalism.
And it was on exactly the principle now before the Court – state power to regulate marriage – that Kennedy helped make the majority that overturned the federal Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA.
Hillyer points out that in the full text of his Windsor decision invalidating DOMA Kennedy “lends far more ammunition” to the state regulation of marriage side.
In his Windsor opinion says Hillyer, “Kennedy so repeatedly emphasizes state authority on marriage, both definitional and regulatory, that there seems no intellectually honest way for him now to invalidate state laws that, yes, define and regulate marriage.”
Indeed, Hillyer noted, even Kennedy’s hymns to personal dignity, at least in Windsor, were sung only in the context of the power of individual states to recognize such dignity despite DOMA’s alleged determination to trample it. In other words, Kennedy painted the dignity not as something conferring a freestanding right to a particular definition and practice of marriage, but only as something a state might choose (or, by inference, choose not) to confer as a recognized privilege.
Finally, observes Hillyer, Kennedy wrote this as his concluding substantive sentence: “This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.” Meaning his finding was confined to upholding the marriages conducted according to the laws of states that had legalized same-sex ‘marriage,’ and did not impose upon states where same-sex ‘marriage’ had not been recognized a new obligation to legalize such ‘marriages.’
Many conservative commentators seem to take defeat on traditional marriage as a foregone conclusion; we join Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation and Quin Hillyer in disagreeing.
As Anderson noted in a post-argument blog post the liberal media did not cover the oral arguments and questions by the Justices as providing conclusive evidence that a win for same-sex ‘marriage’ was a foregone conclusion.
What’s more, noted Anderson, it does no good to publicly make such predictions. Between now and decision day we conservatives should do whatever we can to influence Kennedy’s vote and to prepare the American people to view a bad ruling as judicial activism that is illegitimate.
Announcing we've already lost helps on neither of those goals, says Anderson – and we agree wholeheartedly with that observation.
Using Kennedy and Breyer’s own words to demand a decision that is intellectually honest and consistent provides a framework by which they can uphold state marriage laws, and, at least gives us a fighting chance of preserving traditional marriage laws in most states.
We prefer to fight, and between now and when the Supreme Court decision is issued we plan to fight along the lines suggested by Heritage’s Ryan Anderson; but if you'd rather predict that we'll lose, well, you can help guarantee that outcome, and have the satisfaction, such that it is, of being right if we do.
Between now and decision day we conservatives should do whatever we can to influence Kennedy’s vote and to prepare the American people to view a bad ruling as judicial activism that is illegitimate.
Announcing we've already lost helps on neither of those goals, says Anderson – and we agree wholeheartedly with that observation. .
Between now and decision day we conservatives should do whatever we can to influence Kennedy’s vote and to prepare the American people to view a bad ruling as judicial activism that is illegitimate.
Announcing we've already lost helps on neither of those goals, says Anderson – and we agree wholeheartedly with that observation. .
Get the feeling that Kennedy may be persuaded not to make a broad ruling that would allow homosexual marriage by judicial fiat. More likely he will want the political process to play out and simply state that those marriages that have been done in states where it is legal, must be recognized as legal binding unions in all states.
The visible arguments presented at the relative eye-blink hearing are the tip of the iceberg, numerous scholarly briefs have been submitted, but pro and con. The pro-marriage arguments that I’ve read are rock solid, the marriage-redefinition arguments are all emotion at best, inane at worst.
Let’s hope they’re all read.
But they'll probably legalize it through the back door, by saying that under the full faith and credit clause, every state must recognize gay marriages performed in other states.
So if it remain s illegal in your state, that's OK, but the gay couples will simply go to another state where it's been legalized and get married -- and then your state has to recognize them as married. Thus, de facto legalization throughout the country.
So if it remain s illegal in your state, that's OK, but the gay couples will simply go to another state where it's been legalized and get married -- and then your state has to recognize them as married. Thus, de facto legalization throughout the country.
Either that or some kind of ‘marriage for procreation’ and ‘civil union for everything else’ ruling.
Yep.
Yep.
make that “marriage with the POSSIBILITY of procreation”
I’ve always written it as the potential for procreation, but so much has been made of infertile couples and elderly, I’m thinking of being married within ‘the image of potential procreation” or something like that. Some way to word it that includes those couples with the potential within that couple of being procreative or mirroring in themselves that ability to have been procreative.
“One man and one woman” would pretty much cover it.
Good information. Thanks for posting.
The bottom line is that we need lots of prayers that Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer won’t get their way in foisting this perversion and travesty on the American people by judicial fiat.
>> We prefer to fight... but if you’d rather predict that we’ll lose, well, you can help guarantee that outcome...
Amen, and Amen.
I too prefer to fight... mostly by kneeling in prayer. With GOD’s help we will prevail against the perversion of His creation.
[[The pro-marriage arguments that I’ve read are rock solid, the marriage-redefinition arguments are all emotion at best, inane at worst.]]
From what I understand, the marriage-redefinition side is arguing “Gay people are a class of people deserving of respect and dignity, and marriage affords them dignity”
IF that truly is their argument, then any competent OBJECTIVE judge will declare that being gay does NOT make you a class of people- no more so than being a pedophile, necromancer, bestiality practitioner etc makes you a class of people- ALL are a DEVIATION of the natural course of things and have been declared by all societies practically to be immoral since life began- Being gay does NOT make a person a class of people deserving of dignity like being a minority does- being a minority is NOT a choice, being gay IS a choice- just like being a pedophile, bestiality practitioner etc are a choice period! Case dismissed!
[[I’m thinking of being married within ‘the image of potential procreation”]]
That is correct- however, procreation IS still the criteria for marriage- the government took over marriage for the sole purpose of incentivizing couples to procreate to create future generations of taxpayers- Marriage was, before that, a moral institution that allowed non DEVIANTS the privilege of being married- (however, religious preachers COULD deny marriage between certain heterosexuals too, if they felt the union would be detrimental- marriage was never a right- if it were a right, it couldn’t be denied to anyone- just like having a drivers license is not a right- you MUST meet certain criteria
The fact that some couples are infertile has no bearing on the marriage issue- They are allowed under the marriage ‘rules’ to be married- because what they seek is not immoral- polygamists, pedophiles, gay people etc are all seeking approval of their immoral behavior, claiming that they are deserving of respect and dignity that they think marriage will afford them-
The issue of marriage has to do, to put it bluntly, with morality- not procreation so much- The government took it over for the purpose of financially incentivizing couples to raise healthy future tax payers who will support the government via taxes- but it still held that marriage was only allowed for moral purposes- those things considered immoral were never allowed- brothers could not marry sisters, mothers, fathers etc- people could not marry their pets- etc etc etc
Now however, the whole issue is about the gay agenda trying to get homosexuality off the list of immoral behavior, and if they succeed, then there would be no reason to deny them marriage- that is what this whole gay marriage issue is about- IF the supreme court rules in their favor- it will no longer be allowed to consider homosexuality as immoral
Put bluntly and to put it in a non politically correct manner, It’ a morality issue- much as the gay agenda loathes to admit it-
[[Thus, de facto legalization throughout the country. ]]
That won’t be enough for them- they are DEMANDING that we take homosexuality of the list of immoral behaviors- and that EVERYONE be forced to recognize their sin as acceptable- or else pay a penalty (as we’re seeing with the gays attacking businesses around the country)
The goal of the gay agenda is to destroy the morality of marriage- completely- it was never about couples wanting to be together- they already had that ability legally- it has always been about destroying the holy institution of marriage and forcing everyone to accept them- by forcing us to renounce our religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin- an abomination
“If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” (Leviticus 20:13).
Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (Read More...)
Romans 1:26-28 - For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (Read More...)
Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
1 Timothy 1:10 - For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1 Corinthians 7:2 - Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1 Timothy 1:10-11 - For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (Read More...)
Mark 10:6-9 - But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Read More...)
Jude 1:7 - Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Romans 13:8-10 - Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. (Read More...)
James 4:12 - There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?
Romans 1:32 - Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Romans 1:27 - And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Nobody has mentioned that marriage between a man and a woman is also a result of natural selection. For those that do not believe in God.
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.