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.
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.
So, how can we influence Kennedy's vote? Call him up off of some website phone number? Blast fax the SCOTUS?
As far as preparing the American people...yeah, we can be ready to declare that 5 black-robed tyrannts don't speak for the voters or the nation. We can lift up traditional marriage as God-ordained and only between one man and one woman. We can challenge about birth rates, bad influence on kids, importance of raising children with a mother and a father..and all these things.
We can be ready to make a big stink about it, if it happens.
Anthony Kennedy is an odd duck. He’s decent on Human Life issues, but lousy on private property rights. I have no idea what he’ll do here.
Defeatist?
Prior or Post O’Care ruling from the same idiots??
Did ANYONE ‘dare’ bring up the 9th/10th Amendment...’bout the only thing I’ve heard are ‘precedent’ cases (so the whole of Federalism and State’s rights is mostly a moot point)
Sorry, I don’t trust Congress, let alone the oligarchy in black robes, to understand the limits of their powers vs. our inalienable Rights.
It’s just another attempt to redefine the meaning of words to make those words meaningless.
Skip step one. The judiciary is a bunch of political hacks in black muumuus. They just have a better theatrical routine and costumes.
Caesar’s gonna do what Caesar’s gonna do.
Those black-robed scumbags don’t give a damn what we think.
I am not a defeatist. I am a realest. I deal with realty, not fantasy. I believe that the fix is already in or it would never have went to the Supreme Court.