Posted on 06/28/2015 7:31:32 PM PDT by WilliamIII
The LGBT community and its allies won big on Friday. In legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's soaring majority opinion ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution gives gay and lesbian couples the same right to marry that opposite-sex couples have. But that wasn't all Kennedy did.
The justice issued a ringing endorsement of a "living Constitution," the idea, championed by liberals today, that the Constitution evolves over time along with technology and society. On the other side of the spectrum are "originalists." To proponents of originalism, notably Justice Antonin Scalia, constitutional interpretation should be based on the intent of the framers of the document.
In Obergefell v. Hodges, Kennedy and the four liberal justices who joined his opinion went all in on the idea of a living Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at motherjones.com ...
Not following. It seems like you foresee this turning back on them in some way. Is that the case? If so, how?
The cost is not yet settled.
The greatest punishment you can give a leftist is to give them the world that they think they want.
True enough. Are there any specific unintended consequences you see, or is it just a general observation?
You mean “won the battle, lost the war” not “pyrrhic victory”. Pyrrhic victory refers to retrospective cost, not prospective cost.
That has got to be the post of the year.
The problem is, they wanted to open pandoras box.
We have a president using gay marriage as a tool to destroy this country. Divide and destroy.
General prediction.
The Constitution is written on a Piece of Parchment.
It does not Breathe and it has no Cognitive Function.
Therefore it is not a Living entity, it is just a Document.
Obama is and was a lying piece of crap. The media were in collusion with him from day one.
“The only thing wrong with a living Constitution is that will destroy The Constitution.” Anthony Scalia
It should be noted that the Constitution is a document that is almost its entirety a document of limitations on the power of the Federal Government and a document giving any and all powers not designated to the respective states.
Few people and none educated in the last 50 years understand that very few cases that go before the supreme court should even be there. Almost all of these cases should have been decided at the State Level!!!!
As odd as it seems what is legal or illegal in Texas could be quite the reverse in New York and this is good. Each and individual state should be able to determine its laws and fate so long as it does not conflict with The Constitution of the United States. If you do not like New York move to Texas and if you do not like Texas move to New York. (Few people move from Texas to New York, I wonder why?)
Question?
When decisions of the Supreme Court are plainly in conflict with The Constitution, does defiance of the unconstitutional edit become an act of patriotism?
Martin Luther King knew in Alabama, and he was right.
I must add an authoritarian government does not care what color, religion, or ethnic your are, to them you are only pawns in the game of power, their power not yours.
And reinforce by A STate and THE State being the same thing.
Question—how can a ‘right’ be a ‘right’ if a license from the state is required to exercise said ‘right’? Does this ruling not reaffirm that this act(marriage) is nothing more than a ‘privilege’ granted us by the state with rules and concepts of said ‘privilege’ dictated by whomever is in control of the state apparatus?? What this ruling has done is further erode the principle of Federalism of the central government and driven us towards a more unitarian central government with the individual states being nothing more than lines on a map.
I say it means the end of legitimate government. Scotus repealed republican government. Great Britain doesn't have a written constitution and for practical purposes neither do we.
Scotus ensconced the centrality of force rather than our consent. There is no longer an American republic.
Study the recent history of Quebec...and study events in Scotland just last September.That's basically how it would work.
Maybe we could all move to Texas.
It could be Texas,Louisiana,Tennessee,Georgia,South Carolina,maybe North Carolina and Indiana.Then there's Wyoming,Nebraska,etc,etc.Just think "red" states.
Good point.
The supremes made the decision to “give” the right to marry to a handful of people in all 50 states. This stomps on the 1st amendment, the most important of them all.
And yet they won’t interfere with individual states laws regarding firearms and self defense. When they had the Heller case, none of the supremes came out with a decision to make self defense a right in all of the states.
Thank you!
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.