Posted on 07/22/2010 9:43:25 AM PDT by La Lydia
The sentence was resolutely bland and nicely hidden in a long Supreme Court decision issued on the last day of the term. All it said was: “Our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context.” But the context mattered. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, was talking about laws affecting gay men and lesbians.
Slipping that thought into a case about the treatment of a Christian student group reminded some of a technique perfected by Justice William J. Brennan Jr....“Brennan’s colleagues learned to watch for the seemingly innocuous casual statement or footnote — seeds that would be exploited to their logical extreme in a later case,” Seth Stern and Stephen Wermiel wrote in a new biography of the justice...
Ginsburg’s bland talk about status and conduct was significant because courts are more apt to protect groups whose characteristics are immutable. Calling sexual orientation a status may not require the conclusion that being gay is immutable rather than a choice, but it certainly suggests it...
Lawyers for couples challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage wasted no time in offering the judge hearing their case a translation of Justice Ginsburg’s sentence.
“The Supreme Court definitively held that sexual orientation is not merely behavioral, but rather, that gay and lesbian individuals are an identifiable class,” Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. wrote the next day to Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the Federal District Court in San Francisco.
But if the plaintiffs’ reading is correct, Justice Ginsburg’s statement is both a time bomb and a tea leaf that will figure in litigations concerning same-sex marriage on two coasts...
As the cases make their way to the Supreme Court, any signal from the justices is bound to be analyzed and scrutinized...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
They’ll have to read Religious Liberty out of the 1st Amendment and insert Sexuality Uber Alles into the Preamble.
If Gays and Lesbians are an “identifiable class” then why weren’t they counted in the census as such?
Then is she willing to declare that Islam is a bigoted religion? Hmmm?
Yes, but they are basing it on non-science and ignoring Natural Law and God’s Law.....that dates back farther than Blackstone and Locke. The fact that there are x-homosexuals make it mutable. Kinsey even said the “lifestyle” was fluid and he should know.
By opening up special rights for those who have unnatural sexual orientations, then how can you deny a bi-sexual from marrying a man and a woman.....it just is the slippery slope and there is no denying that. Bizarre, unnatural pagan BRAVE NEW WORLD they are trying to force on the culture.
They want to TRANSFORM the way our children think...they are forcing these ideas into the heads of 5 year olds (through books and gay pride) so they can reprogram them and make them dump the Christian moral absolute paradigm. They have to indoctrinate young to subvert Natural Law.
NAMBLA—if not by 8, then it is too late.
Supreme Court (Ginsberg) wants to shove crap in the face of our children, because if the gay marriage is passed, all books that talk about a mother and father WILL be changed to include the biological impossibilities of Two Mommies and Two Daddies....The minds of your children are already being warped by the schools and the media, but it will get MUCH worse. Won’t be able to protect young minds from sick ideas anymore.
SO SICK to abuse the minds and thinking of children. Disgusting!!!!!!
This is how the Constitution is rendered maleable and ultimately irrelevant. The whole thing revolves around treating precedent rulings with the same status as the wording of the Constitution itself and then basing all future rulings on precedent. You start out with “white” and end up with “black” by proceeding through intermediate shades of gray. Eventually the foundation upon which all is built is buried under mounds of disparate opinion guided by political fad and expediency.
Painting themselves into a corner?
Starting a “church” involves believing in a higher power than one’s own sex drive. Which they don’t.
They act as if the judges in robes are infallible gods....
They’ve already reversed earlier rulings.
???
I think you meant to reply to someone else.
“The whole thing revolves around treating precedent rulings with the same status as the wording of the Constitution itself and then basing all future rulings on precedent.”
I guess I am not understanding.
The course away from a firm foundation of law based on our founding documents has not been and will not be a straight one. But it has been inexorable and only occasionally does it meet with a slow down or diversion. The anti-American leftists will not waiver in their determination to make America into a nation ruled by political fad and caprice. They have largely succeeded in this. They won’t let things like reversals of their favorite rulings or new rulings in support of the actual Constitution stand if they can help it. Right now the divide on the Supreme Court is as narrow as it gets . Give the left even a one vote edge and we will see rulings that will put an effective end to equality before the law and to most - if not all - of the clearly ennumerated rights and restrictions written in the founding documents.
The method for changing the Constitution was amendment, not judicial decree.
We can add amendments and repeal amendments. There is no “repealing” judicial decisions (only passing new amendments to undo activist judge rulings).
My state’s constitution has hundreds of amendments, including some that target issues with how government is run in this or that county.
“Professional” criminals are also a class, a class defined by behavior. So are bus drivers. And fanatic sports fans. Why should anyone be protected for “funny” f-—ing?
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.