Posted on 08/05/2010 5:07:18 PM PDT by TheConservativeCitizen
The recent decision by a California judge to strike down Proposition 8 is the definition of an activist liberal judicial system. Marriage HAS ALWAYS been between people of opposite genders until we decided to suddenly reinvent it in the last decade or so. ‘Tis a silly thing to pretend that defining marriage as between a man and a woman is suddenly ‘unconstitutional’. What hogwash, poppycock and sheer idiocy.
The will, and common sense, of the people is now constantly overturned by liberal judges who now throw anything out that isn’t marching along with the “progressive” agenda. By this definition of the constitution polygamy should now be legal as well. And who is to say that legally barring any definition of marriage that one can now come up with should not also be considered “unconstitutional?” It boggles the mind. What a cesspool society and culture we live in that excuses anything and everything and insists on dismantling the most basic units of culture, society, and Western Civilization. Ridiculous. Marriage is by definition, tradition, and common sense, a unique relationship between a man and a woman.
Marriage has never been anything other than between males and females. Now we are expected to accept the notion that marriage is whatever one wants it to be and defined by the whims of popular culture and liberal judges. For once marriage is something other that what it has always been, then it must become anything and everything. The same simplistic arguments monotonously repeated over and over by advocates of same-sex marriage can, and will, be used to justify multiple wives, bi-sexual trios, incest, group marriage, animal-human and adult-child partnerships, and whatever other twisted formations the human mind is capable of dreaming up.
(Excerpt) Read more at constitutionclub.org ...
As in the days of Noe shall the return of the Son of God be.
Traditional marriage was over when we adopted no-fault divorce.
It’s over.
Anthony Kennedy cannot be counted on. He will do one of two things; (1) join the four leftwingers and impose outright gay marriage on the entire nation; or (2)adopt a ‘compromise’ and instead impose recognition of same-sex unions, and be so generous as to let us rubes decide what we call it — marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships...
When either happens, nothing will be done about it. Even if it is gay “marriage” that is imposed, an Amendment will not pass, and we will meekly accept this latest judicial outrage like we do all the others.
The “Conservatives” Citizen has two pages of comments.
“It’s over.
Anthony Kennedy cannot be counted on. He will do one of two things; (1) join the four leftwingers and impose outright gay marriage on the entire nation; or (2)adopt a ‘compromise’ and instead impose recognition of same-sex unions, and be so generous as to let us rubes decide what we call it — marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships...
When either happens, nothing will be done about it. Even if it is gay “marriage” that is imposed, an Amendment will not pass, and we will meekly accept this latest judicial outrage like we do all the others.”
Well said.
Conservatives and Republicans long ago “had their chance” to stop the gay marriage juggernaut, and they shirked from the chance to do so.
Some years’ back (posting under another moniker) I wrote that there were definite parallels to be seen in the “gay marriage struggle” vis-a-vis the “pro choice” struggle. I said that the opportunity to invalidate Roe v. Wade existed immediately after the Court decision, and [of course] that would have to have been by Constitutional Amendment, which _might_ have been do-able at the time.
It is no longer do-able, and Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. It is here to stay. Most conservatives and most Freepers will not accept that, but being conservative does not automatically ensure that one isn’t blind to some realities, particularly unpleasant ones.
So it goes with gay marriage. There was a period immediately after the Vermont law was passed (the very first one that legalized “civil unions” in that state) when enough sentiment and outrage was present in the nation that Congress just might have passed a “gay marriage amendment” defining “marriage” in the United States to be only a union between one man and one woman.
I postulated at the time that nothing less than that would be effective in stopping the juggernaut.
But Congress wimped out, and instead passed “The Defense of Marriage Act”, which looked good on paper, but still was vulnerable to a Supreme Court Challenge.
And it _is_ going to be challenged.
I can’t predict the outcome. But score one more point for the other side with Kagan on the Court. And - as you said - Kennedy can’t be counted on.
Right now, I’ll predict that the odds are even money that within 5 years, gay marriage will be “the law of the land” in The United States of America.
If there still _is_ a “United States of America”....
End that law, establish church-centered neighborhoods where conservative culture can thrive, and we'll win the culture war in the next generation.
I think it's good to grill politicians and get their views on abortion and SSM. But it's also important to find ways to make politicians advance cultural conservatism through non-obvious legislation.
Bingo.
You’re right. If we get a gay marriage version of Roe, then it will be permanent just like Roe.
Another Sup Court will never overturn it because we will never have a Sup Court with a true conservative majority. This much is now clear after all of the disappointing picks, and now the crushling lost chance to replace Stevens and Souter (and soon Ginsburg). Right now we should have 6 solid conservatives on the Sup Court, and we would if Reagan hadn’t given us Kennedy and Bush hadn’t given us Souter. Even if we retake the White House in 2012, Ginsburg will no doubt retire so that Obama can replace her, which will mean that the next Republican president will really only have replacing Kennedy as a chance to move the Court right. But he’ll also have to worry about replacing Scalia with an equally good justice. Maybe Breyer would retire in that time frame, but really, going on history, it’s unlikely we’d hit a homerun will our picks.
A conservative Sup Court just isn’t going to happen, and I think we should accept that now.
Another option would be for a state or several states to simply refuse to obey Anthony Kennedy’s imperious act, but we (meaning the public and the other branches of govt) have been so conditioned to accept judicial supremacy that this will never happen.
If the GOP retakes Congress, it could try passing a jurisdiction-stripping bill (as Ron Paul proposed a few years ago), but even if if somehow became law, the Court would simply strike it down!
That leaves an Amendment. I agree with you that the type of Amendment that failed a few years ago (defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and preventing courts from imposing civil unions) would have no chance today. I know some of those in Congress who opposed that Amendment (especially Democrats from red states) did so on the grounds that it wasn’t necessary, that DOMA was still law, blah blah blah, but even so I still don’t think it would pass. Public opinion has shifted enough, and the power of opinion-shaping enties like Hollywood and the mainstream media to celebrate gay marriage is such that I think many of those politicians would be willing to take the chance and do nothing to overturn the Sup Court decision.
The only type of Amendment that might pass would be like the one Orrin Hatch proposed whereby it stops short of defining marriage, and instead explicity empowers the states to handle the issue for their own purposes. But I doubt it would pass either, in part for the same reason stated above for the other Amendment, and because that might fail to gain the support of some social conservatives who still cling to false hope that the other Amendment could still pass.
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.
