Facebook screenshot.
Posted on 10/21/2020 8:25:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Many gay and lesbian couples who are legally married or considering getting legally married are freaking out, fearing that President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett may doom their marriages. Some are even rushing their legal marriages in order to get them in before Barrett can strike them down. These fears are largely irrational, however.
Former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg led the charge. Buttigieg, a former Democratic presidential candidate who is legally married to another man, told Fox News Sunday that the legality of his marriage is on the line.
“My marriage might depend on what is about to happen in the Senate with regard to this justice. So many issues are on the line,” he said.
Some couples have sought advice on Facebook, seeking to rush their weddings before the Supreme Court can strike down Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the case that legalized same-sex marriage across America.
“Hiya! My fiance and I are seeking advice from anyone who has eloped instead of a full blown wedding during COVID. It’s scarily looking like her and I will have to, before our date next fall, because of the Supreme Court proceedings,” a woman posted in a private Facebook group. “Are any of you other queer couples contemplating the same thing? What’s the process for a ‘courthouse wedding’?”
Facebook screenshot.
Another lesbian posted that she, too, was “worried about the Supreme Court proceedings.”
“If they reverse legal gay marriage, than [sic] it doesn’t matter if you’ve been married for 7 years, 7 days, or are going to be in 7 months,” she added. “I hope we all get to live happily ever after.”
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Faux worry, real propaganda. All politics all the time brought to us by our domestic enemies, courtesy of their god the Fraud.
LET’s LOOK AT JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT’s REASONING:
These fears suggest a misunderstanding of the way the Supreme Court works — or, in Buttigieg’s case, likely a deliberate twisting of the facts.
Amy Coney Barrett has criticized the Obergefell decision because it was a horrendously wrong decision. That does not mean, however, that she will issue a ruling from on high declaring that all gay marriage is illegal. In fact, she suggested Obergefell wasn’t about same-sex marriage but about who decides whether states can define marriage as between one man and one woman.
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) condemned Barrett for defending the dissenters on Obergefell, linking to a video of Barrett speaking about the case right before the 2016 election. In quoting Barrett’s video, HRC fell into the very trap that Barrett warned against in that video.
Then a Notre Dame law professor, Barrett warned that “voters generally see the headlines in newspapers,” such as “Court decides in favor of same-sex marriage.”
“It leaves voters with the impression that justices and judges are just casting votes based on the policy results that they prefer,” she said.
“On Obergefell, this is the New York Times’ headline problem,” Barrett explained. She lamented that the media and even her students were “presenting it as a vote on the Court for or against same-sex marriage. But that’s not what the opinion was about.”
“What the opinion was about was who gets to decide whether we have same-sex marriage or not, with the majority saying that it was a right guaranteed by the Constitution so therefore states were not free … that states weren’t free to say that marriage had to be between a man and a woman,” the professor added.
“And the dissenters weren’t taking a view. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent was very explicit about that. He said those who want same-sex marriage, you have every right to lobby in state legislatures to make that happen. But the dissent’s view was that it wasn’t for the Court to decide, that the Constitution didn’t speak to the question and so that it was a change that should occur through the legislative process and indeed many states were already moving in that direction in making legislative changes,” Barrett concluded.
IN OTHER WORDS....
If the Senate confirms Amy Coney Barrett, she and the other originalists on the Supreme Court would not pose a threat to same-sex marriage. They would only pose a threat to the idea that it was right for the Court to effectively create a new law as it did in Obergefell v. Hodges.
LET’s LOOK AT JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT’s REASONING:
These fears suggest a misunderstanding of the way the Supreme Court works — or, in Buttigieg’s case, likely a deliberate twisting of the facts.
Amy Coney Barrett has criticized the Obergefell decision because it was a horrendously wrong decision. That does not mean, however, that she will issue a ruling from on high declaring that all gay marriage is illegal. In fact, she suggested Obergefell wasn’t about same-sex marriage but about who decides whether states can define marriage as between one man and one woman.
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) condemned Barrett for defending the dissenters on Obergefell, linking to a video of Barrett speaking about the case right before the 2016 election. In quoting Barrett’s video, HRC fell into the very trap that Barrett warned against in that video.
Then a Notre Dame law professor, Barrett warned that “voters generally see the headlines in newspapers,” such as “Court decides in favor of same-sex marriage.”
“It leaves voters with the impression that justices and judges are just casting votes based on the policy results that they prefer,” she said.
“On Obergefell, this is the New York Times’ headline problem,” Barrett explained. She lamented that the media and even her students were “presenting it as a vote on the Court for or against same-sex marriage. But that’s not what the opinion was about.”
“What the opinion was about was who gets to decide whether we have same-sex marriage or not, with the majority saying that it was a right guaranteed by the Constitution so therefore states were not free … that states weren’t free to say that marriage had to be between a man and a woman,” the professor added.
“And the dissenters weren’t taking a view. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent was very explicit about that. He said those who want same-sex marriage, you have every right to lobby in state legislatures to make that happen. But the dissent’s view was that it wasn’t for the Court to decide, that the Constitution didn’t speak to the question and so that it was a change that should occur through the legislative process and indeed many states were already moving in that direction in making legislative changes,” Barrett concluded.
IN OTHER WORDS....
If the Senate confirms Amy Coney Barrett, she and the other originalists on the Supreme Court would not pose a threat to same-sex marriage. They would only pose a threat to the idea that it was right for the Court to effectively create a new law as it did in Obergefell v. Hodges.
if Pete thinks Amy is bad, wait until he stands before God to explain his choice.
Same as with the Fraud’s DeathCare.
Freaks gonna be freaky.
If these morons knew anything about how cases work their way maybe there would be some understanding. Until a case if adjudicated by all the lower courts it then may be taken up by the supreme’s. And only then!
Anything for attention. Narcissists.
Except for the fact that because it’s STILL not law - a court can reverse the decision and the gaystapo KNOW this.
Gay marriage means without God, and no commitments. It’s for the “financial and legal benefits”. Not marriage, therefore.
If Barrett is confirmed we still won’t have a conservative court.
Gorsuch has already decided that civil rights extend to whatever particular perversion is practiced.
Silly. She will have nothing to do with this sort of thing.
This is not in trouble. Nothing will change. I cannot believe the drama queens pushing false information out there, and the ignorant people who believe it all
Right, ACB will single-handedly end “gay” marriages the day after she’s confirmed.
And we're supposed to be happy to note that the former decision was not about gay marriage but about states rights?
So we conservatives are supposed to be OK with gay marriage so long as it is decided at the state level rather than national level?
It appears that the far right's criticism of conservatism is spot on: conservatism is just a shadow chasing closely behind liberalism and applying a gentle breaking on our "forward progress" over the cliff. We wouldn't want to scare the passengers in the back by letting the train go too quickly after all.
Like Roe V. Wade, it should be eliminated.
Back in the 1990s and 2000s, “gay marriage” was on the ballot in a few states, and was nearly always defeated. Then along came the social-engineering US Supreme Court, and declared it, by fiat, across the land.
Fricking degenerate narcissists
Conservatives haven’t conserved much in the last 20 to 40 years.
"Marriage" in the United States is no more than a tax stamp of approval from the local government. Real marriages are condoned in a Church.
So why the fuss over 2 guys getting married? or 2 women?
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.