Supreme Court to decide this week whether to rule on gay marriage

posted at 7:46 pm on November 26, 2012 by Allahpundit

Belated good news for those of you who were disappointed in gay marriage’s victories at the polls on election day: Those victories may have inadvertently saved the prohibitions on gay marriage in other states.

For awhile, at least.

Usually, the justices are inclined to vote to hear a case if they disagree with the lower court ruling. The most conservative justices — Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — almost certainly think the 9th Circuit’s ruling was dubious. Scalia, for example, says the “equal protection” clause, added to the Constitution after the Civil War, aimed to stop racial discrimination and nothing more. He often insists the justices are not authorized to give a contemporary interpretation to phrases such as “equal protection.”

If Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joins the other three, the conservatives would have the needed four votes to hear the Proposition 8 case.

They may hesitate. To form a majority, they would need Kennedy, the author of the court’s two strongest gay rights rulings. His 2003 opinion struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law and said the state could not “demean” gays by treating them as second-class citizens. Five months later, the Massachusetts high court, citing Kennedy’s opinion, became the first to rule that gays and lesbians had a right to marry.

There are actually a bunch of cases they could vote to take up, from Prop 8 to various DOMA challenges. Kennedy has written not one but two landmark opinions on gay rights so it’s highly likely that he’ll vote with the Court’s liberals to form a majority if/when those issues finally land before them. In other words, how the Court will eventually rule is less of a mystery than whether they’ll choose to intervene in this subject at all; Friday’s vote on whether to grant cert and accept the cases is therefore momentous.

But wait. If you only need four votes to grant cert and if Kennedy’s opinion that the Equal Protection Clause protects gay marriage is all but assured, then why don’t the four liberals on the Court force the issue by voting to take the Prop 8 case? Answer: For the moment, it’s bad strategy. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, February 2012:

At the time of Roe v. Wade, abortion was legal on request in four states, allowed under limited circumstances in about 16 others, and outlawed under nearly all circumstances in the other states, including Texas – where the Roe case originated.

Alluding to the persisting bitter debate over abortion, Ginsburg said the justices of that era could have delayed hearing any case like Roe while the state-by-state process evolved. Alternatively, she said, they could have struck down just the Texas law, which allowed abortions only to save a mother’s life, without declaring a right to privacy that legalized the procedure nationwide.

“The court made a decision that made every abortion law in the country invalid, even the most liberal,” Ginsburg said. “We’ll never know whether I’m right or wrong … things might have turned out differently if the court had been more restrained.”

“It’s not that the judgment was wrong,” she said of Roe, “but it moved too far too fast.” Same logic here: If there’s momentum for your side of the issue at the polls, why risk igniting a backlash by taking it out of voters’ hands? The best thing gay-rights advocates can do to build popular acceptance of SSM is let it accrue democratic legitimacy. Some, in fact, have been warning Ted Olson and David Boies to knock it off with the court challenges for years in the interest of not judicially short-circuiting the process of public acceptance. If Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington had voted differently three weeks ago, those same advocates might have given up hope of winning at the polls and resigned themselves to court battles. Now, though, they know they can win — in some states. And the gay-rights supporters on the Court know it too. So maybe on Friday the conservative wing votes not to take the Prop 8 case because they suspect Kennedy will vote against them and maybe the liberal wing votes not to take the case because, following Ginsburg’s logic, they don’t want to taint SSM as something that was imposed by judicial fiat.

Two potential problems, though. First, the Ninth Circuit, which includes Idaho and Montana, has already ruled against Prop 8 and in favor of gay marriage, which means we’re already seeing federal appellate courts hand down pro-SSM rulings to districts that presumably trend anti. It’s true that the Ninth Circuit’s decision was written narrowly, restricted to California presumably in hopes that that would leave the Supreme Court more inclined not to overturn it, but a federal district court in the Circuit’s redder states might end up applying the case as precedent anyway. And even if they don’t, some other appellate circuit is bound to force SCOTUS’s hand eventually by issuing a more sweeping ruling on the subject. The Supremes can only hold back on this for so long before clarity from the top will be required. Second, at what point will “enough” democratic legitimacy accrue to SSM via victories at the polls before gay-rights advocates start pushing again for a constitutional ruling that will legalize it everywhere? Imagine if we end up with an even split among states, 25 apiece, with half banning gay marriage and half legalizing. A triumph of federalism! — except that, at that point, Olson and Boies or whoever’s leading the charge will go back to the Court and claim that gay marriage is now widely accepted enough as a basic right that the 25 holdout states should be compelled under the Equal Protection Clause to legalize it too. In other words, the “democratic” strategy is really just a way of building up the legal case long-term for judicially imposed SSM. In that case, maybe SSM opponents should hope that the Court takes it up now. If Kennedy does as expected and sides with the liberals, traditionalists will at least have a new milestone of judicial usurpation to point to as a rallying point for political mobilization. Good lord, the politics of this are convoluted.

Exit question: Say, is that Morgan Freeman?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

True conservatives and Christians will be hoping/praying this isn’t Roe 2.0.

Pseudoconservatives, liberals, and pawns of the gayfia should hope they don’t get what they think they want.

MelonCollie on November 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM

FIRTHST!!!

abobo on November 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM

MelonCollie on November 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Dammit melonhead! I was trying to be clever.

abobo on November 26, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Supreme Court to decide this week whether to rule on gay marriage

They’re deciding whether to decide???

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 26, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Dammit melonhead! I was trying to be clever.

abobo on November 26, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Lol, sorry!

They’re deciding whether to decide???

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 26, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Yep. And it’s as lame as it sounds; in a sane world cases would either be accepted or rejected without all the waffling.

MelonCollie on November 26, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Doesn’t matter…they’ll find it constitutional.

changer1701 on November 26, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Doesn’t matter…they’ll find it constitutional.

changer1701 on November 26, 2012 at 7:53 PM

…that’s my gut feeling, dreadful as the consequences will be.

If they punt on the decision we get a reprieve for now. But if they say “okay we’ll rule on it”…I would not be surprised at all for them to declare the dog’s tail a leg.

MelonCollie on November 26, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Yep. And it’s as lame as it sounds; in a sane world cases would either be accepted or rejected without all the waffling.

MelonCollie on November 26, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Sheesh. Just toss it back to the states already…not that there’s anything wrong with that.

;)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 26, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Sheesh. Just toss it back to the states already…not that there’s anything wrong with that.

;)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 26, 2012 at 8:00 PM

I want nothing more than for this to remain a state issue, as abortion should be. Let the Demoncrat states vote in whatever insanity they please and pay for it themselves.

MelonCollie on November 26, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Belated good news for those of you who were disappointed in gay marriage’s victories at the polls on election day: Those victories may have inadvertently saved the prohibitions on gay marriage in other states.

Hardly. I’m betting SCOTUS will take it up and mandate gay marriage in all 50 states.

And in another 20 years, we’ll be seeing the same thing when it comes to polygamy. Bank on it.

Stoic Patriot on November 26, 2012 at 8:04 PM

On the bright side…
Less Americans needing free contraceptives, sterilization or abortions..

My premiums should go down.

/

Electrongod on November 26, 2012 at 8:05 PM

I really wish the conservative movement would rally to get government out of marriage altogether.

blatantblue on November 26, 2012 at 8:05 PM

its gonna get ugly. wait till they start sueing catholic churches for refusing to officiate “marriage” ceremonies in the church. its an express violation of catholic faith. another religious freedom war is on the way

katee bayer on November 26, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Hardly. I’m betting SCOTUS will take it up and mandate gay marriage in all 50 states.

And in another 20 years, we’ll be seeing the same thing when it comes to polygamy. Bank on it.

Stoic Patriot on November 26, 2012 at 8:04 PM

I’d be amazed if polygamy took that long. Mormons will pile on that bandwagon in a heartbeat, then all the little splinter sects will follow their lead.

Might be two decades before we move on to people marrying their housepets.

MelonCollie on November 26, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Just because a case is scheduled for conference doesn’t mean the court will make a timely decision to grant/deny cert. They can “relist it” for a later date or just do nothing. I’m still waiting for them to take some action on cases originally scheduled for conference 9 weeks ago.

Blake on November 26, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Polygamy / polyandry, ho!

Pederasty, ho!

Consanguineous marriage, ho!

Ho ho ho!

It must be LGBT Christmas!

profitsbeard on November 26, 2012 at 8:08 PM

I really wish the conservative movement would rally to get government out of marriage altogether.

blatantblue on November 26, 2012 at 8:05 PM

We want it at the state level, which is where it belongs.

its gonna get ugly. wait till they start sueing catholic churches for refusing to officiate “marriage” ceremonies in the church. its an express violation of catholic faith. another religious freedom war is on the way

katee bayer on November 26, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Exactly. That’s something jake-full-of-sh!t and his cronies won’t recognize until a family member is being sued or their church is being picketed.

MelonCollie on November 26, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Exit question: Say, is that Morgan Freeman?
===========================================

I notice,BrokeBack Mountian in the foreground of the video!

(Le sarc)

canopfor on November 26, 2012 at 8:09 PM

I mean, its going to happen one way or another. I don’t get why conservatives like to ride crap to the end and look like the party completely out of touch with the people, when in fact a VAST majority of Americans agree with us on fiscal issues. But no, just keep riding on social conservatism.

thphilli on November 26, 2012 at 8:10 PM

…that’s my gut feeling, dreadful as the consequences will be.

If they punt on the decision we get a reprieve for now. But if they say “okay we’ll rule on it”…I would not be surprised at all for them to declare the dog’s tail a leg.

MelonCollie on November 26, 2012 at 7:59 PM

The ObamaCare decision convinced me that SCOTUS cares more about the opinion of the pundit class, of their “image”, than what the Constitution actually says. Wouldn’t be surprised at all if they took up the case, either, rather than wait.

changer1701 on November 26, 2012 at 8:11 PM

I mean, its going to happen one way or another. I don’t get why conservatives like to ride crap to the end and look like the party completely out of touch with the people

thphilli on November 26, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Hey clueless: we’re not the ones ‘riding’ anything! The gay activists and liberals are the ones on the offensive. We’re fighting a defensive battle, and it’s not going too well at that.

MelonCollie on November 26, 2012 at 8:11 PM

I really wish the conservative movement would rally to get government out of marriage altogether.

blatantblue on November 26, 2012 at 8:05 PM

blatantblue:

Yup,it takes the Hammer away,from those/them/they,who want
smack the GOP,every chance they get,on same-sex marriage!

One less political problem!:)

canopfor on November 26, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Why yes, Allahpundit, those are the dulcet tones of Morgan Freeman! Watching the ad, I had the overwhelming urge to watch “March of the Penguins” again.

:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 26, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Le Ugh!!

LGBT activists urge Newark mayor to challenge GOP governor Chris Christie
Filed: Monday, November 26, 2012
********************************

TRENTON, N.J. — LGBT activists are pledging support for Newark mayor Cory Booker should he decided to run for Governor of New Jersey, and the head of the state’s largest LGBT advocacy group promised to go “door-to-door” to raise money for his gubernatorial campaign.

Democratic party strategists note that Christie handed the party a campaign issue by vetoing a same-sex marriage bill earlier this year, and that the LGBT community contributed millions of dollars to same-sex ballot measures nationally that produced historic victories in four states and helped re-elect President Barack Obama.(More…)
===============

canopfor on November 26, 2012 at 8:16 PM

I mean, its going to happen one way or another. I don’t get why conservatives like to ride crap to the end and look like the party completely out of touch with the people, when in fact a VAST majority of Americans agree with us on fiscal issues. But no, just keep riding on social conservatism.

thphilli on November 26, 2012 at 8:10 PM

LOL.

If the vast majority of Americans don’t care about social issues and care about fiscal issues, why did they vote for the complete and total fiscal disaster that is Barack Obama and the Obama Party?

Answer: They want free sh*t without having to pay for it — and rather than say that, they make up stupid excuses about abortion or gay-sex marriage or whatnot.

This whole “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” situation is utter crap. They’re not fiscally conservative; they’re cowardly social liberals who think having someone else pay for their abortions and forcing churches to perform gay-sex marriages justify the Federal government running trillion-dollar deficits in perpetuity.

northdallasthirty on November 26, 2012 at 8:17 PM

They can call it whatever they want, it’s still not “marriage”.

GarandFan on November 26, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Despite what I may want, it’s probably best for now if SCOTUS largely punts on these cases. After cases like Kelo and Obamacare it’s extremely difficult to predict just how the Court will rule if it even decides to take any of these cases. Perhaps punting on Prop 8 and Section 3 of DOMA (i.e. leaving lower court rulings in place) while upholding DOMA overall (add something like it’s “under scrutiny” or whatever) would be a fair enough split for now. I dunno, I just don’t see a complete win for either side. Small victories perhaps on some of the cases but not all of them. Eh, we’ll see. SCOTUS tends to defy predictions and the Justices are currently relishing in that.

JohnAGJ on November 26, 2012 at 8:22 PM

I could care less what they say. They now have the credibility of a pro-life democrat.

astonerii on November 26, 2012 at 8:23 PM

**Alert **

Woo-Hoo……..Lets take a victory where we’s can gets it!

Republican senators stop Sportsmen’s Act on budget violation; bill would increase access to federal land for hunters – @thehill

1 min ago from thehill.com by editor
=========================================

GOP stops Sportsmen’s bill on budget violation
By Ramsey Cox – 11/26/12 06:46 PM ET
************************************

Republicans stopped Sen. Jon Tester’s (D-Mont.) Sportsmen’s Act dead in its tracks Monday evening.

The Sportsmen’s Act, S. 3525, would have increased access to federal land for hunters and fishermen, while also supporting conservation measures, but Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) raised a budget point of order, saying Tester’s bill violated the Budget Control Act.

Democrats tried to waive the budget point of order, but the motion failed on a 50-34 vote – 60 votes were needed.(More…)
======================================================

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/269443-gop-stops-sportmens-bill-on-budget-violation

canopfor on November 26, 2012 at 8:24 PM

This cannot be a states rights issue.

If they are not eligible for federal spousal bennies then it’s just another day in AmeriKKKa. (Yes they have made that argument and will continue to).

CorporatePiggy on November 26, 2012 at 8:29 PM

I think we have bigger worries than teh gaeighs getting married. My personal opinion – “civil unions aren’t good enough? phuck ‘em, stupid whiny babies.”

Unfortunately for those adamantly opposed to gay marriage, John Roberts might continue to court the NYTimes and go full blown libtard.

Slade73 on November 26, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Anthony Effing Kennedy…

DavidW on November 26, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Sheesh. Just toss it back to the states already…not that there’s anything wrong with that.

;)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 26, 2012 at 8:00 P

Thread Winnah !!! That’s exactly what will happen…and should,LCV.

DevilsPrinciple on November 26, 2012 at 8:40 PM

canopfor on November 26, 2012 at 8:24 PM

LOL.

Interesting call. Somehow I suspect it has nothing to do with Budget control, if Congress was truly interested in such foibles they would all have committed hari kiri en-masse decades ago.

CorporatePiggy on November 26, 2012 at 8:41 PM

If the vast majority of Americans don’t care about social issues and care about fiscal issues, why did they vote for the complete and total fiscal disaster that is Barack Obama and the Obama Party?

Answer: They want free sh*t without having to pay for it — and rather than say that, they make up stupid excuses about abortion or gay-sex marriage or whatnot.

This whole “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” situation is utter crap. They’re not fiscally conservative; they’re cowardly social liberals who think having someone else pay for their abortions and forcing churches to perform gay-sex marriages justify the Federal government running trillion-dollar deficits in perpetuity.

northdallasthirty on November 26, 2012 at 8:17 PM

I work with young people, and many, many, many, many of them are 110% for gay marriage because they’ve been told it’s a civil right. And who would be against civil rights, you racist! But they are not enthusiastic about people getting free stuff for nothing while they’re trying to work their way up disintegrating job ladders. But remember, Obama campaigns like a centrist most of the time. Since they don’t pay attention, they don’t know anything is amiss.

The left wins every disagreement because they are wildly successful at turning our ideas into racism, discrimination, hate speech, and whatever else sounds like it would make you an instant pariah. No one wants to be associated with anything like that.

Plus, you have to remember that young voters are on social media constantly, and that allows the vocal, liberal minority to have an idealogical monopoly in those formats where sticking your neck out as a “hater” or “racist” or “bigot” or whatever is risky to your social and professional life. Kids who haven’t thought about these things just go along with what’s popular and doesn’t get them branded as something negative.

That’s why people are saying it’s time to drop the strong opposition to gay marriage. Not supporting it, but not letting them use it as ammo. I’m inclined to believe this is like amnesty, though, and the dems will just find another way to lie their way into office.

The problem is that it’s hard for young voters to listen to your other ideas when they’re convinced by pretty much everyone that you’re full of hate. We just need a way to neuter that, and no one has one. I say we just turn the hate accusations right back on them. Dems have dirty, bigoted pasts according to the current standards, but no one talks about them. Let’s drag out that picture of Algore and the Phelps family. And remind everyone that Barry only came around to gay marriage in an election year after a Biden gaffe. Playing dirty might be surprisingly fun.

gatsbysgirlontheside on November 26, 2012 at 8:43 PM

SCOTUS doesn’t want Obama to shout at them again in the State of the (Civil) Union, so they will side with the liberals, with token dissent from Scalia and Thomas. Roberts will wave a pretzel to explain his reasoning, as he did with Obamacare.

virgo on November 26, 2012 at 8:45 PM

I mean, its going to happen one way or another. I don’t get why conservatives like to ride crap to the end and look like the party completely out of touch with the people

thphilli on November 26, 2012 at 8:10 PM

So what you are saying is that 51% of this population voted against bettering themselves financially because less than 3% of the population can’t marry.. Yeah don’t buy it..

melle1228 on November 26, 2012 at 8:45 PM

This whole “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” situation is utter crap. They’re not fiscally conservative; they’re cowardly social liberals who think having someone else pay for their abortions and forcing churches to perform gay-sex marriages justify the Federal government running trillion-dollar deficits in perpetuity.

northdallasthirty on November 26, 2012 at 8:17 PM

\

++++

melle1228 on November 26, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Sheesh. Just toss it back to the states already…not that there’s anything wrong with that.

;)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 26, 2012 at 8:00 P

Totally agree, but I am a social con. It isn’t social cons who are trying to take it away from the states.

Hey clueless: we’re not the ones ‘riding’ anything! The gay activists and liberals are the ones on the offensive. We’re fighting a defensive battle, and it’s not going too well at that.

MelonCollie on November 26, 2012 at 8:11 PM

This ^^^

melle1228 on November 26, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Plus, you have to remember that young voters are on social media constantly, and that allows the vocal, liberal minority to have an idealogical monopoly in those formats where sticking your neck out as a “hater” or “racist” or “bigot” or whatever is risky to your social and professional life.

gatsbysgirlontheside on November 26, 2012 at 8:43 PM

This is a big reason I refuse to have any account on just about every social media place in existence. My FakeBook profile has no comments, no timeline, no nothing, just a couple linked friends.

I may have gotten in hot water for saying one thing or another IRL…but at least nobody can find what I said and link it to me on a Google search. Or illegally get my FB data and scrutinize all my friends and connections.

MelonCollie on November 26, 2012 at 8:57 PM

True Conservatives want Big Government out of everybody’s private lives so they think Government banning Gay Marriage is ridiculous.

Southern Evangelical Wackjobs, claim to be Conservative but want Big Brother to ban things they find to be “icky.”

TEPJoePa on November 26, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Might be two decades before we move on to people marrying their housepets.

MelonCollie on November 26, 2012 at 8:08 PM

A wee too hard to get written consent.

Archivarix on November 26, 2012 at 9:05 PM

True Conservatives want Big Government out of everybody’s private lives so they think Government banning Gay Marriage is ridiculous.

So what you are saying is that in order to be “small government”-you have to be for BIG government recognizing and legalizing more private relationships.

LMAO1

melle1228 on November 26, 2012 at 9:07 PM

A wee too hard to get written consent.

Archivarix on November 26, 2012 at 9:05 PM

By then they will only require a paw stamp :)

melle1228 on November 26, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Southern Evangelical Wackjobs, claim to be Conservative but want Big Brother to ban things they find to be “icky.”

TEPJoePa on November 26, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Oh and BTW, a ban is usually on something that once was legal. Gay marriage has never been legal i.e., the ban has ALWAYS been in place even before “southern evangelical wackjobs.”

melle1228 on November 26, 2012 at 9:10 PM

canopfor on November 26, 2012 at 8:24 PM

LOL.

Interesting call. Somehow I suspect it has nothing to do with Budget control, if Congress was truly interested in such foibles they would all have committed hari kiri en-masse decades ago.

CorporatePiggy on November 26, 2012 at 8:41 PM

CorporatePeggy:Lol,the Great Purgation:)

canopfor on November 26, 2012 at 9:12 PM

True Conservatives want Big Government out of everybody’s private lives so they think Government banning Gay Marriage is ridiculous.

Southern Evangelical Wackjobs, claim to be Conservative but want Big Brother to ban things they find to be “icky.”

TEPJoePa on November 26, 2012 at 9:04 PM

So “true conservatives” also think government banning child, incestuous, plural, and animal marriage is ridiculous?

Here’s an easy way to explain it.

- When opposite-sex people couple, they produce children

- Children have no ability to care for themselves and no legal identity or ability to enter into legal agreements

- Parents are charged with the task of providing children care and acting as their legal proxies/guardians until they reach age

- Marriage exists to a) simplify the taking on of this task and b) provide encouragement and financial incentive for people to do so

- Since gay and lesbian couplings do not produce children under any circumstances, it is thus a relationship exclusively of two adults

- Adults have the ability to care for themselves and the ability to enter into legal agreements without proxies.

- Since both participants in a same-sex relationship are adults with the capability to care for themselves, and there is no chance of children being produced under any circumstances, there is no need for simplification, encouragement, or financial incentive.

- If there is no need, given that resources are finite, they should be directed first at the relationships with need, not the ones that don’t have need.

That’s it. Plain and simple.

northdallasthirty on November 26, 2012 at 9:13 PM

northdallasthirty on November 26, 2012 at 9:13 PM

I’m still getting over his use of Conservative(to conserve) not to change which would be Progressive.. In the words of Inigo Montoya:

“”You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

melle1228 on November 26, 2012 at 9:17 PM

True Conservatives want Big Government out of everybody’s private lives so they think Government banning Gay Marriage is ridiculous.

Southern Evangelical Wackjobs, claim to be Conservative but want Big Brother to ban things they find to be “icky.”

TEPJoePa on November 26, 2012 at 9:04 PM

So no child support, alimony, visitation rights, no-fault divorce, or anything like that right?

If you REALLY want government out of the marriage business.

sharrukin on November 26, 2012 at 9:21 PM

northdallasthirty

So a straight couple that is unable to have children due to biological reasons or choose not to, should not be allowed to marry? And that is “Conservatism?”

TEPJoePa on November 26, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Take out the Earth is only 6,000 years old mentality. What “Conservative” principles make Big Brother getting involved in Marriage and/or the consensual decision of consenting adults acceptable?

TEPJoePa on November 26, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Take out the Earth is only 6,000 years old mentality. What “Conservative” principles make Big Brother getting involved in Marriage and/or the consensual decision of consenting adults acceptable?

TEPJoePa on November 26, 2012 at 9:24 PM

You aren’t making an rational sense. Taking government out of decisions of consenting adults has already been done see Lawrence v. Texas. And any gay couple can go to a lawyer and draw up documents to become partners.

What YOU want is to get Big brother MORE involved in private relationships. You do realize that that is what marriage is right? Big brother MORE involved in those relationships.

melle1228 on November 26, 2012 at 9:27 PM

<blockquote>Take out the Earth is only 6,000 years old mentality. What “Conservative” principles make Big Brother getting involved in Marriage and/or the consensual decision of consenting adults acceptable?

TEPJoePa on November 26, 2012 at 9:24 PM

And can someone tell me why gay marriage supporters are the biggest bigots? I mean they are suppose to be for equality and tolerance, but have none for anyone else.

melle1228 on November 26, 2012 at 9:28 PM

That’s it. Plain and simple.

northdallasthirty on November 26, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Stop with the racist and sexist and homophobic rationality!

profitsbeard on November 26, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Southern Evangelical Wackjobs, claim to be Conservative but want Big Brother to ban things they find to be “icky.”

TEPJoePa

So if you’re for banning murder and rape, you’re a Southern Evangelical Wackjob? I’m guessing you’re one of those morons who believes Conservatives are anarchists. Limited government means limited government, doofus. It does not mean zero government.

xblade on November 26, 2012 at 9:39 PM

And can someone tell me why gay marriage supporters are the biggest bigots? I mean they are suppose to be for equality and tolerance, but have none for anyone else.

melle1228

In TEP’s case, I suspect he’s suffering brain damage from lot’s of anal sex.

xblade on November 26, 2012 at 9:43 PM

I think Allahpundit might be wrong about Anthony Kennedy on this. If I remember correctly, Kennedy specifically said in his Lawrence decision that it was not offering an opinion on gay marriage. Besides, Kennedy has swung right since, authoring Citizens United, and reading the Obamacare dissent which he embraced. The Supreme Court is unlikely to uphold the 9th circuits Prop 8 ruling (DOMA could be another matter) because if they did they would be accepting Rheinhardt’s opinion that the people of a state cannot amend their constitution to circumvent a state supreme court ruling. That would mean that the state court system could halt all amendments merely by ruling first. Given Rheinhardt’s reputation in the Supreme Court, that is very unlikely, as even most pro gay marriage folks acknowledge. As I say, Section 3 of DOMA might be something else again, but using Robert’s logic in the Obamacare case, the court is obligated to find a congressional statue constitutional even if it has to stretch its logic.

senor on November 26, 2012 at 9:48 PM

MelonCollie on November 26, 2012 at 8:08 PM

There is no serious movement that is trying to make polygamy legal.

This whole “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” situation is utter crap. They’re not fiscally conservative; they’re cowardly social liberals who think having someone else pay for their abortions and forcing churches to perform gay-sex marriages justify the Federal government running trillion-dollar deficits in perpetuity.

northdallasthirty on November 26, 2012 at 8:17 PM

How would those dern gays force you to pay for their abortion when they — as you noted in another comment — they can’t reproduce? Also, how do you feel about straight women who are unable to conceive getting married? By your standards, they shouldn’t be allowed to get married either. Also, in most (if not all) of the states where gay marriage is put on the ballot, the proposition usually has a clause where churches are protected from gay marriage (having to have the ceremony or even recognizing it).

Ian on November 26, 2012 at 9:52 PM

senor on November 26, 2012 at 9:48 PM

You are assuming that they actually follow the Constitution and I don’t see that happening.

I think the gay mafia has done such a good job at demonizing gay marriage opponents as backwards and homophobic(akin to racists) then the squishy justices on our side are more apt to vote for gay marriage because they don’t want to be viewed badly by history.

DOMA will probably not last, but that is going to open the court up to more litigation where state vs. state and gay marriage propenents moving to states that don’t recognize it just to fight it in court.

melle1228 on November 26, 2012 at 9:54 PM

There is no serious movement that is trying to make polygamy legal.

If it is unconstitutional for a state to regulate marriage then polygamy is just a lawsuit away and it doesn’t matter what movements are out there.. It takes one.

How would those dern gays force you to pay for their abortion when they — as you noted in another comment — they can’t reproduce? Also, how do you feel about straight women who are unable to conceive getting married? By your standards, they shouldn’t be allowed to get married either. Also, in most (if not all) of the states where gay marriage is put on the ballot

Sterile diagnosises are highly unreliable so the state has an interest in recognizing those union in case they do have children.

the proposition usually has a clause where churches are protected from gay marriage (having to have the ceremony or even recognizing it).

And isn’t it funny how gay marriage supporter fight those clauses.. If they don’t want to force their views on the church- why are they fighting those clauses?

melle1228 on November 26, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Sterile diagnosises are highly unreliable so the state has an interest in recognizing those union in case they do have children.

WWe’re talking about a woman who can’t have children, tested or not. The point is, if she can’t have children after years of trying, then she shouldn’t be able to get married by your standards. Your point is that one of the reasons for marriage is reproducing, no?

And isn’t it funny how gay marriage supporter fight those clauses.. If they don’t want to force their views on the church- why are they fighting those clauses?

Actually, it’s the gay marriage supporter WHO puts it in there so they don’t offend religious institutions, usually. Regardless, most gays I know in favor of gay marriage wouldn’t dream of having their wedding in a Catholic church. They’d mostly rather have no wedding or a non-denominational ceremony.

Ian on November 26, 2012 at 10:16 PM

By the way — I don’t believe in the Supreme Court or the federal government deciding gay marriage for the states.

Ian on November 26, 2012 at 10:18 PM

melle1228
Well, you could be right of course. As Ann Coulter said about Sandra Day O’Connor, “Ours always go bad.” Still, given the 40 year blowback from Roe, the absolute hatred that the majority of SCOTUS has toward Stephen Reinhardt, plus the precedent it would be setting about amending state constitutions, I am not yet ready to despair about this. I think a lot more states than 9 are going to have to legalize ssm before the court constitutionalizes it. Note to Ian: there are already several lawsuits in the pipeline challenging polygamy laws, one of them filed by Jonathan Turley, constitutional law prof at GWU and talking head. I do agree that if ssm is constitutionalized, religious liberty will be obliterated because gays will begin challenging the tax exempt status of institutions who don’t recognize it.

senor on November 26, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Actually, it’s the gay marriage supporter WHO puts it in there so they don’t offend religious institutions, usually.

Ian on November 26, 2012 at 10:16 PM

So there should be no laws regarding polygamy (some Mormon sects/Islam), incest (birth control and abortion), or even underage marriage (age 9) like they have in other cultures (Islam) because we wouldn’t want to impose our morality on them?

sharrukin on November 26, 2012 at 10:21 PM

WWe’re talking about a woman who can’t have children, tested or not. The point is, if she can’t have children after years of trying, then she shouldn’t be able to get married by your standards. Your point is that one of the reasons for marriage is reproducing, no?

And I am telling you that I know several women who couldn’t have children for years and suddenly turned up pregnant. The state has an interest in recognizing those unions in case of pregnancy. Conception of children was the point of marriage until the feel good 1960′s made marriage obsolete and the government daddy. There is a reason why you can annul a marriage if the person is impotent. Or you can annul for fraud if the person turns out to be sterile and knew it.

Actually, it’s the gay marriage supporter WHO puts it in there so they don’t offend religious institutions, usually. Regardless, most gays I know in favor of gay marriage wouldn’t dream of having their wedding in a Catholic church. They’d mostly rather have no wedding or a non-denominational ceremony.

Ian on November 26, 2012 at 10:16 PM

Yeah and it was gay marriage supporters who also cried foul.. Claiming that no religious protection was needed etc. If they didn’t believe it was needed- why fight it?

By the way — I don’t believe in the Supreme Court or the federal government deciding gay marriage for the states.

So you agree with most socons.. State marriage should be left to the states and supporters or opponents can move to those states that share their view. Incidentally it isn’t the socons who are taking away this state’s right..

melle1228 on November 26, 2012 at 10:24 PM

senor on November 26, 2012 at 10:19 PM

I hope you are right as well, but I just don’t have a lot of faith in SCOTUS. And I’d like to think that we have learned our lessen from Roe, but I don’t think we have. When courts push social change, that social change remains controversial. When society votes on it then opinions change.

We had this argument in another thread where Charlie and Zach talked about acceptance. If the court forces this, there won’t be acceptance- people will dig in like with Roe.

melle1228 on November 26, 2012 at 10:27 PM

To all those posting here,

The way to be fair to everyone and everyone to get what they want is simple, actually it benefits fiscal conservatives, but hey that is just a plus. Get rid of the income tax, and across the board consumption tax. No loopholes, no deductions, no head of the household none of that. You do that and the government is out of the equation all the way.

MarshFox on November 26, 2012 at 10:33 PM

My apologies, I meant “an” not “and”.

MarshFox on November 26, 2012 at 10:34 PM

un

Note to Ian: there are already several lawsuits in the pipeline challenging polygamy laws, one of them filed by Jonathan Turley, constitutional law prof at GWU and talking head. I do agree that if ssm is constitutionalized, religious liberty will be obliterated because gays will begin challenging the tax exempt status of institutions who don’t recognize it.

senor on November 26, 2012 at 10:19 PM

I knew about the polygamous lawsuits. I am even more flabbergasted by the number of psychology papers making the rounds that sex with children do not damage children- and the legal papers calling for the lowering of the abolition of the consent of minors. People like to cry foul on the “slippery slope” argument, but these people have never read some of the drivel being pushed in the law and psychology communities.

If people think the end game isn’t to completely restructure society then they are just not paying attention.

melle1228 on November 26, 2012 at 10:39 PM

lowering of *and the abolition of the consent

melle1228 on November 26, 2012 at 10:39 PM

If people think the end game isn’t to completely restructure society then they are just not paying attention.

melle1228 on November 26, 2012 at 10:39 PM

This stuff needs to be shoved in the faces of the idiotic CINO’s on the other threads whose philosophy boils down to “la la la la la, let’s all dance around the marriage-equality maypole, you evil homophobe”.

MelonCollie on November 26, 2012 at 10:54 PM

So a straight couple that is unable to have children due to biological reasons or choose not to, should not be allowed to marry? And that is “Conservatism?”

TEPJoePa on November 26, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Will you just drop this argument already? There are laws against who heterosexuals can marry also…not because of the individuals but because the relationship is morally wrong. Are you saying that a brother and sister beyond the age of fertility could get married? Aunt and nephew? Father and adopted step daughter?…Oh wait that already happened and we were all pretty grossed out about it.

monalisa on November 26, 2012 at 10:55 PM


Supreme Court to decide this week whether to rule on gay marriage

…and Roberts will surprise us…and decide to rule on bestiality instead!

KOOLAID2 on November 26, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Why can’t two brothers marry each other along with their mother?

They love one another!

And, after all, Love is the only thing that matters!

Why can’t four straight women marry?

Or six people, in a polymorphous combo of: one lesbian, two gay men, a trans-sexual, an hermaphrodite and a eunuch?

Love love love!

profitsbeard on November 26, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Religious View: God is against homosexual relationships. He’s pretty clear about that.
Darwin View: Evolution is solely for the continuation of a species.
Therefore, since homosexual relationships don’t continue the human race, it is wrong by both religious and Darwinism.
Supreme Court View: “It’s a tax!”

JimmyGee on November 27, 2012 at 1:43 AM

I think the emphasis on the idiosyncrasies of the Justices and the clear gamesmanship being employed kind of prove the actual argument being made by SSM-proponents is kind of lacking, right?

The constitution doesn’t require the creation of a law. Traditional marriage might not be inclusive enough in a society that is very tolerant of same-sex couples, but our understanding of marriage isn’t based on bigotry and hatred. Also, as it stands, “couples” do not possess rights. Men and women can marry people of the opposite sex in every state, and people of the same sex in some states, regardless of their sexual orientation. Neither men nor women are permitted or restricted in a way the other sex isn’t, so there is no sex discrimination in these laws.

jas88 on November 27, 2012 at 3:37 AM

religious liberty will be obliterated because gays will begin challenging the tax exempt status of institutions who don’t recognize it.

senor on November 26, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Huh. Didn’t realize that tax-exempt status was the central pillar of religious liberty.

Lehosh on November 27, 2012 at 7:58 AM

- Since gay and lesbian couplings do not produce children under any circumstances, it is thus a relationship exclusively of two adults

- Adults have the ability to care for themselves and the ability to enter into legal agreements without proxies.

- Since both participants in a same-sex relationship are adults with the capability to care for themselves, and there is no chance of children being produced under any circumstances, there is no need for simplification, encouragement, or financial incentive.

northdallasthirty on November 26, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Gee, you seem to have forgotten the circumstances of adopting a child, or one of the lesbians visiting a sperm bank and getting artificially inseminated.

I’m getting sick of the “you can’t biologically conceive, so no marriage for you” argument. Same-sex couples are raising kids, and the vast majority of those kids grow up well-adjusted. Those families deserve the same breaks as the traditional families.

TMOverbeck on November 27, 2012 at 8:03 AM

Why do people who are homosexual even want same-sex marriage when “normal” people have nearly destroyed traditional marriage all by themselves?

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 8:10 AM

melle1228:
I agree with virtually everything you said in your latest posts. Lehosh, I didn’t say that tax status is the “central pillar of religious liberty.” But I do think it will be easiest way for opponents of church policy to attempt to force them to change their attitude. And why not, by the way? If ssm is a constitutional right, like interracial marriage, why shouldn’t any institution that opposes it be punished? It’s a little bit like the Boy Scouts. Once the Supreme Court ruled they could ban gays, municipalities, particularly in the west, began prohibiting the scouts from using public property. I could see that happening to churches–not being allowed to rent parks for picnics, etc. Melle’s slippery slope is here.

senor on November 27, 2012 at 8:18 AM

Huh. Didn’t realize that tax-exempt status was the central pillar of religious liberty.

Lehosh on November 27, 2012 at 7:58 AM

Crippling religious institutions by repealing their tax-exempt status has been a long-awaited step in the liberal plan you ignorant yoyo. They just managed to skip ahead in their playbook and go straight to “fine and sue them for refusing to perform pervert marriage”, among other things.

MelonCollie on November 27, 2012 at 9:08 AM

If the pro-gay-marriage people were smart, they’d accept that some states would be happy with civil unions, and churches have every right to refuse service to them. You can’t just pick and choose what parts of the First Amendment to support. Hopefully the all-or-nothing crowd won’t have much of an influence.

TMOverbeck on November 27, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Sodom

Greece

Rome

America

Repeating history repeats.

PappyD61 on November 27, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Just imagine the effect on textbooks, civil society, churches, traditional families and how they will be viewed as “intolerant” by the media.

And the next frontier? Marrying Animals or minors.

America……….death spiral is thy name.

PappyD61 on November 27, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Hardly. I’m betting SCOTUS will take it up and mandate gay marriage in all 50 states.

And in another 20 years, we’ll be seeing the same thing when it comes to polygamy. Bank on it.

Stoic Patriot on November 26, 2012 at 8:04 PM

…..and why NOT?

Who are YOU to tell me what I can marry? It’s love to me and it’s not hurting anyone so back off you hypocrite and hater. You’re “intolerant”. And not only that if you WON’T MARRY ME/US then why should the state give you a license to DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ME?

Christian ministers are INTOLERANT because they won’t marry all of us lovers. Shouldn’t it be a crime to be intolerant?

What the media will be screaming in 5…..4…..3….

PappyD61 on November 27, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Supreme Court to decide this week whether it is God Almighty to rule on gay marriage

Akzed on November 27, 2012 at 10:59 AM

But no, just keep riding on social conservatism. thphilli, concern troll on November 26, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Why would you care what conservatives do?

Akzed on November 27, 2012 at 11:25 AM

And 99% of the people who voted for Obama interpreted all of what you said as “Derr, conservatives are mean anti-gay haters”.

I wish I could boil down complicated Federal vs State rights court cases as simple as some of the voters out there…

nextgen_repub on November 27, 2012 at 11:25 AM

I don’t get why they think Kennedy will automatically go for mandated SSM or even all the liberals. There is a larger issue here and that is one of limiting the power of the federal government. Something the Court, as shown by Obamacare, is loath to do.

Any ruling forcing SSM on all states also forces it on the federal government. Doing this will set an astounding precedent, which is to say that the Constitution demands that the actions of a state force the federal government to comply without any federal legislation. While the judges will certainly find a state has the power to define marriage as it chooses I think they will balk at a blanket mandate. If some state decides to offer more benefits, such as Health Care, and call it a right is the federal government now compelled to do the same? I don’t see SCOTUS agreeing to that.

Rocks on November 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM

The point is, if she can’t have children after years of trying, then she shouldn’t be able to get married by your standards. Ian on November 26, 2012 at 10:16 PM

No genius, by our standards she would try to have children for years AFTER marriage, not before, because she’d be virtuous. Then she’d already be married, see? See?

Akzed on November 27, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Why do people who are homosexual even want same-sex marriage when “normal” people have nearly destroyed traditional marriage all by themselves? SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 8:10 AM

To the degree that governments are made up of normal people, you’re right. It was liberalized divorce laws that gave us today’s divorce rates. In other words, government interference in marriage brought us to this, so let’s have some more government interference in marriage! Yay!

Akzed on November 27, 2012 at 11:41 AM

What a cow she is.

Schadenfreude on November 27, 2012 at 11:59 AM

I don’t get why they think Kennedy will automatically go for mandated SSM or even all the liberals. There is a larger issue here and that is one of limiting the power of the federal government. Something the Court, as shown by Obamacare, is loath to do.

Any ruling forcing SSM on all states also forces it on the federal government. Doing this will set an astounding precedent, which is to say that the Constitution demands that the actions of a state force the federal government to comply without any federal legislation. While the judges will certainly find a state has the power to define marriage as it chooses I think they will balk at a blanket mandate. If some state decides to offer more benefits, such as Health Care, and call it a right is the federal government now compelled to do the same? I don’t see SCOTUS agreeing to that.

Rocks on November 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Interesting take. Thanks.

cptacek on November 27, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Supreme Court to decide this week whether it is God Almighty to rule on gay marriage

Akzed on November 27, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Too bad you went full-bore idiot right after this post, because you’re dead on.

If SCOTUS was made up of God-fearing men and women, they’d reject this ruling straight out of hand because they don’t have the authority to make it.

Unfortunately that probably won’t be the case, and we’ll have a bunch of fools in robes and wigs presuming to ‘decide’ on something that cannot be changed.

MelonCollie on November 27, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Why can’t the government just issue civil union licenses and put an end to this. Then we can let churches and only churches marry.

And FYI, equating 2 gay people loving each other to someone marrying an animal does absolutely nothing to help the conservative cause in the eyes of potential voters. It’s the equivalent of a kiss-in where gay couples make out in front of 5 year olds in a restaurant and expect to gain new supporters.

nextgen_repub on November 27, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Too bad you went full-bore idiot right after this post, because you’re dead on. MelonCollie on November 27, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Huh. Please let me know how I’ve disappointed you.

Akzed on November 27, 2012 at 12:18 PM

You do that and the government is out of the equation all the way.

MarshFox on November 26, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Nope. Once you legalize homosexual marriage, the floodgates for sueing the relgious opens wide.

The goal of the progressive homosexual agenda doesn’t end with “marriage”, that’s only the beginning. They want to make any disapproval of the homosexual lifestyle a crime, as in England and Canada.

Rebar on November 27, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Now that Maine, Maryland and Washington have approved of gay marriage by referendum, the question to be asked is ………….. do the other 47 states have to recognize those marriages when people move to a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage?

SC.Charlie on November 27, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Why can’t the government just issue civil union licenses and put an end to this. Then we can let churches and only churches marry.

nextgen_repub on November 27, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Agreed completely. Government should only recognize the “contractual” aspect of marriage, regardless of whether it is traditional or gay marriage… two individuals of legally consenting adult age entering into a contract. That allows the state governments to handle what they need to handle in terms of child services and recognition of the responsible parties for child-rearing. Simply have the government not call anything marriage. Leave the term “marriage” to the churches where it belongs, and allow the churches to decide whom they are willing to marry. And yes, I’m sure some crazy gay rights group will want to sue to force churches to “marry” them, but any sane judge should then tell them to pound sand, the government doesn’t involve itself in “marriage” nor have any influence over church practices as guided by the First Amendment, only civil unions which any two adults are free to acquire.

The problem with the idea of government saying civil unions (for gays) = marriage (for straights) is that it still essentially defines them differently, even if it initially says they are equal. Any legislature could come along later and say they are changing the definition of one without changing the other, and then you go back to having two unequal things. It is the old “seperate but equal” concept which the SCOTUS shot down decades ago, because separate is never quite equal. If they are equal then there is no need to separate them, and if they are separate then they are open to redefinition to be unequal.

gravityman on November 27, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3