Reminder from Pennsylvania: The Supreme Court has already basically legalized gay marriage

posted at 7:21 pm on May 20, 2014 by Allahpundit

Yesterday’s ruling striking down Oregon’s gay-marriage ban came from an Obama appointee. Today’s ruling striking down Pennsylvania’s ban comes from a Bush appointee, one whose confirmation was backed by Rick Santorum no less. Different judges, different political leanings, a slightly different legal posture (Oregon’s ban was part of the state constitution, Pennsylvania’s was merely a state statute, although each state’s AG refused to defend the law in court), but none of it mattered.

Like McShane in Oregon, Jones provided for no stay of his ruling, meaning it goes into effect immediately — and same-sex couples should be able to apply for marriage licenses immediately, although there is a three-day waiting period to get the license…

As to his legal conclusion, Jones wrote, “[W]e hold that Pennsylvania’s Marriage Laws violate both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because these laws are unconstitutional, we shall enter an order permanently enjoining their enforcement. By virtue of this ruling, same-sex couples who seek to marry in Pennsylvania may do so, and already married same-sex couples will be recognized as such in the Commonwealth.”…

In the order, filed moments later, Jones wrote the state defendants are “permanently enjoined” from enforcing the ban. He provided for no stay of his order, meaning it is effective immediately.

Lest you think this was a case of a judge grudgingly applying precedent with which he disagrees, Jones concluded his opinion by writing, “We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history.” You can read the entire opinion here, but look: The precise rationale doesn’t much matter at this point. If you follow these cases, you know how the due process and equal protection arguments go by now. The significance of the Oregon and Pennsylvania rulings isn’t their legal reasoning, it’s the dramatic dual reminder that the controversy surrounding this issue is all but done as a matter of federal jurisprudence. You may yet see a very conservative appellate judge somewhere in the system uphold a gay-marriage ban over the next few years as SSM makes its way back up to the Supreme Court, but that’ll be an outlier. Judge after judge will continue to strike down these bans, from the northwest to the northeast to the deep south. You know why? Because Anthony Kennedy left them little choice. Remember the key passages from last year’s Windsor decision, in which the Court ruled a part of DOMA unconstitutional:

DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives…

What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

Technically that ruling applied only to DOMA, a federal statute, and not to any state marriage bans. Technically you can read Kennedy as saying that it’s up to each state to decide whether gay couples should enjoy the “dignity and integrity of the person” that comes with having their marriage formally recognized. If a state wants to ban those marriages, so much for dignity and integrity. In reality, though, it’s a snap for lower-court judges to extend Kennedy’s logic to state bans on gay marriage too. If the Constitution protects gays’ moral and sexual choices, as Kennedy affirms, then their choice to marry logically is also constitutionally protected. Which means, by definition, that state bans are unconstitutional. Scalia, dissenting in the Windsor case, saw it coming from a mile away:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status…

By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition. Henceforth those challengers will lead with this Court’s declaration that there is “no legitimate purpose” served by such a law, and will claim that the traditional definition has “the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure” the “personhood and dignity” of same-sex couples, see ante, at 25, 26. The majority’s limiting assurance will be meaningless in the face of language like that, as the majority well knows. That is why the language is there. The result will be a judicial distortion of our society’s debate over marriage—a debate that can seem in need of our clumsy “help” only to a member of this institution.

In other words, said Scalia, the takeaway from the Windsor decision for lower-court judges wouldn’t be “the states can do what they like and the feds must comply with what each state decides,” it would be “gays have a fundamental liberty interest in marriage that no government, federal or state, may infringe.” What you’ve seen over the past few months in the drumbeat of pro-SSM federal rulings is Scalia being proved right. By the time the Supreme Court is asked to decide whether states can bay gay marriage, Kennedy will have a few dozen lower-court precedents implementing his Windsor reasoning to cite as support when he inevitably decides that gay marriage must be legal everywhere. Which, to give him his due, is tactically clever: He was understandably reluctant to be the deciding vote that makes SSM legal coast to coast in one fell swoop, so instead he planted a seed in Windsor which he knew lower courts would nurture for him. When this issue finally lands on his desk again, gay marriage will already be a court-enforced reality in dozens of states, with the public having had several years to adjust to it. All SCOTUS will have to do is rubber-stamp the lower courts. Minimal upheaval, minimal heat for Kennedy.


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 4

Yeah Click bait… We have had a “trucon” vs. a “rino” thread and a “gay marriage” thread.. Now all we need is a Palin thread.. Woohoo.

Gays can marry. Good luck, I prepare divorce everyday. Nothing like a divorce to turn you all into anti-marriage faster.

melle1228 on May 20, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Piece of lying sh*t.

Impeach the trash Kennedy.

northdallasthirty on May 20, 2014 at 7:24 PM

I was just telling the wife the other day….we are a better people than what these income tax laws represent…it’s time to discard them to the trash heap of history

Ditkaca on May 20, 2014 at 7:26 PM

Minimal upheaval, minimal heat for Kennedy.

Until he goes to hell!

(Had to, hee.)

SailorMark on May 20, 2014 at 7:27 PM

Gotta love that social justice.

tomas on May 20, 2014 at 7:31 PM

Today’s ruling striking down Pennsylvania’s ban comes from a Bush appointee, one whose confirmation was backed by Rick Santorum no less.

SANTORMENTUM!!!

Myron Falwell on May 20, 2014 at 7:31 PM

Alt Headline: Your Vote No Longer Matters.

BigGator5 on May 20, 2014 at 7:31 PM

Love Scalia. He is definitely a dying breed as a jurist. Will miss him from the court.

melle1228 on May 20, 2014 at 7:31 PM

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

John Adams

njrob on May 20, 2014 at 7:33 PM

Scalia’s prediction in his dissent is the first time he’s been right on anything even tangentially related to this issue since Romer. It’s a start, I guess. At this point it’s just funny to watch the tattered remnants of the opposition become more and more unhinged.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:34 PM

Didn’t pay any attention to the story behind this, but probably should have. My thinking was along the lines of this, which goes for Anthony Kennedy as well as John Jones.

The 1996 law banning same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania was constitutional for the past 18 years, but today an unelected activist judge decides it’s not. What’s the point of having a Legislature and a Governor enact and sign laws if unelected judges can pick and choose which laws we follow?

PatriotGal2257 on May 20, 2014 at 7:35 PM

Alt Headline: Your Vote No Longer Matters.

BigGator5 on May 20, 2014 at 7:31 PM

Yep, exactly.

PatriotGal2257 on May 20, 2014 at 7:36 PM

“We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history.”

GFY, you despicable POS. You belong at the bottom of the ash heap of history.

It’s long past time for a national divorce. Let these America-hating imbeciles live in their own hell hole, where they belong. They are not my countrymen and I want nothing to do with any of these turds.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 20, 2014 at 7:37 PM

PatriotGal2257 on May 20, 2014 at 7:35 PM

I’ll answer your question with a question.

What’s the point of having Constitutionally-protected rights if any legislative governing majority can trample on them at will?

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:37 PM

Alt Headline: Your Vote No Longer Matters.

BigGator5 on May 20, 2014 at 7:31 PM

Actually, the headline is that the Constitution no longer matters – not that this is news or anything. These empathy-mongering “judges” just make up whatever they want and call it “law”.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 20, 2014 at 7:38 PM

“We are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history.”

So 6000 years of tradition across all types of cultures is tossed away.

rbj on May 20, 2014 at 7:39 PM

GFY, you despicable POS. You belong at the bottom of the ash heap of history.

It’s long past time for a national divorce. Let these America-hating imbeciles live in their own hell hole, where they belong. They are not my countrymen and I want nothing to do with any of these turds.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 20, 2014 at 7:37 PM

If you’re that opposed to the Constitution I wish you the best of luck in ThePrimordialOrderedPair-Land.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:39 PM

Scalia wrote that SSM was ‘inevitable’ in his dissent in Lawrence. Once sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional, the foundational arguments against SSM were wiped away. Indeed, it was on the sodomy statutes that many hung their hats back in the late 1960s and through the 1970s and 1980s, when arguing against SSM. As soon as states began to repeal those laws and SCOTUS held them unconstitutional in 2003, all bets were off and it was ‘inevitable.’

Resist We Much on May 20, 2014 at 7:40 PM

I’m getting pretty damn tired of activist judges moralizing from the bench like dictators. AP the judges had best avoid trying this in Dixie it would not go over well at all. Then again this crap is just tying up the courts and the judge will be on the ass heap of history…

sorrowen on May 20, 2014 at 7:41 PM

What’s the point of having Constitutionally-protected rights if any legislative governing majority can trample on them at will?

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:37 PM

The Constitution does not demand that homos be allowed to make the state call them “married” to each other. Due process and Equal protection forces homo pretend marriages … LOL.

Our judiciary is nothing but a big, sick joke. But, that’s how it is in the A.S.S.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 20, 2014 at 7:41 PM

What’s the point of having Constitutionally-protected rights if any legislative governing majority can trample on them at will?

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:37 PM

They can’t, which is one reason that the US is not a democracy. SCOTUS ruled in Romer v Evans that a majority cannot vote away the rights of a minority. Romer specifically dealt with homosexuality.

Resist We Much on May 20, 2014 at 7:42 PM

So 6000 years of tradition across all types of cultures is tossed away.

rbj on May 20, 2014 at 7:39 PM

Coupling is probably older than that but formal legal recognition by the state I don’t think goes back quite that far. And besides, tradition alone isn’t sufficient justification to violate the Constitution.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:43 PM

And I don’t give a f$@& what anthoney Kennedy thinks he destoyed his credibility with his last homosexual ruling which was feelings based sappy BS!

sorrowen on May 20, 2014 at 7:43 PM

They can’t, which is one reason that the US is not a democracy. SCOTUS ruled in Romer v Evans that a majority cannot vote away the rights of a minority. Romer specifically dealt with homosexuality.

Resist We Much on May 20, 2014 at 7:42 PM

Quite right, and Lawrence reaffirmed that position. It’s a good thing they did, too.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:44 PM

to violate the Constitution.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:43 PM

Please stop with your retarded BS.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 20, 2014 at 7:45 PM

I say let ‘em marry. Married people are more likely to vote GOP.

Let ‘em adopt too. Married with children: more likely a GOP vote.

Skipity on May 20, 2014 at 7:45 PM

What’s the point of having Constitutionally-protected rights if any legislative governing majority can trample on them at will?
alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:37 PM

You’re a moron.

jawkneemusic on May 20, 2014 at 7:45 PM

What’s the point of having Constitutionally-protected rights if any legislative governing majority can trample on them at will?

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:37 PM

So..I guess that is tacit admission you oppose the notion of representative government.

Well, the republic lasted longer then the founders predicted. Sadly, I think it is going to be a long time before we see the reappearance of any real republics in the future.

18-1 on May 20, 2014 at 7:46 PM

How long do you suppose it will take before opposition to same-sex marriage becomes a hate crime? It’s already a firing offense, it seems.

After all, Kennedy’s ruling is now governing gospel in this country, and so hath he writ: anti-same-sex marriage laws are nothing more than products of human indecency.

KingGold on May 20, 2014 at 7:47 PM

The Constitution does not demand that homos be allowed to make the state call them “married” to each other. Due process and Equal protection forces homo pretend marriages … LOL.

No, recognition of marriages for a select group to the exclusion of other groups without a rational justification for it is what demands that.

Our judiciary is nothing but a big, sick joke. But, that’s how it is in the A.S.S.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 20, 2014 at 7:41 PM

Are you opposed to the whole concept of judicial review?

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:48 PM

Judical moralization is fascism I’m sorry we can site some ruling but the fact is moralizing from the bench is wrong.

sorrowen on May 20, 2014 at 7:48 PM

Sadly, it is well passed time for a state to tell the federal government to shove it.

All state and federal office holders have not just a right, but an explicit responsibility, to oppose unconstitutional actions by the federal government.

Where is our new Jefferson? Our new Washington?

18-1 on May 20, 2014 at 7:49 PM

Coupling is probably older than that

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:43 PM

Marriage is not about coupling, you blithering idiot. Polygamy has been around forever. marriage has to do with parents of opposite sex creating families. We have restricted it to couples (of course, that must be “un-Constitutional”, too …) but the history of marriage and family covers more than that. It never covered a bunch of homosexuals, though, as they cannot generate families no matter how hard they try and no matter how much they wish to or pretend they can.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 20, 2014 at 7:49 PM

So..I guess that is tacit admission you oppose the notion of representative government.

It is no such thing. It’s my recognition of the fact that the actions of the representative government are bounded by the Constitution.

Well, the republic lasted longer then the founders predicted. Sadly, I think it is going to be a long time before we see the reappearance of any real republics in the future.

18-1 on May 20, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Are you comfortable with the notion that a majority vote is all that’s necessary to strip away a Constitutionally-protected right? The concept of “tyranny of the majority”?

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:50 PM

18-1 on May 20, 2014 at 7:49 PM

What is needed are governors to hold the line for the constitutional amendments passed by their states.

INC on May 20, 2014 at 7:50 PM

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:37 PM

I think your answer is contained in this comment:

Scalia wrote that SSM was ‘inevitable’ in his dissent in Lawrence. Once sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional, the foundational arguments against SSM were wiped away. Indeed, it was on the sodomy statutes that many hung their hats back in the late 1960s and through the 1970s and 1980s, when arguing against SSM. As soon as states began to repeal those laws and SCOTUS held them unconstitutional in 2003, all bets were off and it was ‘inevitable.’

Resist We Much on May 20, 2014 at 7:40 PM

It’s still activist unelected judges deliberately legislating from the bench. And any legislative governing majority? That’s exactly what the Democrats are doing now.

PatriotGal2257 on May 20, 2014 at 7:50 PM

We could be freaking dead in our living rooms from the first Russian cruise missile with a plutonium warhead to hit Omaha and someone would still be beating the drum that gay marriage is the pivotal issue of the USA’s existence.

hawkdriver on May 20, 2014 at 7:52 PM

In WA state, if you registered as Domestic Partners to reap the many benefits bestowed in them by the state, you are automatically converted to ‘legally married’, even if you separated years ago. Surprise.

Being a mouth-breathing Breeder, I have no dog in this fight, don’t care, but do not wish to hear any whining when the wave of gay divorces starts up. Not that the MSM will report it.

Tard on May 20, 2014 at 7:53 PM

This is a big change in our history, our culture, our country. It redefines the words “marriage”, “husband”, “wife”, for everyone, always. Schoolchildren will be taught same sex marriage is just as good as opposite sex marriage. If they are confused, feel uncomfortable about it, or their parents tell them gay marriage isn’t legitimate, then the school authorities, and the force of the law, will say otherwise. Cakes and photos and smiles all around.

And most of all, social acceptance. Not social acceptance that gay marriage is right, but the social acceptance that if someone says gay marriage is wrong, then the force of authority and the law will come down on them like a ton of bricks.

/Gay marriage. It’s a good thing. What the Supreme Court did, it’s a REALLY good thing that they did. It was good they enshrined gay marriage in the legal code. It’s good how Obama supports gay marriage now. It’s a REALLY good thing. And don’t think any bad thoughts about Obama, because he might be able to read your mind, and turn you into a jack-in-the-box, and then wish you into the cornfield.

LashRambo on May 20, 2014 at 7:53 PM

Shorter Analpudnik…

Stop fighting- we’ve got it all the way in.

sartana on May 20, 2014 at 7:53 PM

Marriage is not about coupling, you blithering idiot.

Can’t wait for the rest of this post!

Polygamy has been around forever.

What’s the relevance of this?

marriage has to do with parents of opposite sex creating families.

Yet that whole “creating families” (i.e.: children) has never been written into the rules.

We have restricted it to couples (of course, that must be “un-Constitutional”, too …) but the history of marriage and family covers more than that. It never covered a bunch of homosexuals, though, as they cannot generate families no matter how hard they try and no matter how much they wish to or pretend they can.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 20, 2014 at 7:49 PM

Procreation has never been necessary for marriage and marriage has never been a necessary part of procreation. And besides, the fact we’ve been doing something wrong for a long time does not justify continuing to do it wrong.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:53 PM

How long do you suppose it will take before opposition to same-sex marriage becomes a hate crime? It’s already a firing offense, it seems.
After all, Kennedy’s ruling is now governing gospel in this country, and so hath he writ: anti-same-sex marriage laws are nothing more than products of human indecency.
KingGold on May 20, 2014 at 7:47 PM
That “ruling” was based on pathetic emotionalism from Kennedy. Honestly a lot of judges need to
impeached by the states…

sorrowen on May 20, 2014 at 7:53 PM

Are you opposed to the whole concept of judicial review?

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:48 PM

I’m opposed to judges making sh!t up. You like that – the Rule of Empathy – so you are opposed to constitutional systems and just want a bunch of morons deciding on their own retarded whims what the law shall be. Good for you. You deserve your own nation … far away from me. I want an American Constitutional Republic, where language has meaning.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 20, 2014 at 7:53 PM

You mean cornhole?

Tard on May 20, 2014 at 7:54 PM

It is no such thing. It’s my recognition of the fact that the actions of the representative government are bounded by the Constitution.

Quite the contrary you’ve just opined that a judge has the right to over rule the Constitution whenever he feels like it. You agree with the judge in this case, but by the same logic a judge can demand you recognize inter species marriage or that Obama is the prophet of Allah.

If you and your ilk are so opposed to our Constitution, why don’t you leave for greener pastures?

18-1 on May 20, 2014 at 7:54 PM

It’s not going to go well for this nation. It’s going to go very badly.

paul1149 on May 20, 2014 at 7:55 PM

It’s still activist unelected judges deliberately legislating from the bench. And any legislative governing majority? That’s exactly what the Democrats are doing now.

PatriotGal2257 on May 20, 2014 at 7:50 PM

Scalia also wrote in that dissent that polygamy and incest were inevitable after the Lawrence decision so he’s about 1 for 8 so far. And the reason we still have incest laws isn’t because they’ve not been challenged post-Lawrence.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:55 PM

All this ‘idiot’ talk is idiotic.

Tard on May 20, 2014 at 7:56 PM

So You Believe in “Marriage Equality”? Why Not For throuples?
by Robert P. George

The story of a female throuple in Massachusetts (with a baby on the way) provides further confirmation, as if any were needed, of the proposition that “ideas have consequences.” Once one has abandoned belief in marriage as a conjugal bond (with its central structuring norm of sexual complementarity) in favor of a concept of “marriage” as a form of sexual-romantic companionship or domestic partnership (“love makes a family”), then what possible principle could be identified for a norm “restricting” marriage to two-person partnerships, as opposed to polyamorous sexual ensembles of three or more persons?

Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson, and I (and others) have been asking this question—or posing this challenge—to advocates of the re-definition of marriage for some years. No one has been able to answer the question or meet the challenge. So far as I am aware, only Jonathan Rauch has made a serious effort—and completely failed. The truth is that on the premises that one must put into place to generate the concept of “same-sex marriage,” the argument the women in the story below make on behalf of their own “polyamorous marriage” goes through without a hitch….

INC on May 20, 2014 at 7:56 PM

Quite the contrary you’ve just opined that a judge has the right to over rule the Constitution whenever he feels like it. You agree with the judge in this case, but by the same logic a judge can demand you recognize inter species marriage or that Obama is the prophet of Allah.

Reductio. Ad. Absurdum. And a lame attempt at one at that.

Do you oppose the concept of judicial review?

If you and your ilk are so opposed to our Constitution, why don’t you leave for greener pastures?

18-1 on May 20, 2014 at 7:54 PM

I love and revere our Constitution. That’s part of why I know the right side won in Pennsylvania today.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:56 PM

Reminder from Pennsylvania: The Supreme Court has already basically legalized gay marriage

Reminder from the country: The Supreme Court is not a legislative body.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 20, 2014 at 7:58 PM

I’m opposed to judges making sh!t up. You like that – the Rule of Empathy – so you are opposed to constitutional systems and just want a bunch of morons deciding on their own retarded whims what the law shall be. Good for you. You deserve your own nation … far away from me. I want an American Constitutional Republic, where language has meaning.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 20, 2014 at 7:53 PM

The judge in today’s case didn’t make up the Equal Protection Clause, nor did any other judge who has struck down a state prohibition. It’s right there in the Fourteenth Amendment.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:58 PM

How long do you suppose it will take before opposition to same-sex marriage becomes a hate crime?

The left is working on criminalizing opposition to almost the whole breadth of their agenda – look for example at the movement to imprison people for opposing AGW or climate change or global warminging or whatever they are calling it now.

Baring a radical change thoughtcrime will soon be a major area of criminal law in America as it is becoming now in Europe and the Anglo sphere.

18-1 on May 20, 2014 at 7:59 PM

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:56 PM Your claim
to be for their rights yet the homosexuality community will in the end destroy itself and it’s already doing that.

sorrowen on May 20, 2014 at 7:59 PM

Reminder from Pennsylvania: The Supreme Court has already basically legalized gay marriage

Reminder from the country: The Supreme Court is not a legislative body.
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 20, 2014 at 7:58 PM
Tell Kennedy that….he can’t write legislation…

sorrowen on May 20, 2014 at 8:01 PM

to be for their rights yet the homosexuality community will in the end destroy itself and it’s already doing that.

sorrowen on May 20, 2014 at 7:59 PM

OK, if that’s what they’re doing then leave them alone and let them do it.

Needless to say I don’t subscribe to your line of thinking. The homosexual community hasn’t destroyed itself in all the time it’s existed and I see no reason to think it’s going to now all of a sudden.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 8:01 PM

Scalia also wrote in that dissent that polygamy and incest were inevitable after the Lawrence decision so he’s about 1 for 8 so far. And the reason we still have incest laws isn’t because they’ve not been challenged post-Lawrence.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:55 PM

You seem to think because it hasn’t happened, it won’t.. Within three months of the Lawrence decision gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts. Polygamist lawsuits are just not starting to wend their way through the courts on Lawrence. So far challenges to polygamy have been from men who have committed Medicaid fraud and had child brides (with the exception of the Kodys), but more and more the poster children will look like functional “consenting” adults who just want to love and marry the people they are with.. Sound familiar?

melle1228 on May 20, 2014 at 8:01 PM

And the reason we still have incest laws isn’t because they’ve not been challenged post-Lawrence.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:55 PM

If a brother and sister love each other, why shouldn’t they get married? Are you against love? Or, is it because “that’s the way it’s always been”? Are you a marriage bigot, or are you just driven by a sense of fear deep inside of you? A phobia of some kind. Incestophobe.

Procreation has never been necessary for marriage and marriage has never been a necessary part of procreation. And besides, the fact we’ve been doing something wrong for a long time does not justify continuing to do it wrong.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:53 PM

Sing it, brother. I knew you’d come around.

LashRambo on May 20, 2014 at 8:01 PM

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:55 PM

Quite the contrary you’ve just opined that a judge has the right to over rule the Constitution whenever he feels like it. You agree with the judge in this case, but by the same logic a judge can demand you recognize inter species marriage or that Obama is the prophet of Allah.

If you and your ilk are so opposed to our Constitution, why don’t you leave for greener pastures?

18-1 on May 20, 2014 at 7:54 PM

18-1 has said it better than I could.

PatriotGal2257 on May 20, 2014 at 8:01 PM

Reductio. Ad. Absurdum. And a lame attempt at one at that.

Answer the question you keep dodging if you dare coward. Why do you oppose the notion of representative government?

And again, why don’t you leave if you have such a deep seated hate for the Constitution? You have a multitude of tyrannies just waiting to welcome you? Why must you and your ilk insist on reducing us to your level?

18-1 on May 20, 2014 at 8:02 PM

It’s over.

What did you win?

Bmore on May 20, 2014 at 8:02 PM

Scalia also wrote in that dissent that polygamy and incest were inevitable after the Lawrence decision so he’s about 1 for 8 so far. And the reason we still have incest laws isn’t because they’ve not been challenged post-Lawrence.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:55 PM

BS. You can find compelling reasons for those restrictions.

Gay marriage bans were laws targeting and restricting a minority for no good reason.

It’s great seeing these pathetic laws being overturned one after another.

lexhamfox on May 20, 2014 at 8:02 PM

ALL COUPLES. We are well on our way to True Marriage Equality. blink on May 20, 2014 at 7:33 PM

Not without triples! And quadruples!! And quintuples!!!

Akzed on May 20, 2014 at 8:03 PM

Well, the republic lasted longer then the founders predicted. Sadly, I think it is going to be a long time before we see the reappearance of any real republics in the future.

18-1 on May 20, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Oh, we’re a republic all right – a big fat banana republic.

We could be freaking dead in our living rooms from the first Russian cruise missile with a plutonium warhead to hit Omaha and someone would still be beating the drum that gay marriage is the pivotal issue of the USA’s existence.

hawkdriver on May 20, 2014 at 7:52 PM

The way this is getting foisted upon us is emblematic of the fundamental problem with this country.

crrr6 on May 20, 2014 at 8:03 PM

Scalia also wrote in that dissent that polygamy and incest were inevitable after the Lawrence decision so he’s about 1 for 8 so far. And the reason we still have incest laws isn’t because they’ve not been challenged post-Lawrence.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:55 PM

But, polygamy will be legalised and my old friend, Jonathan Turley, already has a case winding its way through the federal court system.

Hey, Proggies! The Polygamy Train Is Leaving The Station. Hop Aboard Or Face Being On The ‘Wrong Side of History,’ Bigots!

Incest laws will depend upon the science and the degree of consanguinity.

Resist We Much on May 20, 2014 at 8:03 PM

Gay Marriage, Then Group Marriage?
by Ryan Anderson, Sherif Girgis and Robert P. George

If marriage is just the emotional bond “that matters most” to you — in the revealing words of the circuit judge who struck down California Proposition 8 — then personal tastes or a couple’s subjective preferences aside, there is no reason of principle for marriage to be pledged to permanence. Or sexually exclusive rather than “open.” Or limited to two spouses. Or oriented to family life and shaped by its demands….

But don’t take our word for it. Many prominent leaders of the campaign to redefine marriage make precisely the same point.

NYU Professor Judith Stacey hopes that redefining marriage would give marriage “varied, creative, and adaptive contours …” and lead to acceptance of “small group marriages.” In the manifesto “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” 300 leading “LGBT and allied” scholars and activists call for the recognition of multiple partner relationships.

Influential columnist and “It Gets Better” founder Dan Savage encourages spouses to adopt “a more flexible attitude” about sex outside their marriage. Journalist Victoria Brownworth cheerfully predicts that same-sex marriage will “weaken the institution of marriage.”

Author Michelangelo Signorile urges same-sex partners to “demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” They should “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, because the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake … is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.

These leading same-sex marriage advocates are correct.

Here’s a quote from page 70 of their book, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense:

Professor Ellen Willis, another revisionist, celebrates the fact that “conferring the legitimacy of marriage on homosexual relations will introduce an implicit revolt against the institution into its very heart.

Once again there are those on the Left who know exactly what they’re doing and why, and they’re more than happy to manipulate the useful idiots who fall for their slogans and propaganda.

I include Justice Kennedy in the Useful Idiot category.

INC on May 20, 2014 at 8:04 PM

of the Kodys Browns

melle1228 on May 20, 2014 at 8:04 PM

Hey Allah

For all your rainbow flag waving and Atheists credz, why don’t you ever address what Ed, me and numerous others here believe; that state-licensed marriage is a violation of Church and State separation?

I’m curious, as the resident unbeliever, if you agree or not.

budfox on May 20, 2014 at 8:05 PM

Gay marriage bans were laws targeting and restricting a minority for no good reason. It’s great seeing these pathetic laws being overturned one after another. lexhamfox on May 20, 2014 at 8:02 PM

Are you able to quote any of these laws where they mention homosexuals?

Akzed on May 20, 2014 at 8:05 PM

Seems nature decided already penis and vagina= children , anus and penis uhhh no….

sorrowen on May 20, 2014 at 8:05 PM

Do you oppose the concept of judicial review?

 

If you and your ilk are so opposed to our Constitution, why don’t you leave for greener pastures?
 
18-1 on May 20, 2014 at 7:54 PM

 
I love and revere our Constitution…
 
alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:56 PM

 
Especially the article delegating the power of judicial review.
 
(Wait for it)

rogerb on May 20, 2014 at 8:06 PM

BS. You can find compelling reasons for those restrictions.

Gay marriage bans were laws targeting and restricting a minority for no good reason.

It’s great seeing these pathetic laws being overturned one after another.

lexhamfox on May 20, 2014 at 8:02 PM

The compelling reason is that there isn’t enough big money demand from those groups to buy off Democrat politicians. That’s the only goddamned difference between this new so-called “civil right” and any other legal marriage restrictions, and you know it.

crrr6 on May 20, 2014 at 8:06 PM

I can’t stand Kennedy…

sorrowen on May 20, 2014 at 8:07 PM

For all your rainbow flag waving and Atheists credz, why don’t you ever address what Ed, me and numerous others here believe; that state-licensed marriage is a violation of Church and State separation? budfox on May 20, 2014 at 8:05 PM

Please elaborate. Particularly concerning courthouse weddings.

Akzed on May 20, 2014 at 8:07 PM

PatriotGal2257 on May 20, 2014 at 7:35 PM

I’ll answer your question with a question.

What’s the point of having Constitutionally-protected rights if any legislative governing majority can trample on them at will?

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:37 PM

I’ll trump your question with better questions.

What’s the point of having a written Constitution if a judge can ignore what is written and substitute his own interpretation?

Why pass a Constitutional Amendment saying one thing if a judge will simply decide it says something else when it becomes socially fashionable?

Why let the people of a state vote to define marriage one way

in their state constitution

when a judge years later decides they have no right to do so?

And the best question of all: If “we’re a better people now,” then why not amend the Constitution?

Why, it’s almost like they don’t actually believe the people of the country support SSM at all.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 20, 2014 at 8:08 PM

You seem to think because it hasn’t happened, it won’t..

It’s been 11 years. Virginia cautioned about that slippery slope in 1967. California warned up that incest and polygamy were around the corner back in 1948. I’ve heard “Wolf!” cried enough with no evidence to be very persuaded by it any longer.

Within three months of the Lawrence decision gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts. Polygamist lawsuits are just not starting to wend their way through the courts on Lawrence.

If Lawrence so clearly opened the door to polygamy then one wonders why they’ve waited so long.

So far challenges to polygamy have been from men who have committed Medicaid fraud and had child brides (with the exception of the Kodys), but more and more the poster children will look like functional “consenting” adults who just want to love and marry the people they are with.. Sound familiar?

melle1228 on May 20, 2014 at 8:01 PM

The poster children fighting interracial marriage looked like functional “consenting” adults and even had the last name “Loving” to drive the point home (and if you believe their last name was a coincidence I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you). That case was even a bigger reach for the Court than marriage for same-sex couples because the interracial marriages bans did not preclude from those heterosexual couples any reasonable opportunity to access the status of civil marriage whereas the bans on same-gender marriage do that have effect on homosexuals. The courts have frequently spoken of a right to marriage and what good is a right that cannot be reasonable exercised?

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 8:08 PM

The judge in today’s case didn’t make up the Equal Protection Clause, nor did any other judge who has struck down a state prohibition. It’s right there in the Fourteenth Amendment.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:58 PM

Oy. You really are daft. He made up the meaning of it, you blithering idiot.

Look, you hate the Rule of Law and prefer Rule by (Emapthetic) Whim. Just admit it and be done. This BS you spout about how you “lurrrrrv the Constitution” is beyond a joke. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. So just stop, already.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 20, 2014 at 8:08 PM

Especially the article delegating the power of judicial review.

(Wait for it)

rogerb on May 20, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending upon one’s point of view, that shipped sailed 211 years ago when Congress did nothing in response to Marbury v Madison.

Resist We Much on May 20, 2014 at 8:08 PM

Resist We Much on May 20, 2014 at 8:03 PM

Yep, the legal reasoning and the basis for these decisions has left the door completely open for polygamist to step through.

I am not quite sure how much scrutiny incest will stand up if we A) procreation is not a component of marriage and B) two brothers will be allowed to marry because they cannot procreate..

The two brothers question is interesting. Due to the overuse of the equal protection clause it will probably be argued that if two brother can marry so can a brother and a sister.

melle1228 on May 20, 2014 at 8:08 PM

We could be freaking dead in our living rooms from the first Russian cruise missile with a plutonium warhead to hit Omaha and someone would still be beating the drum that gay marriage is the pivotal issue of the USA’s existence.

hawkdriver on May 20, 2014 at 7:52 PM

One is a quick death, the other is a terminal disease.

INC on May 20, 2014 at 8:08 PM

Especially the article delegating the power of judicial review.

(Wait for it)

rogerb on May 20, 2014 at 8:06 PM

If you’re taking exception with Marbury v. Madison then that discussion is for a whole other time and place.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 8:09 PM

The states should just impeach the judges…

sorrowen on May 20, 2014 at 8:09 PM

Oh, we’re a republic all right – a big fat banana republic.

Who would have thought that within a generation of our victory in the cold war that the American population would gladly trade away representative government?

18-1 on May 20, 2014 at 8:10 PM

Especially the article delegating the power of judicial review.
 
(Wait for it)
 
rogerb on May 20, 2014 at 8:06 PM

 
Fortunately or unfortunately, depending upon one’s point of view, that shipped sailed 211 years ago when Congress did nothing in response to Marbury v Madison.
 
Resist We Much on May 20, 2014 at 8:08 PM

 
+1
 
As with all things, the farther we get from the Constitution the faster down the hill we go. Shame those dumb old racist white men couldn’t have thought this experiment through a bit better and predicted stuff like that.

rogerb on May 20, 2014 at 8:11 PM

It would be fun to get all supporters of same-sex marriage to go on the record about polygamy.

Then, after polygamy is legalized, we can fire everyone that said they were against it.

blink on May 20, 2014 at 8:05 PM

Even 10 years ago, a large majority of libs were against gay marriage. Even Obama, and Hillary and Bill Clinton, were clearly and definitively against it. Changing their “principles” mid-stream doesn’t seem to faze them in the least.

Gay Marriage, Then Group Marriage?
by Ryan Anderson, Sherif Girgis and Robert P. George

If marriage is just the emotional bond “that matters most” to you — in the revealing words of the circuit judge who struck down California Proposition 8 — then personal tastes or a couple’s subjective preferences aside, there is no reason of principle for marriage to be pledged to permanence.

INC on May 20, 2014 at 8:04 PM

Interesting. Never heard that argument before. Temporary marriage, on and off, here and there. Iffy. Lukewarm. Wishy-washy. Kind of like the principles of liberals! Having the property of an undetermined time limit.

LashRambo on May 20, 2014 at 8:11 PM

The Constitution does not demand that homos be allowed to make the state call them “married” to each other. Due process and Equal protection forces homo pretend marriages … LOL.

No, recognition of marriages for a select group to the exclusion of other groups without a rational justification for it is what demands that.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 7:48 PM

If marriage is between a man and a woman, as it was before this country even began, then you have your rational justification right there.

But, like always, you don’t like that rationale, so you wave your hands and pretend it doesn’t exist.

Now, what is the rational justification for two men being able to marry?

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 20, 2014 at 8:12 PM

I’ll trump your question with better questions.

What’s the point of having a written Constitution if a judge can ignore what is written and substitute his own interpretation?

State Constitutions are still bound by the Federal Constitution by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Why pass a Constitutional Amendment saying one thing if a judge will simply decide it says something else when it becomes socially fashionable?

It’s still got to be in conflict with the federal Constitution. Fashionability in and of itself is not enough.

Why let the people of a state vote to define marriage one way when a judge years later decides they have no right to do so?

Ask the people who wasted their time and money on those initiatives.

And the best question of all: If “we’re a better people now,” then why not amend the Constitution?

There’s no need to. The Fourteenth Amendment is already there.

Why, it’s almost like they don’t actually believe the people of the country support SSM at all.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 20, 2014 at 8:08 PM

If you’re going to unskew the polls on this question I’ll leave you to it.

alchemist19 on May 20, 2014 at 8:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4