Forum: How Will The Supreme Court Rule On Same Sex Marriage?

Every week on Monday morning, the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: How Will The Supreme Court Rule On Same Sex Marriage?

 The Glittering Eye : Beats the heck out of me. On the one hand I don't see how Justice Kennedy could decide for the plaintiff in Obergefell v. Hodges without reversing his own opinion in U. S. v. Windsor in which he held that the power to define marriage was within the province of the states. On the other that does seem to be the way the wind is blowing. It's also hard for me to see how any of the Catholic justices on the Court could rule in favor of the plaintiff without being excommunicated.

It certainly seems to me as though we're poised on the edge of a torrent of official religious persecution in which the only conscientious position that a lot of people will be able to take will be to go to jail.

The Independent Sentinel : I don't know how the Supreme Court will rule. I haven't followed the arguments closely enough but if they redefine marriage, there will be serious repercussions for religious organizations and churches. It will light a fire that will be very difficult to put out.

My hope is the Supreme Court will leave it to the states and not make it into a civil right. Sorry, but I don't see sexual orientation as a civil right. I do think LGBTs are legitimately a protected class, however.

The majority of citizens have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and want it to remain so. After thousands of years, why should marriage be redefined? LGBTs have children and they deserve to have equal rights. I'd rather see them obtain these rights through legal unions with all the rights of a married couple. Just don't call it marriage and make it into a civil right.

Others have rights too.

 JoshuaPundit : Although I hope I'm wrong, I figure they will likely rule in favor of same sex marriage in both cases. And I also see  it as having very little to do with the law or the Constitution per se.

 I think the old rule of follow the money applies.  Homosexuals are now an enormous fund raising target for the Democrat Party, as well as yet another protected group to be riled up to provide lots of cash and muscle for candidates down for the agenda. That by itself trumps any regard for the Constitution.

There are also two other powerful groups that want legal same sex marriage, and both are favored by President Obama and his party.

As I've pointed out before, some of the most vociferous advocates for same sex marriage are family law and trial lawyers, especially the people teaching family law in academia. Not only are they big donors, but they have a stake of their own in this. As many freely admit, the ultimate goal is to redefine traditional marriage entirely as a series of legal contracts. And why not? They're the ones who will be pocketing the handsome fees for a whole new round of divorces, custody battles and the drawing and redrawing of marital 'contracts' once same sex marriage, polygamy and polyamory become the law of the land.

And finally, one group favored by the White House that quietly favors this are America's Islamists - groups like CAIR, The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) And The Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC). Simply put, they see it as a wedge for sharia and polygamy,which it is. That's pretty much how things have gone in Europe.

 Given the huge amount of NSA spying that has occurred  during the Obama Administration, I wouldn't be at all surprised if one or more of the justices was being blackmailed to vote the way the regime wants. You'll remember that General David Petraeus was blackmailed to endorse the regime's Benghazi fiction because they had knowledge of his extramarital affair months before Benghazi occurred. Later, they made the knowledge public to discredit him when it suited them. This president has been involved in that kind of sleaze before throughout his political career.

So with this kind of weight pushing and this much money at stake, I think the Obama regime will do everything in its power to get the Supremes to push this through. All they need is one Justice, since Elena Kagan isn't going to do the ethical thing and recuse herself. They could care less about Evangelicals, or religious Catholics and Jews, because most of them don't vote Democrat anyway.

I'm much more interested in how people of faith will react once this goes down.


Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : There are two questions before the Supreme Court. The first is asking the Court to determine whether the 14th Amendment requires states to issue same sex marriage licenses under its equal protection clause. The second is asking for a determination on whether a state that doesn't allow same sex marriage must recognize the marriages of same sex married couples from other states.

Currently thirty-seven states have passed laws or amendments to their constitutions defining marriage as being limited to a union between one man and one woman. The fact is, a majority of Americans have voiced their belief that traditional marriage should be preserved as it has been defined for thousands of years.

I would like to believe that the nine Supreme Court justices; 7 of which are of the Catholic faith and 2 Jewish; would understand the importance of faith in the founding and history of our Constitutional Republic, and in the preservation of the family as the foundation of a civilized society.

I would like to believe the justices understand the laws of our country are not laws handed down by men but are “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” enshrined in our Constitution for our protection from tyranny.

I would like to believe the justices understand that marriage should not be re-defined or undefined.

I would like to believe the justices understand the 14th Amendment came about as a result of the Civil War to give former slaves the full rights and privileges of all American citizens, and has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

I would like to believe the justices are aware that ruling in favor of same sex marriage being protected under the 14th Amendment would leave the states unable to pass laws to protect those who oppose same sex marriage from legal attacks, and force individuals to engage in activities against their faith, beliefs, or traditional values.

I would like to believe the justices understand according to the Tenth Amendment that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The issue of marriage should not be debated in the federal realm at all.

I would like to believe all of this, but what I know is that the left is using same sex marriage, among other issues, to destroy American society. We have a generation of youth who have been taught that there is no difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships and that everyone should have the right to marry whomever they choose. The left believes the time is now to undefine marriage while it has the support of our youth.

I would like to believe the justices know the left is using the federal courts because they have not won in the states.

How will the Supreme Court rule on same sex marriage? I honestly have no idea.


Wolf Howling :The Supreme Court is currently considering same sex marriage in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges. I expect that they will decide the case by discovering that a right to gay marriage has been hiding for a century and a half in the Constitution.

I also expect the Court's decision to break the camel's back as these supremely arrogant judges force left wing social policy down the throat of this nation and begin a final, direct assault on the rights of conscience of the religious in our land. If you thought the activist Roe v. Wade decision caused turmoil, I can assure you, you haven't seen anything yet. As Bookworm Room pointed out some time ago, unlike with abortion, this decision will, for the first time in our nation's history, make it unlawful to live by the same Judeo-Christian beliefs that girded our nation at and since the Founding.

As I pointed out in The Supreme Court: Originalism, Judicial Activism, & America's Future, there are two schools of Constitutional interpretation, originalism and activism:

Originalists attempt to interpret the Constitution by determining what the people who drafted it and voted for it understood it to mean at the time. An intellectually honest originalist does not announce new policy, he or she interprets history and precedent. That is a bit oversimplified - originalism is certainly not always that clean and can become muddled as precedent builds (and see the discussion here). But because there is always a strong bias to stay limited to what the Constitution says and what the drafters meant, it provides a carefully circumscribed role for unelected judges, thus paying the maximum deference to democracy.

When a Court stops interpreting the meaning of the Constitution and starts to impose its own policy views under the color of a "living constitution," it transforms into a Politburo legislating by fiat. Judicial activists and the left who champions them are the people who see an activist Court as a way around democracy and an irreplaceable tool to remake society.

The left has been relying on judicial activism for the past century to work fundamental, unconstitutional and non-democratic changes to our society, and they have engaged in what has amounted to a jihad on the Judeo-Christian religions. Finding that a right to homosexual marriage has been hiding in the Fourteenth Amendment for the past 147 years would set the stage for the last step in that jihad.

The Fourteenth Amendment holds, in relevant part, that "[n]o State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" - the so called Equal Protection clause. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868, in the wake of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, for the purpose of insuring that blacks were treated to no legal disability in this nation. There is no evidence whatsoever that those who passed this law intended its provisions to extend to homosexuality. To the contrary, homosexuality was then under legal disability throughout most of the states. To claim now that the Equal Protection clause includes homosexual marriage in its ambit is to make an utter mockery of the Constitution and our system of government. This is not a nation of laws; it is now a nation subject to the whims of activist judges who, in acts of supreme arrogance, corrupt our entire government when they impose social policy at odds with the will of the people of this nation and their elected representatives.

What should happen is that the nine members of the Supreme Court should examine intent of those who drafted and voted for passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. That would inevitably lead to the conclusion that homosexuality is not a "right" enshrined in the 14th Am., and that that there is no Constitutional right to homosexual marriage. The only way to change that at the federal level is through a Constitutional Amendment as set forth in Article V. Barring that, because the Constitution does not concern itself with homosexuality or marriage, this is an issue of social policy that, per the 10th Amendment, should be left to the states. Period.

But what we have on the Court today are at least four judges who live to impose their left wing social policy preferences on our nation, and Justice Kennedy, who has shown himself ready to join the four in support of homosexuality and against the rights of the religious in this nation. Two years ago, Kennedy and the other four struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and refused to hear an appeal seeking to uphold California's referendum on Section 8, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Last year the Supreme Court let stand a New Mexico decision punishing a Christian photographer targeted by the gay mafia for refusing to photograph a gay wedding ceremony. The handwriting is on the wall on this one. We'll see what follows after.

 Well, there you have it!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every  Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks' nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?