The Question at Court

Carol Platt Liebau
Posted at 10:19 AM ET, 3/26/2013

Obviously, the next two days are going to be important ones in establishing the parameters of gay (and straight) rights in this country (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/can-gay-marriage-survive-a-scotus-loss-89304.html?hp=t1).

For conservatives who support gay rights, including the right of gays to marry, there are some tricky questions.  Do societies have the right to legislate about sexual mores? That’s one of the big issues at stake.  If the Court strikes down Prop. 8,  it’s hard to see how anyone can ever argue again that the state (i.e., citizens as a group) has any interest in regulating any kind of sexual behavior between consenting adults, regardless of whether that behavior may have deleterious effects on family stability or the welfare of children.  (That’s not to say that gay marriage will necessarily have these effects; the point is that we don’t know – but striking down the law is an implicit statement that such rationales do not pass constitutional muster).

it’s also hard to see how conservatives can cheer on the prospect of the Supremes finding a right to gay marriage in the Constitution and then consistently argue against the jurisprudence of cases like Roe vs. Wade — or call themselves strict constructionists.

On the other hand, there is some inconsistency on the part of the lefties who favor overturning both Prop. 8 and DOMA.  How does one insist, on the first day of arguments, that the people of California had no right to define marriage as between a man and a woman — and then, on the second day, argue that DOMA should be struck down because it does not respect the right of states that have chosen to recognize gay marriage?  Either states have rights to define marriage for themselves, or they don’t.

To me, it seems that gay marriage is the kind of question best reserved for state legislatures, rather than for the Court to find a wholly new, hitherto undiscovered (and, a decade ago, wholly unimaginable) “right” to gay marriage.  The latter is the course it chose in Roe, thereby spurring decades of bitter politics, rather than allowing the people themselves to make their voices heard and then to decide.  Are there practical difficulties in such a course? Absolutely — but anyone who hates the division and bitterness of America‘s abortion politics can understand why it’s better to let elected state (and federal) legislatures (and/or their citizens), rather than unelected and unaccountable judges, make these kinds of decisions.

Advertisements

One Response to The Question at Court

  1. 1American says:

    Good article Leatherneck…..”To me, it seems that gay marriage is the kind of question best reserved for state legislatures, rather than for the Court to find a wholly new, hitherto undiscovered (and, a decade ago, wholly unimaginable) “right” to gay marriage.”

    ….and there’s the rub.

    Scalia asked the still unanswered question, “When did homosexual marriage become “unconstitutional?”

    Proponents of same sex marriage are trying to twist the 14th amendment into a pretzel to find equal protection and equal rights under the 14th. But, if that’s the case why has it taken almost 150 years to discover this right in the 14th? Why was it never discussed in any debate regarding the 14th, until now? Is It really because we’ve “progressed” as a society?

    Then you have Justice Kennedy seemingly asserting that DOMA is “unconstitutional” because he thinks it infringes on “states rights.” (Now this is rich, coming from a so called conservative who likes siding with enveloping pushing decisions on the left…feigning concern for Federalism??) …”Did Congress have the right to enact DOMA in the first place? When the regulation of marriage has traditionally been left up to the individual states?” He asks.

    Kennedy thereby asserts that DOMA negates state sovereignty to let the people decide for each state individually. Really??? In California and 29 other states “the People” have voted down same sex marriage in their states. How does this bare out Kennedy’s silly assertion? Is it because they voted against it instead of for it?

    (Sorry for restating your well written piece….but this just made my head explode.)

    Isn’t Kennedy, by arguing states rights to negate DOMA, and at the same time attempting to overrule states who have voted down same sex marriage in their individual sovereign states? Beam me up Scotty!?

    There is no consistent equally applied logic in same sex proponents arguments. It is as it always is with the Left, and their agenda of the day. Laws and societal mores/standards to live by are always amendable to suit their need of the day through force of Federal law dictated by them.

    But, Everyone on the other side of any issue the Left is driving, are always disqualified from asserting any controlling authority that prohibits the Left’s latest subversion and perversion attempt of the moment to overturn our Constitution’s original intent on any issue.

    When the Left’s agenda needs to change our constitutional intent, they first (always) manufacturer false and misleading, or misinterpreted polling data to try and show majority support for their cause of the day. When that majority support is put to a real vote of the people they find the majority of the people do not support their radical agenda.

    What then? The Left always run to the liberal district judges to get a court ruling in their favor to negate the will of the people. Look back and you’ll see the pattern is always the same. The major advances of Leftest dogmatic has always been through the courts to force their will upon the people by a court decision.

    Nothing new under the sun..The lascivious nature of man has always been at war with the higher moral and spiritual nature of God. Paul talks about it in his letter to the Galatians:5:17: “For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are NOT to do whatever you want.”

    Our founding laws and principles that were designed by God, for man to live as close to peaceful coexistence as humanly possible, but only possible with a respect and honoring of God’s preeminence and authority over man’s. “He who will not be ruled by God, will be ruled by tyrants.” (William Penn)

    Those principles and laws require individual self control, and discipline.

    I, nor anyone else has a right to claim the Freedom and constitutional right to live however and do whatever I want, by simply saying “I love it!” (Therefore it’s my “right””…maybe so, if you want to, I am not going to stop you. Unless it infringes on my rights, or is harmful to me and my family. Keep it at your house, and leave me out of it. But, don’t try to bring into my space, and demand my tax money and pass federal laws that require my bowing down to it in order to honor your particular brand of lascivious behavior.

    Our individual behavior and lifestyle has an impact for good or evil on others around us and society as a whole, even if I’m losing that internal battle waring within all of us, between the spirit and the flesh, it impacts others. How much mores so, if I demand a law to require you to honor my Lascivious behavior over the accepted standard of decency for thousands of years?

    It is much more damaging to society as a whole if I form a political movement to advance my individual tastes and sinful desires, and pervert the power of our courts to adopt that them as “human right” sanctioned by federal law.

    This is not “progressive” thinking or behavior. It is a back sliding regression back to the pagan lifestyles of old, by people who knew not God, nor held any obedience to His laws for societal living, in peace and in harmony with one another.

    Man over the centuries progressed away from such Paganism, and America was born out of a desire to follow God’s precepts individually without coercion from the State.

    We can’t deny God exists, and base a Society on that premise that is going to remain fruitful, happy and free.

    Nor can we claim, if he does exists, He exists only to further my self-serving interests, and proudly proclaim He approves of whatever lifestyle that makes ‘ME’ Happy without regard to its impact on others.

    To do so is council from Satan, not God.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: