It was just enough. Like a wedge that splits a huge rock, the Supreme Court allowed the few states that accept homosexual “marriages” to rip apart the bedrock institution of marriage.
Anything goes now, based on the 5-4 decisions of the Supreme Court to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Prop. 8.
In the DOMA case, five justices decided that DOMA singled out married homosexuals and denied them government benefits they were entitled to by virtue of being “married,” something that never would have happened in the first place if not for states like California, where elected officials like Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom ignored voters and existing law to hand out marriage licenses on their own authority.
Newsom’s illegal shenanigans while mayor of San Francisco, in fact, led directly to the ballot initiative Prop. 8, which outlawed homosexual “marriages” but was also ignored by the liberals in charge of the state.
Justice Anthony Kennedy provided the swing vote by siding with the court’s Democratic appointees. Indulging in the circular reasoning of the majority, he wrote that DOMA “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, and whose relationship the state has sought to dignify.”
Wonder when the court will revisit the admission of Utah to the Union, since one of the requirements of statehood was the illegalization of Mormon polygamy? Certainly Mormons in polygamous marriages are being demeaned and put in an unstable position as well.
For that matter, there are probably a lot of child brides out there waiting to happen. NAMBLA must be jumping up and down for joy today.
In Prop. 8, the Supreme court took the coward’s way out, also with a 5-4 vote, and ruled that the people who appealed the lower court ruling overturning it did not have standing to appeal. Again, that’s because the liberal “leadership” of California ignored the will of the voters and refused to defend the law, leaving it up to others, who have now been declared not to have legal standing.
The one positive in today’s double disaster is that the court technically did not rule on the validity of Prop. 8, or similar state bans, merely remanded it back to the lower courts and let the existing ruling stand for a technicality.
It’s small comfort as the entire country will now go down the dark highway of homosexual “marriage” and whole new rounds of legal nonsense and manipulation from the Left. Expect interest groups to now try to leverage today’s decisions into legal weapons with which to go after conservatives and their churches and temples.
That’s what happened in every country that ever adopted homosexual “marriage,” and it’s already begun in states where such unions are legal.
Those who don’t know their history. …
It’s noteworthy that the court zeroed in on government benefits as a key point. Homosexual activists have denied for years that they were after special privileges, but the court cited health care, tax and military benefits in its DOMA decision.
In his dissent in the DOMA case, Justice Antonin Scalia sharply attacked the court’s judicial activism, writing, “It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.”
Chief Justice Roberts similarly criticized the court’s role in the DOMA case: “Interests in uniformity and stability amply justified Congress’s decision to retain the definition of marriage that, at that point, had been adopted by every State in our Nation, and every nation in the world.”
Roberts also attacked the majority’s illogic, writing, “The majority sees a more sinister motive, pointing out that the Federal Government has generally (though not uniformly) deferred to state definitions of marriage in the past. That is true, of course, but none of those prior state-by-state variations had involved differences over something — as the majority puts it — ‘thought of by most people as essential to the very definition of [marriage] and to its role and function throughout the history of civilization.'”
Justice Samuel Alito pointed out the obvious: “The Constitution does not guarantee the right to enter into a same-sex marriage. Indeed, no provision of the Constitution speaks to the issue.”
Alito also noted that no one, least of all judges, can know for certain what long-term impacts homosexual “marriage” will have.
We’re about to find out, as Newsom once put it, “whether you like it or not.”