Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 49
Like Tree7Likes

Thread: Supreme Court: Same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #11
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    Regardless of the U.S. Supreme Courts ruling, I will stick to my conviction that marriage, in God's eyes, is between one man and one woman. Additionally, I think the ruling is a ruse because Bader and Keegan should have recused themselves because they have made their bias on the issue well known. This was a political ruling and has absolutely nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution. Keegan herself even said, back in 2009, that gay marriage was not a constitutional right.

    Okay, back to the issues of immigration and border security!

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #12
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Quote Originally Posted by MW View Post
    Regardless of the U.S. Supreme Courts ruling, I will stick to my conviction that marriage, in God's eyes, is between one man and one woman. Additionally, I think the ruling is a ruse because Bader and Keegan should have recused themselves because they have made their bias on the issue well known. This was a political ruling and has absolutely nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution. Keegan herself even said, back in 2009, that gay marriage was not a constitutional right.

    Okay, back to the issues of immigration and border security!
    Marriage is a natural right, an inalienable right, which makes it a constitutional right, like freedom, liberty, justice, and equality, and is not conditioned upon religious beliefs. State recognized marriage has nothing to do with religious beliefs or even other personal beliefs on the subject. It's a matter of law, not God. Some people believe God chooses their mate for the purpose of procreation, and that's fine and they are free to believe what they want and if they want live their lives accordingly, but state recognized marriage is not and has never been conditioned upon that, and rightly so, so there's nothing about this ruling that impacts anyone else's personal religious beliefs or liberty. It doesn't change marriage laws, which today have nothing to do with religion, it just adds gay couples to those protected by them in all 50 states, and rightly so.

    Yes! Back to stopping illegal immigration, reducing legal immigration and securing our borders.

    We need at least a 10 Year Moratorium on All Immigration and we need it now.
    Last edited by Judy; 06-26-2015 at 11:32 PM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    3,185
    I have stayed neutral on this one, and I think I've done that fairly well. When I heard the Supremes' ruling using the Constitution to justify a narrow decision my thought was "Uh-huh, I can probably agree with that, but up until recently there were lots of very aged anti-sodomy laws on States law books." I cannot remember any attempts at enforcement other than rape and child molestation cases, but the laws existed. So, did the Supremes get it called as the Founders would have called it? I do not imagine we will know for sure, my belief is that they did not.

    Are we repeating the Roman's history?

  4. #14
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Quote Originally Posted by kevinssdad View Post
    I have stayed neutral on this one, and I think I've done that fairly well. When I heard the Supremes' ruling using the Constitution to justify a narrow decision my thought was "Uh-huh, I can probably agree with that, but up until recently there were lots of very aged anti-sodomy laws on States law books." I cannot remember any attempts at enforcement other than rape and child molestation cases, but the laws existed. So, did the Supremes get it called as the Founders would have called it? I do not imagine we will know for sure, my belief is that they did not.

    Are we repeating the Roman's history?
    Well, this US Supreme Court Ruling isn't based upon the Original Constitution that was written by the Founders, it's based upon the 14th Amendment that was ratified in 1868 that guarantees every person under our jurisdiction, equal protection under the law and specifically prohibits laws by states that limit or restrict the immunities and privileges of citizens of the United States.

    This case isn't about religion or churches or spiritual ceremonies. This case is about state marriage laws that recognize marriages for the purpose of state records and civil legal protections, which is the only purpose of a government-issued marriage license and a state-recognized marriage.

    The reason most people want a state-recognized marriage is a) for the record b) legitimacy of children c) legal protections for marital property d) inheritances should a spouse pass away e) medical and death responsibilities, i. e. legal next of kin, none of which have anything at all to do with anyone's religious beliefs.

    So, there are these laws pertaining to getting married in all the states. They're fairly simple. Age, license, fees, certificate of "I do", and in some states a gender requirement. Well, this is where it got messy. There is no gender exception in the 14th Amendment because such would defy the whole purpose of the 14th Amendment, the same as any other physical characteristic would do.

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Thus, the Supreme Court actually ruled in direct accordance with the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution today. And personally, I believe the Founders would be very proud of our Supreme Court today. Even though our original Constitution shouldn't have needed a 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment, the behavior of states expressed through their state legislative bodies and state courts proved certain matters could not be left up to common sense, intelligence or loyalty to the purpose and intent of our Declaration of Independence nor the wording of the Original Constitution, and thus had to be clarified with a picture drawn for them through these 3 Amendments to eliminate the lingering mis-notion of "freedom for me, but not for thee".

    So surprisingly, the US Supreme Court did get it right today for the right reason, for the right purpose, based on the right clause of the right section of the right Amendment to the US Constitution. And shame, shame, shame on the other 4 silly tards who can't read a 3.5 line plain-language Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution and get it right.

    And shame, shame, shame on all the political candidates and others who couldn't get it right either.

    And all those "pastors", "ministers", "men of God", "messengers of God", and so on and so forth who think civil disobedience to violate the Equal Rights Amendment to the US Constitution is appropriate ... to hell with all of you stupid hypocrites that howl daily on protecting your own "religious" liberty under God to line your pockets, while cackling like a bunch of old hens to deny someone else their equal protection under the law.

    Our Constitution is a beautiful thing, so magnificent in fact, that for some it's more than they bargained for, and those are the people who believe in "freedom for me, but not for thee." Sometimes this group rises to a level of power that enables them to use their positions to violate this beautiful document and through their stupidity and self-interest jeopardize their own liberty, and that of the rest of us, by trying to limit someone else's.

    Perhaps our nation is evolving to more of what it was supposed to be. This week has been an important week, freedom for gay couples to marry so all the ugly hoopla against these really nice people will no longer be fashionable or profitable, and the initiative by South Carolina that triggered a multi-state effort to end the "flag thing" as at least one step to improving the lives of black Americans, and with that, all our lives.

    Also, what a relief it is, as we head into the 2016 Elections, that the issue of gay marriage is off the table already covered by the highest rule of law in our land.
    Last edited by Judy; 06-27-2015 at 01:00 AM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #15
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    Marriage is a natural right, an inalienable right, which makes it a constitutional right, like freedom, liberty, justice, and equality, and is not conditioned upon religious beliefs. State recognized marriage has nothing to do with religious beliefs or even other personal beliefs on the subject. It's a matter of law, not God. Some people believe God chooses their mate for the purpose of procreation, and that's fine and they are free to believe what they want and if they want live their lives accordingly, but state recognized marriage is not and has never been conditioned upon that, and rightly so, so there's nothing about this ruling that impacts anyone else's personal religious beliefs or liberty. It doesn't change marriage laws, which today have nothing to do with religion, it just adds gay couples to those protected by them in all 50 states, and rightly so.

    Yes! Back to stopping illegal immigration, reducing legal immigration and securing our borders.

    We need at least a 10 Year Moratorium on All Immigration and we need it now.
    Elena Kagan 2009: “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage”




    Posted by William A. Jacobson Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 4:00pm

    That was then, this is now.


    Possibly as soon as Thursday morning, but certainly by early next week, we will know how the Supreme Court rules on the issue of whether denying same-sex couples the ability to marry violates the U.S. Constitution.
    Lyle Denniston at ScotusBlog summarized the case as follows:
    Taking on a historic constitutional challenge with wide cultural impact, the Supreme Court on Friday afternoon [January 16, 2015] agreed to hear four new cases on same-sex marriage. The Court said it would rule on the power of the states to ban same-sex marriages and to refuse to recognize such marriages performed in another state….
    The Court fashioned the specific questions it is prepared to answer, but they closely tracked the two core constitutional issues that have led to a lengthy string of lower-court rulings striking down state bans. As of now, same-sex marriages are allowed in thirty-six states, with bans remaining in the other fourteen but all are under court challenge.
    Although the Court said explicitly that it was limiting review to the two basic issues, along the way the Justices may have to consider what constitutional tests they are going to apply to state bans, and what weight to give to policies that states will claim to justify one or the other of the bans….
    I hate trying to predict court rulings, but the political winds have changed dramatically the past few years, so if I had to bet, I’d bet that the ruling is 5-4 for gay marriage. [Warning – my bets tend to be counter-indicators.] Don’t think for a second that politics and public opinion doesn’t influence such historic cases.
    I also expect Elena Kagan to be one of the five, based on her comments during oral argument, viaNY Times:
    Justice Elena Kagan said allowing same-sex marriage would benefit children. “More adopted children and more marital households, whether same-sex or other-sex, seems to be a good thing,” she said.
    Mr. Bursch said the bans he was defending did not discriminate based on sexual orientation, which left Justice Kagan puzzled.
    “If you prevent people from wearing yarmulkes,” she said, “you know, that’s discrimination against Jews.”…
    Near the conclusion of the first argument, Justice Kagan indicated that she hoped the Supreme Court would find a right to same-sex marriage. She said the court has a role in protecting minorities even when majorities made their views known at the polls.
    “We don’t live in a pure democracy,” she said. “We live in a constitutional democracy.”
    So, before the decision is released, it’s worth revisiting Kagan’s 2009 testimony before the Senate during confirmation hearings on her nomination to be Solicitor General.
    In the course of that testimony, Kagan stated:
    “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage”
    I came under some criticism in May 2010, when Kagan was nominated for the Supreme Court, for taking Kagan at her word. Claims were made that I took the sentence out of context, was naive, or shamefully deceptive. I’ll plead guilty to being naive, but I didn’t take her sentence out of context, shamefully or otherwise. Matt Vespa’s 2013 post at PJ Media summarizes the back and forth.
    Here is the first part of Kagan’s testimony, with context by me:
    In response to a question from Sen. John Cornyn (at page 28 of her Senate Judiciary Questionnaire), Kagan stated flat out that there was no constitutional right for same sex couples to marry (emphasis mine):
    1. As Solicitor General, you would be charged with defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That law, as you may know, was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton.
    a. Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?
    Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
    b. Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage? If so, please provide details.
    Answer: I do not recall ever expressing an opinion on this question.
    This doesn’t mean that Kagan opposes gay marriage. But she clearly believes it is a matter for the political process, not a constitutional right.
    More context was provided by a letter from Kagan to the Senate Judiciary Committee, again with context by me:
    In a March 18, 2009 letter (embedded below, at pp. 11-12), which is not publicly available but which Whelan kindly provided to me, Kagan supplemented her written answers at the request of Arlen Specter. Here is the language in the letter seized upon by my critics to show that Kagan really didn’t mean what she said, and really just was opining as to the current state of the law:
    Constitutional rights are a product of constitutional text as interpreted by courts and understood by the nation’s citizenry and its elected representatives. By this measure, which is the best measure I know for determining whether a constitutional right exists, there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
    These sentences do make it seem as if Kagan walked away from her prior written statement that “[t]here is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”
    But these sentences are not the full supplemental response. Immediately preceding these sentences was the following language:
    I previously answered this question briefly, but (I had hoped) clearly, saying that “[t]here is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” I meant for this statement to bear its natural meaning.
    When the full supplemental statement by Kagan is read in context, there is nothing to suggest that Kagan was walking away from her written statement that there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
    In further defense of my reading of her testimony, I wrote:
    The question, unlike many other questions in the questionnaire, was not focused on the current state of the law. The question was what Kagan believed.
    The unambiguous nature of the answer also was clear because Kagan did not decline to answer, as she did in the following question seeking her opinion as to Massachusetts law; in that latter question Kagan said “I have never studied the Massachusetts Constitution, judicial interpretations of that document, or the SJC’s decision, so I do not have an informed view.”
    For Kagan to take the position that her answer left open the possibility that she merely was making a statement as to the present state of the law as to gay marriage, and not what she believed, would represent a clear deception.
    A more innocent explanation could be excused if this answer was given at a live hearing, in which the specific wording of the question may not have been clear in the context of the hearing room.
    But these were written answers to written questions, and Kagan was extremely careful in each and every one of her answers. Kagan could have couched her answer in terms of the current state of the law, but she did not.
    If Kagan pulls an “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” in explaining her answer, that would tell us far more about whether she should be confirmed than the substance of her position on gay marriage.
    I prefer to believe that Kagan understood the plain wording of the question, and that the plain wording of her answer was what it was.
    I look forward to the hearings on this issue.
    Unfortunately, the issue never came up during Kagan’s confirmation hearings to be a Supreme Court Justice.
    I know, 2009 was then, this is now.
    Then she was a nominee for Solicitor General, now she is an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Then she was bound to follow the law, now she gets to make it.
    Then supporting gay marriage may have sunk her nomination, now public opinion has shifted.
    As the Bob Dylan song goes, “for the times, they are evolving.”
    All that being said, it is difficult to reconcile Kagan’s full testimony on the issue during her 2009 confirmation hearings for Solicitor General with what we all expect to happen in the next few days, a vote by Kagan to find a “federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/06...-sex-marriage/

  6. #16
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717


    Analysis Antonin Scalia's dissent in same-sex marriage ruling even more scornful than usual


    In his dissent in the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, seen here in 2011, showed contempt for his colleagues.
    (Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)




    By TIMOTHY M. PHELPS contact the reporter






    The legal world may have become inured to wildly rhetorical opinions by Justice Antonin Scalia, but his dissent in the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision Friday reaches new heights for its expression of utter contempt for the majority of his colleagues.
    In the course of just nine pages, Scalia calls the opinion of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, with whom he has served on the court for 28 years, “a judicial Putsch,” “pretentious,” “egotistic,” “silly,” and filled with “straining-to-be-memorable passages.”
    Supreme Court rules on same-sex marriage: Joy, defiance and questions result

    “This is a naked judicial claim to legislative — indeed, super-legislative — power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government,” Scalia wrote. “A system of government that makes the people subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”
    In unusually personal terms, even for Scalia, he mocked Kennedy’s opening sentence.


    “If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag,” Scalia wrote in a footnote. “The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of [legendary former Chief Justice] John Marshall and [former Justice] Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”
    In arguing that the court had usurped the right of states and citizens to decide the matter themselves, Scalia said the decision eroded the nation’s very democracy.
    Gay marriage affirmed amid an eloquent battle of words and visions

    “Today’s decree says that my ruler, and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact — and the furthest extension one can even imagine — of the court’s claimed power to create 'liberties' that the Constitution and its amendments neglect to mention.”
    In what seems like an attack on the very institution of the court, Scalia derides its makeup, including where the justices studied, where they go to church, where they come from — all by way of saying they have no right to make social decisions for the population.
    cComments
    • "Scalia said the decision eroded the nation’s very democracy." From a guy who decided that dark money meant to buy presidential elections is "free speech."
      MICK SNYDER
      AT 11:24 PM JUNE 26, 2015


    ADD A COMMENTSEE ALL COMMENTS

    27




    “Take, for example, this court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single south-westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California [where Kennedy hails from] does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges .... But of course the justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis.”
    Same-sex marriage ruling creates new constitutional liberty

    Scalia does not let personal relationships get in the way of a barbed zinger when he is upset. His closest friend on the court is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with whom he has served as a judge for 33 years. They often vacation and celebrate holidays together. It mattered not that she too joined Kennedy’s much derided opinion.
    “To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation,” Scalia wrote.


    “The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the court to do so. Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent.”
    At the end of his opinion Scalia warns darkly that such opinions could somehow bring the court down.
    “Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. With each decision of ours that takes from the people a question properly left to them ... we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence,” Scalia wrote.



    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...626-story.html

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  7. #17
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    “Today’s decree says that my ruler, and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact — and the furthest extension one can even imagine — of the court’s claimed power to create 'liberties' that the Constitution and its amendments neglect to mention.”
    In what seems like an attack on the very institution of the court, Scalia derides its makeup, including where the justices studied, where they go to church, where they come from — all by way of saying they have no right to make social decisions for the population.
    “To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation,” Scalia wrote.
    At the end of his opinion Scalia warns darkly that such opinions could somehow bring the court down.
    “Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. With each decision of ours that takes from the people a question properly left to them ... we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence,” Scalia wrote.
    Poor Scalia. To write such a dissenting opinion with words like this, clearly shows something besides his job propelled him.

    "social" issues include the basic rights of Americans. "social" issues are the fundamental reason for our Constitution to have a Bill of Rights, the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments. We are a free nation of free people based on our Declaration of Independence. Government doesn't hand out freedom, because we are born with it, government only takes it away. States have been renowned for taking it away from enslaving blacks to discriminating against them, and women and yes, gays.

    The US Supreme Court has rarely understood this for American citizens. And it's a tragedy that will long be remembered, because to use Scalia's term, their impotence in protecting the freedom and rights of our citizens has usually fallen to the Court's overwhelming loyalty to government instead of to the people they're paid to protect. Scalia, an old authoritarian fart tat this point, believes the Constitution "creates liberties". No, the purpose of the Constitution is to protect liberties that already exist. He's under the illusion that the only rights we have are those specifically stated in the document, overlooking one of the most important, crucial clauses in the 9th and 10th Amendments:

    Amendment IX


    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



    Amendment X

    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.



    This time they got it right and put the freedom of American citizens above the tyranny of discrimination-infested state governments.

    When the Court does get it right, as it did in this case, it's a rare occurrence, when it should be a common every day occurrence.

    Before this court ruling, 37 states had already protected the rights of gay couples to marry, an overwhelming majority of our states. On this issue, the states and the people of those states took the lead to resolve this discrimination and the minority of 13 states still practicing this discrimination have been over-ruled by the highest rule of law in our land.

    It's a great day for gays and for the rest of US because while discrimination affects its targets the most, its existence is a dark cloud of harm and injustice that diminishes US all.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  8. #18
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politi...nge/index.html

    The week that changed the nation

    By Stephen Collinson, CNN
    Updated 7:02 AM ET, Sat June 27, 2015




    Celebrations at the Supreme Court after marriage ruling 01:32

    Washington (CNN)The times, they are a changing, suddenly at whiplash speed.

    After a momentous week, same-sex couples can now marry in all 50 states, the Confederate flag's historic hold on the political institutions of the Deep South is fraying by the hour and Obamacare, after defying another attempt to dismantle it, is now reaffirmed as the law of the land.

    And as a capstone to these seismic events, the first black president of the United States spent Friday afternoon singing "Amazing Grace" on live television in front of an African American congregation.

    Political and social conventions on civil rights and race relations that for decades have seemed immovable are being swept away in a cascade of grass-roots change. Politicians have been left struggling to keep up.

    "Progress on this journey often comes in small increments," President Barack Obama said Friday, arguing that the task of each generation is to honor the Constitution's guarantee of equal rights as the times change.

    "(It's) sometimes two steps forward, one step back, compelled by the persistent effort of dedicated citizens," he said, describing the process of transformational political change around which he has built his political career.

    "And then sometimes there are days like this, when that slow, steady effort is rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt," Obama said, moments after the Supreme Court delivered its historic decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

    The pace of change is bewildering to some political figures, activists and candidates. In the case of the Confederate flag and gay rights, the shifts are happening despite politicians and not because of them: Federal and state leaders are simply being overtaken by the people on several key issues.

    But the swift torrent of change no doubt has far-reaching political implications.

    After speaking about the historic gay rights ruling, Obama climbed aboard Air Force One to head to South Carolina for his final duty of an emotionally draining week, the funeral of Pastor Clementa Pinckney, the most prominent of the nine people killed in Charleston massacre.


    Obama sings 'Amazing Grace' during eulogy for pastor 01:44

    He turned on the political theatrics again, delivering a eulogy that turned into a moving sermon on race, the experience of being black and the power of faith. Before an enthralled congregation, Obama embraced his status as the first African American president as never before, calling for action to counter discrimination. It was a fitting end to a historic week, as it showed Obama had shed his former reticence to talk about race -- and the nation may not look on its president quite the same way again.

    "We talk a lot about race ... we don't need more talk," Obama said, adopting the cadences of a preacher, condemning employment discrimination and the attitude that results in someone being told "call Johnny back for a job interview but not Jamal."

    Then, in what will surely become one of the iconic moments of his presidency, Obama paused before hitting the first notes of the hymn "Amazing Grace," with the organist providing backup and the congregation joining in -- a moment of joy amid sorrow.

    Tharon Johnson, a Georgia political consultant who ran Obama's southern campaign in 2012, said the president, who referred to church as a place for African Americans to call "our own" and who used the 'N-word' in a podcast that went viral on Monday to argue racism was not dead, was speaking to multiple audiences.

    "Today, President Obama not only spoke as the president of the United States, but he was able to articulate a healing and soothing message to the predominantly African American audience. There was no other person that could have given that eulogy. His singing of 'Amazing Grace' was epic."

    Kareem Crayton, a University of North Carolina law professor, said Obama's speech was the finest of his presidency.

    "I think what we saw today was what a black man who served in the nation's top office for six years sees when he looks out on America. You heard in the words the emotion, the sense of where we are and what we have to do," he said.

    Even before Obama's appearance in Charleston, the events of the last five days were likely to have far-reaching political implications.

    Friday's 5-4 Supreme Court ruling giving same-sex couples the right to marry nationwide was just the latest development that appears to boost liberals and challenge conservatives determined to preserve traditional values.

    It provided an immediate test for Republican presidential candidates a day after the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, the centerpiece of Obama's domestic legacy, which the GOP is still vowing to overturn.

    The gay rights decision seemed to trap Republican leaders between the conservative attitude on social issues that is vital to their political base and the widening acceptance of gay rights among more moderate voters that the court's judgment seems to reflect.

    "The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do -- redefine marriage," said 2016 Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, siding immediately with evangelicals in the conservative base.

    "I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch," Huckabee said. "We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat."

    And Florida Sen. Marco Rubio offered the first hints of a conservative fight, placing the future ideological direction of the Supreme Court -- and the likelihood that the next president will have the chance to replace several aging justices -- at the center of the 2016 campaign.

    "As we look ahead, it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood," Rubio said in a statement.

    And despite the forest of gay rights activists' rainbow flags that overwhelmed the marble plaza in front of the Supreme Court Friday, there are signs this battle in the culture wars will not be abandoned just yet — especially with possible Supreme Court cases on issues like abortion looming in the near future.

    Chief Justice John Roberts, in his dissent to the majority court ruling, complained that "five lawyers" -- namely his colleagues on the highest bench in the land -- had taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage as it had been accepted by multiple civilizations throughout history.

    "Celebrate today's decision. Do not celebrate the Constitution, it has nothing to do with it," said Roberts in the waspish conclusion to his dissent.



    Should Confederate history be taken down from the U.S. Capitol? 01:25

    Kerri Kupec of the Alliance Defending Freedom picked up Roberts's contention that the court's decision had cut off a democratic process through which people were weighing in on gay marriage in elections and state ballot initiatives.

    "I think we are heading into uncharted territory with respect towards regards religious freedom," Kupec told CNN, arguing that the marriage ruling called into question the right of people to view the institution in accordance with their faith.

    Another example of people power outpacing politicians is unfolding in South Carolina following the massacre.

    Just over a week ago, Republican political leaders were arguing that the fate of the Confederate flag, which is revered by some white supremacist groups, was a matter for the states alone. But that position quickly became unsustainable.

    Within days, spurred by an outpouring of support for victims of the alleged hate crime, South Carolina Republican Gov. Nikki Haley joined other prominent local GOP leaders in calling on the legislature to remove the flag from state property.

    Similar calls came from leaders elsewhere in the South, as major corporations like Walmart announced they would stop selling Confederate Flag merchandise.

    While the events of a dizzying week will have a broad impact for decades to come, they also represent an important, personal boost for Obama, who continues to defy expectations that he is a lame duck as his second term enters its twilight years.

    While the administration did not bring the case that rewrote the law on gay marriage, it did side with the plantiffs -- allowing the White House to argue it is on the right side of history.

    Even before Friday, Obama was celebrating a stunning week in which the Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling rejected a second legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act and Republicans, who have often thwarted the president's agenda, worked with him to secure fast-track authority to negotiate trade agreements, including a legacy-boosting pan-Pacific pact.

    Next up is the prospect of a nuclear deal with Iran, as U.S. negotiators head to Europe to try to clinch a final agreement that would represent a striking, if partial, break with more than 30 years of visceral hostility between Washington and Tehran.

    And there can be little doubt that Obama, after a presidency marred by political polarization in Washington and successive economic and foreign policy crises, views this roller coaster week as confirmation of his own belief in the power of people to defy the inertia stifling their political institutions, whether they be equal marriage campaigners seeking the basic right to wed or prayerful congregants in South Carolina offering mercy to a killer.

    "What a vindication of the belief that ordinary people can do extraordinary things," he said after Friday's Supreme Court ruling, which came after years of campaigning by gay rights activists. "What a reminder of what Bobby Kennedy once said, about how small actions can be like pebbles being thrown into a still lake, and ripples of hope cascade outwards and change the world."
    Last edited by Judy; 06-27-2015 at 10:22 AM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  9. #19
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    Mike Huckabee: Conservatives can ignore gay marriage ruling like Lincoln ignored Dred Scott


    Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. (Associated Press) ** FILE ** more >

    By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Saturday, June 27, 2015

    DENVER — Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee suggested Saturday that conservatives treat the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision like Abraham Lincoln treated the high court’s pro-slavery ruling in Dred Scott: Ignore it.


    “They can do same thing that Abraham Lincoln did about the Dred Scott decision of 1857,” Mr. Huckabee said at the Western Conservative Summit. “The Dred Scott decision said that African-Americans were not fully human, that they need not be treated as fully human.”


    “He [Lincoln] simply ignored the ruling and said, ‘That’s not correct,’ ” Mr. Huckabee said. “And by the way, it may sound like, ‘Oh, that’s an extreme position.’ Actually, it’s a constitutional position. Here’s why: If we acquiesce immediately without review, without the other branches of government, it goes back to my point, that this is judicial tyranny.”



    SEE ALSO: Jim Inhofe: My gay friends thought Supreme Court marriage ruling was bad


    He also said he wanted to warn his liberal friends — “both of them,” he joked — that an activist court can swing the other way.

    When that happens, “I hope they remember their jubilation,” Mr. Huckabee said.

    The Republican presidential hopeful and former Fox News host took a jab at President Obama for reversing his past opposition to same-sex marriage.



    SEE ALSO: Rick Santorum blasts Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling as ‘based on a lie’


    “If he has so radically changed his view and now he believes that same-sex marriage is the best thing that could happen to this country, one of three things is true: He was either lying in 2008, he’s lying now, or God rewrote the Bible and Barack Obama is the only one who got the new edition,” Mr. Huckabee said to applause and laughter.


    Mr. Huckabee
    is one of six would-be GOP presidential nominees scheduled to speak at the three-day conference hosted by the Centennial Institute at the Colorado Convention Center.


    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz3eIWDJYYt
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  10. #20
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    . . . Also, what a relief it is, as we head into the 2016 Elections, that the issue of gay marriage is off the table already covered by the highest rule of law in our land.
    10 LGBT fights the Supreme Court could hear next

    by Jorge Rivas | June 26, 2015 11:47 AM

    Worker discrimination laws for LGBT workers

    Housing discrimination laws

    Adoption refusal laws

    Gay conversion therapy

    “Show Your Papers to Pee” bills

    Keeping bias out of public schools

    Rights for incarcerated LGBT people

    Laws that criminalize HIV

    Incarcerating LGBT immigrants

    “Religious freedom” laws
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. US supreme court denies review of states' immigration cases
    By JohnDoe2 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-04-2014, 01:26 PM
  2. No, Mr. President, Same-sex Couples Cannot Marry
    By kathyet in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-29-2012, 02:21 PM
  3. 26 States Take Obamacare To Supreme Court
    By CCUSA in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-26-2012, 09:31 PM
  4. CA Supreme Court Rules States Have Right To Enforce Immigrat
    By SusanSmithNAG in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 10:31 AM
  5. U.S. Supreme Court - All States CAN Require Voter I.D.
    By bordersoldier in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-30-2008, 08:14 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •