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

Why the 14th Amendment can't possibly require same-sex marriage

Thursday, March 19, 2015
| Frank Turek - Guest Columnist
http://crossexamined.org/

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.]Facebook147Twitter8EmailMore

[/COLOR]
Does the U.S. Constitution require same-sex marriage? No, the U.S. Constitution requires the Court to leave this issue to the states. If you believe otherwise, then amend the Constitution.

---

The Supreme Court is about to decide if the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships. There are several reasons why the answer is no.
What's the strongest argument that suggests the U.S. Supreme Court won't find a right to same-sex marriage? (Poll Closed)



Marriage laws entrusted to states, not the feds 54.75% (1,118 votes)


14th Amendment not written for homosexual conduct 28.8% (588 votes)


U.S. Constitution constrains judges from 'evolving' 13.12% (268 votes)


'Born that way' not a legal argument 3.33% (68 votes)


Total Votes: 2,042




The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated!

Some may say, "Who cares what they believed in 1868 about homosexuality? We've evolved since then."

That's addressed by the second reason: laws and words have specific scopes and meanings. They don't have unlimited flexibility as liberal justices tend to think. Neither the intent nor the text of the Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage. If the people of the United States have "evolved" on the issue, then the Constitution provides them with a very clear and fair way for the document to intelligently "evolve" – they need to convince a supermajority of federal and state legislatures to amend the Constitution. That's the very reason our Constitution has an amendment process!

If we fail to use the amendment process and permit judges to substitute their own definitions and judgments for what the people actually meant when they passed the law in the first place, then we no longer govern ourselves. Why vote or use the political process if unelected justices strike down our laws and impose their own as they go? In fact, why have a Constitution at all? If it's "evolving" or "living," then it's not really a collective agreement of the people – it's a pretext that allows judges to invent rights and impose any moral (or immoral) position they want against the will of the people.

Imagine if the people were to pass an amendment guaranteeing a right to same-sex marriage. Would you consider the Supreme Court to be legitimate if it imposed its own position and overturned the amendment? No – the people decide what the laws are, not the Court.

Third, the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent states from discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and women didn't even have the right to vote, yet no court ever thought it could use the "equal protection" clause to change state voting laws. So why do some district courts think they can use it now to change state marriage laws? Are we to believe that "equal protection" does not guarantee a woman's right to vote but does guarantee a woman's right to marry another woman?

Since the people "evolved" on voting rights, they convinced supermajorities in Congress and of the state legislatures voted to add the 15th and 19th Amendments in 1870 and 1920 respectively. The courts knew they shouldn't act as legislatures to grant rights not addressed by the Constitution. Neither should this Supreme Court.

Fourth, despite all the talk about equal rights, everyone already has equal marriage rights. Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That law treats all people equally, but not every behavior they may desire equally. If people with homosexual desires do not have equal rights, then people with desires to marry their relatives or more than one person don't have equal rights. The "born that way" justification doesn't work either because that same justification could make any desired arrangement "marriage," which means the logic behind it is absurd. The Court needs to acknowledge the fact that natural marriage, same sex-marriage, incestuous marriage, and polygamous marriage are all different behaviors with different outcomes, so the law rightfully treats those behaviors differently while giving every citizen the equal right to participate in marriage whatever its legal definition is.

Finally, the states make marriage law, not the feds. The U.S. Constitution says nothing about marriage. While the Supreme Court did overturn Virginia's ban on inter-racial marriage, it did so because Virginia discriminated on the basis of race, which is precisely what the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent. There is no rational reason to discriminate on the basis of race because race is irrelevant to marriage. However, gender is essential to it. Even the 2013 Windsor decision, which partially struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, recognized that marriage is a state, not a federal issue. Since there is no 14th Amendment issue here, the Court must leave marriage to the states.

Legal reasons such as these are all the Court is constitutionally permitted to consider. Polls and policy considerations are for the people or their legislatures, not the courts. Ryan T. Anderson writes in his recent column titled "Memo to Supreme Court: Nothing in the Constitution Requires States to Redefine Marriage":
"The overarching question before the Supreme Court is not whether an exclusively male-female marriage policy is the best, but only whether it is allowed by the U.S. Constitution. The question is not whether government-recognized same-sex marriage is good or bad policy, but only whether it is required by the U.S. Constitution."

Does the U.S. Constitution require same-sex marriage? No, the U.S. Constitution requires the Court to leave this issue to the states. If you believe otherwise, then amend the Constitution.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectiv...e-sex-marriage

This guy has got it right!

Does the U.S. Constitution require same-sex marriage? No, the U.S. Constitution requires the Court to leave this issue to the states. If you believe otherwise, then amend the Constitution.

Nothing was left to the States, everything not assigned to the federal government was left to the "States, or to the people." Who decides for the people when they are at odds with the States? The US Supreme Court. You need to check your 9th and 10th Amendments before spouting about the Constitution in our language.

Same-sex marriage is required by the US Constitution because opposite sex marriage is recognized by the States. That is what creates the controversy from the inequality the Supreme Court has resolved.

Originally Posted by Judy

Nothing was left to the States, everything not assigned to the federal government was left to the "States, or to the people." Who decides for the people when they are at odds with the States? The US Supreme Court. You need to check your 9th and 10th Amendments before spouting about the Constitution in our language.

Same-sex marriage is required by the US Constitution because opposite sex marriage is recognized by the States. That is what creates the controversy from the inequality the Supreme Court has resolved.

The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't resolved anything, what they've done is essentially write legislation! In other words, 9 people, not elected to represent the people, have decided on a matter they had no business deciding. Many of the individual states had legal bans on homosexual marriage. I don't know exactly how many, but many of those bans were probably voted on by the people of those states! The U.S. Constitution does not address homosexual marriage, which means it was a decision, under the Constitution, that was solely left to the people and the states they reside in. It's a courts job is to interpret law, not write it. The 9th and 10th Amendments do not directly address homosexual marriage. It is my contention that your interpretation is just as faulty as the U.S. Supreme Courts.

Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license

MATT VOLZJul 1st 2015 7:00PM
21212068
437

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife.Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage. Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy — holding multiple marriage licenses — but Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied.

"It's about marriage equality," Collier told The Associated Press Wednesday. "You can't have this without polygamy."

County clerk officials initially denied Collier's application, then said they would consult with the county attorney's office before giving him a final answer, Collier said.

Yellowstone County chief civil litigator Kevin Gillen said he is reviewing Montana's bigamy laws and expected to send a formal response to Collier by next week.

"I think he deserves an answer," Gillen said, but added his review is finding that "the law simply doesn't provide for that yet."

The Supreme Court's ruling on Friday made gay marriages legal nationwide. Chief Justice John Roberts said in his dissent that people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them.
Related: See what some of the Supreme Court justices said in the dissent on the gay marriage ruling:

Collier, 46, said that dissent inspired him. He owns a refrigeration business in Billings and married Victoria, 40, in 2000. He and his second wife, Christine, had a religious wedding ceremony in 2007 but did not sign a marriage license to avoid bigamy charges, he said.

Collier said he is a former Mormon who was excommunicated for polygamy and now belongs to no religious organization. He said he and his wives hid their relationship for years, but became tired of hiding and went public by appearing on the reality cable television show "Sister Wives."
The three have seven children of their own and from previous relationships.

"My second wife Christine, who I'm not legally married to, she's put up with my crap for a lot of years. She deserves legitimacy," he said.
Collier said he sent an email asking the ACLU of Montana to represent him in a possible lawsuit. ACLU legal director Jim Taylor said he has not seen the request.

Taylor said he has no opinion on Collier's claims, though the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage "is about something very different."
Anne Wilde, a co-founder of the polygamy advocacy organization Principle Voices located in Utah, said Collier's application is the first she's heard of in the nation, and that most polygamous families in Utah are not seeking the right to have multiple marriage licenses.

Attitudes on Same-Sex Marriage by State | FindTheBest

"Ninety percent or more of the fundamentalist Mormons don't want it legalized, they want it decriminalized," Wilde said.
A federal judge struck down parts of Utah's anti-polygamy law two years ago, saying the law violated religious freedom by prohibiting cohabitation. Bigamy is still illegal.

The state has appealed the ruling, and the case is pending in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Wilde said most polygamous families are satisfied with the judge's ruling and believe taking it further to include multiple marriage licenses would bring them under the unwanted jurisdiction of the government.

But she said the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage should strengthen their chance of winning the appeal.
"We hope the Supreme Court decision will show the direction the nation is going," she said. "It's more liberal, it's more understanding about people forming the families the way they want."

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/01/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-for-wedding-license/21204001/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl5%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D-1259654238

Hmm, I guess we knew this was coming. What's next, lawsuits for siblings to marry? Maybe after that we'll get to mother/son and father/daughter combinations. The U.S. Supreme Court has opened a can of worms. Of course I'm sure they knew that.

MW wrote:

Hmm, I guess we knew this was coming. What's next, lawsuits for siblings to marry? Maybe after that we'll get to mother/son and father/daughter combinations. The U.S. Supreme Court has opened a can of worms. Of course I'm sure they knew that.

Sounds to me like it was one of the dissenters in your camp who opened the can of worms on this one:

Chief Justice John Roberts said in his dissent that people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them.

I guess he knew that when he wrote it, after all he is the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

An example of thou does protest too much.

WND EXCLUSIVE

'BLAME SUPREMES' FOR CLASH WITH 1ST AMENDMENT

'I can't think of a situation where this invented right should trump religious liberty'

Published: 1 day agoimage: http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/10/runruh.jpg
BOB UNRUH About | Email | Archive

image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/themes...ages//feed.png
Subscribe to feed


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/blame-sup...ZaI5oDxWPRM.99

o you think the courts have been busy with marriage cases? Wait until you see what happens as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision establishing a right to “same-sex marriage.”

That’s the opinion of several outspoken leaders who have been legally engaged with the issue, from a judge to an attorney and even a sitting state attorney general.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Ken Connelly told WND on Wednesday that the old maxim about conflicting rights applies to the dispute over same-sex marriage: Person A has a right to swing a fist, but that right ends where person B’s nose starts.

“It is unassailable that by redefining marriage, the Supreme Court has set up a clash between the asserted right to same-sex marriage and religious liberty,” he said.

In the ongoing conflict prompted by same-sex couples who demand wedding-related services from Christian business owners, he believes it’s clear which right should prevail.

“I can’t think of a situation where this invented right should trump religious liberty, whether they be a public official or a private individual,” Connelly said.

He anticipates, however, that many courts will not respect First Amendment religious rights, even with additional federal and state laws protecting them.

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who has recused himself from some marriage cases in his state because of his public stance on the issue, pointed, in an interview with WND, to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent last week.

Thomas warned of the wide range of implications for religious liberty as a result of the court’s endorsement of same-sex marriage.

He said it’s inevitable that the two rights will come into conflict.

How did America get from “Mayberry” to “gay marriage?” Here’s the explanation, in “A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been.”

And Thomas noted that the majority appeared “unmoved” by the looming clash.

Moore said the opinion from “five lawyers” on the court, as Chief Justice John Roberts described the majority, is dangerous because it calls same-sex marriage a fundamental right.

“People have no idea what the future holds with regards to same-sex marriage,” he said.
It was Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton who released an opinion that county clerks in his state can choose not to issue licenses to same-sex couples.
He cited the clerks’ religious freedom.

“County clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may allow accommodation of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses,” he said. “The strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts of each case.”

He was immediately blasted by the left. At Think Progress, attorney Neel Lane, who has represented same-sex duos, said Paxton’s advice was “legally deficient,” falsely suggesting citizens’ First Amendment religious rights will be bulldozed.

Nowhere is the marriage conflict more apparent than in Alabama, where traditional marriage long has had strong support. Last winter, U.S. District Judge Callie Granade ordered the state to recognize same-sex marriage. But the state Supreme Court ruled probate judges are not required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Granade has renewed her order that the state abrogate the will of its voters.
ABC reported on Wednesday that there still were a handful of counties in Alabama refusing to grant marriage license to same-sex partners.
The report said same-sex marriage advocates were considering seeking penalties for those who disagree with them, no matter if that person was exercising his or her First Amendment right to practice a religious faith.

Granade’s order doesn’t affect counties where officials simply stopped granting marriage licenses.
Shannon Minter of the special-rights group National Center for Lesbian Rights, called for contempt charges against officials who refuse to issue licenses to same-sex couples.

Some clerks in Arkansas and Mississippi have decided to resign rather than be forced to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In an interview with Al.com, Moore compared the Supreme Court’s marriage decision to the court’s infamous Dred Scott ruling, which determined blacks are not equal to whites.

He pointed out the nation fought the Civil War to resolve that error.
Moore told the media outlet: “I’m not disputing that the Supreme Court ruling is not a precedent for the lower courts. But I am saying that it’s not in accordance with the Constitution.”

Moore argues the Supreme Court ruling on marriage is an “interpretation” of the Constitution, not the law itself. He said the law of the land is the U.S. Constitution.

“What we are talking about here is an interpretation of the Constitution,” he said.

“”In the Dred Scott case (1856 U.S. Supreme Court ruling) the Supreme Court ruled that blacks were property, not citizens of the U.S.,” said Moore. “That was the interpretation of the majority of the court. Were they right? Of course not.”

He continued: “Judges interpret the Constitution and if you interpret it as Justice Kennedy did (and four other justices) then same sex marriage is constitutional. But if you interpret it as justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas did, it is not constitutional. And not only is it not constitutional … it contradicts the Constitution and as Justice Thomas said it is at odds with the Constitution and the principles on which this nation were founded.”

WND reported a day ago the negative reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision was surging, with clerks quitting, judges dropping all procedures to issue any marriage licenses and even one U.S. senator telling people it should be ignored.

The Associated Press reported it found in a survey that multiple counties in Alabama were not issuing licenses.
“A Queer Thing Happened to America” chronicles the amazing transformation of America over the last 40 years and addresses the question head-on: Is there really a homosexual agenda, or is it a fiction of the religious right? Get your copy of the book the publishing world was afraid to touch!
The report said Alabama laws specify that probate judges “may” issue marriage licenses, so they are not required to do anything.

AP also reported a county clerk in Arkansas announced her resignation because of her religious and moral opposition to the mandate for same-sex marriage.
Meanwhile, in Kentucky, several county clerks announced they would not issue marriage licenses to “gay” couples. In Rowan County, Clerk Kim Davis said her office has decided to stop issuing marriage certificates altogether to avoid discrimination lawsuits.

And Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a candidate for GOP nomination for president, told NPR that there are many across America who can just ignore it.
He said the case was brought by parties from four states, but that “does not mean that those who are not parties to a case are bound by a judicial order.”

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/01/150125cruz.jpg
U.S. Sen Ted Cruz, R-Texas

He said it’s tragic that the Supreme Court justices decided in the case to rewrite the Constitution instead of doing their job, which was to interpret the law.
“It is a sad moment for the court when you have judges seizing authority that does not belong to them,” he said.
WND reported Monday that not only did the court’s mandate for same-sex marriage not resolve the controversy, it triggered a wave of rejection.
“This ruling by the five lawyers is no law at all,” said Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, a prominent legal defender of biblical marriage. “It is lawless and must be treated as such.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/blame-sup...ZaI5oDxWPRM.99