Supreme Court has no business being involved in same-sex marriage

Home  »  Homosexual Agenda  »  Supreme Court has no business being involved in same-sex marriage
Print This Post Print This Post
Apr 28, 2015 2 Comments ›› admin

by Lynn Woolley

This one should be left to the states. And, yes, it’s OK if Moe and Joe want to get married in Massachusetts, but Annie and Fannie can’t marry in Texas.

Nowadays, the states are nowhere close on moral values.

So if same-sex couples want to marry, they should be willing to live in states where the people — not the courts – allow it. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, but it did not end the debate over abortion. The Supremes should have learned a lesson. Social issues that are not mentioned in the Constitution should be left to the states – and the separation of powers should be preserved.

Supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday.(Photo: MLADEN ANTONOV/AFP/Getty Images)

Supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday.(Photo: MLADEN ANTONOV/AFP/Getty Images)

If there WERE some constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry, it should be so apparent that the Court would rule nine to zero. Such an important decision should not be made for us – by justices ruling on the basis of their own ideology.

The Supreme Court has become a lawless, partisan circus.

Don’t doubt me on this: the same-sex marriage ruling will be based on the personal ideology of the nine justices. THE LAW WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Since there are four “liberal” justices – that’s four automatic votes for throwing out the system of marriage that existed in the country since before the Revolution.

Since there are four “conservative” justices, we very well may see them all vote for the right of states to preserve marriage as between one man and one woman. But don’t be sure. Chief Justice John Roberts is not trustworthy as he proved in the original Obamacare case.

Here’s what Obergefell v. Hodges is all about:

The Court was listening to about two and a half hour or oral arguments challenging laws in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee that ban same-sex marriage; refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states; or both. Lawyers for the same-sex couples are arguing based on the 14th Amendment – because that seems to work a lot of the time. Especially where lib-justices are concerned.

So the farce of a decision comes down to the “Swing Vote.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy

Justice Anthony Kennedy

Assuming the usual suspects vote 4 to 4, Justice Anthony Kennedy will decide for us all. That’s right — one solitary man will have the power to make a few gay Americans happy with a left-wing decision based on feelings and ideology – and millions of Americans unhappy. One man will have the power to throw away centuries of traditional marriage that has been the glue that’s held our country together.

(Note that the current spate of police shootings and subsequent protests and riots are borne of the new paradigm in which most of the people involved have no fathers. But, oh, well! Let’s go ahead and put a stake in the traditional family.)

Justice Kennedy always teases a bit.

In one comment, he can make traditionalists happy and the next time he speaks, he seems to support the movement. So Kennedy started by questioning whether it would be appropriate for the Court to discard a definition of marriage that:

“…has been with us for millennia.”

OK, he sounds like the respects the hallowed traditions of marriage. But wait. He’s playing with us. He then moved to concerns he’s brought up in past cases while upholding gay rights. Such things as the well being of the children of same-sex couples and what he called the “dignity” conferred by marriage.

Kennedy incorrectly compares gay marriage to interracial marriage.

Splitting from the conservatives, Kennedy argued that if the Supremes do rule to change marriage for all of society, it will be along the same route traveled when bans on interracial marriage were struck down.

“Haven’t we learned a tremendous amount … just in the last 10 years?” Kennedy asked.

So this is thought to be a clue to where he’s going. But he’s dead wrong. Interracial marriage was about individual rights. Preserving traditional marriage is about protecting the family unit — and it’s about biology. Homosexual marriage is an affront to science.

Kennedy has a big decision to make. Again assuming that the other 8 justices are going to vote on feelings — and the law and state’s rights don’t matter — he can change the course of human history.

Two disgusting female justices.

If you thought I was kidding about liberal justices voting on the basis of liberal ideology – think again. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan are in the tank for the homosexual agenda –and the law does not matter one whit. These two justices are left-wing crusaders. They are down for the cause. They have no business being on this court. But we got ‘em anyway.

So — standing on the steps of the Supreme Court, Scott Lively, president of Abiding Truth Ministries, said he’s filing a motion calling for the recusal of both of them on the basis that they are tainted.

“Justices Ginsburg and Kagan, knowing full well that unique legal issues regarding the definition of marriage would soon come before them, deliberately officiated at so-called homosexual wedding ceremonies creating not merely the appearance of bias, but an actual and blatant conflict of interest. In my personal view they have committed an unparalleled breach of judicial ethics by elevating the importance of their own favored political cause of gay rights above the integrity of the court and of our nation.”

Lively is right. But liberals could care less. In the view of people like Saul Alinsky, Barack Obama, and these two justices, the courts exist for a purpose: to advance the cause of liberalism.

Tagged with: , , , , , ,


  1. Looney Larry says:

    Not really. Bill (can’t keep it in my pants) Clinton could have solved all the problems with DOMA by allowing an amendment that grants all federal rights to couples in civil unions as those have in traditional marriages. The entire thing was for equal rights to inheritance, taxes, and other advantages and disadvantages that married couples have. By denying this it set in motion the gay rights claim to have the right to marriage which the liberal courts used to legislate a new law.

  2. Read the first sentence of article 4 of the U.S. Constitution and weep. What that sentence means is that every state is obligated to recognize any marriage that is recorded in any state of the union. If two guys get married in Massachusetts and move to Texas to get a divorce, then the state of Texas is required to treat those two guys in exactly the same manner that Texas would treat any other married couple.
    The only way to disallow gay marriage is to pass an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Without that amendment, any state is able to inflict gay marriage on all other states by the power of article 4 of the Constitution and a state law to disallow gay marriage has no power.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

%d bloggers like this: