SCOTUS Rules In Favor Of Marriage Equality

[caojyn]

I think its great. Now as a single straight male I can legally marry my single straight best friend and we can both get the lower tax benefits, legally. Then if we get pissed at each other we can go our seperate ways and divorcing my straight best friend/husband will go much easier than the ex wife. Nothing they ruled said I had to be gay to marry a same sex person.

 

[Dale00]

Did Kagan lie? Is is very difficult to argue otherwise.

Solicitor Generals and Supreme Court Justices are not supposed to be politicians. Therein lies the problem: The Supreme Court is now a political, legislative branch of government.

...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....

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/2015/0...al-constitutional-right-to-same-sex-marriage/

 

[cmhbob]

However:

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

 

[maat]

The SCOTUS did nothing more than give a perversion of our natural state official recognition.

 

[sh00ter]

Two of the justices have presided over gay weddings...no matter what "side" of the issue you are on, everyone should agree that is a conflict of interest...

 

[TwoForFlinching]

Two of the justices have presided over gay weddings...no matter what "side" of the issue you are on, everyone should agree that is a conflict of interest...

I don't see how the other seven are seen as anti-equal-rights in this scenario, but I'm interested in this train of thought...

 

[MadDogs]

Two of the justices have presided over gay weddings...no matter what "side" of the issue you are on, everyone should agree that is a conflict of interest...

Agreed ... Key read to DaleOO's post is this ...

“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.” Elena Kagan - 2009

 

[TenBears]

It's always good when a small group of black clad "politicians" dictates, overrides, or voids law....especially to the states.

 

[Coded-Dude]

Two of the justices have presided over gay weddings...no matter what "side" of the issue you are on, everyone should agree that is a conflict of interest...

I can't see it being that big of an issue. Could you imagine if the justices that own/shoot firearms relinquished themselves from a 2A case? NO THANK YOU! They are people that experience life just like anybody else. Conflicts do exist, I just don't think they do on that level...

 

[YukonGlocker]

It's always good when a small group of black clad "politicians" dictates, overrides, or voids law....especially to the states.

Yep, especially when said law is discriminatory by demographic in nature. Yep.