One Vote
By Mitch Berg
John Hinderaker, at Power Line, asks the question that has been completely absent from the major media’s/far left’s (pardon the redundancy) celebration of Friday’s 5-4gay marriage ruling:
What would you think if the Court had decided the opposite? That is, if the Court had held that same sex marriage is unconstitutional, so that all state laws approving such unions are void, and all court decisions establishing same sex marriage are overruled. Would you then think it appropriate for “five lawyers,” as Chief Justice Roberts put it, to remove this issue from the democratic process and purport to resolve it by judicial fiat?
I am pretty sure you wouldn’t. I am pretty sure that in the face of such a ruling, you would howl with outrage and insist that the issue of same sex marriage be determined by democratic processes.
The Supreme Court, due process, and separation of powers are wonderful things or obsolescent white elephants that need to be repealed, depending on whether the Supreme Court is ruling on gay rights, gun rights, abortion-rights or speech rationing.
June 29th, 2015 at 6:15 am
It’s all Madison’s fault.
June 29th, 2015 at 7:57 am
Did you notice Powerline rearranged its favorites link list?
Northern Alliance is gone. So is Shot In The Dark.
June 29th, 2015 at 8:34 am
The States Convention movement is gathering steam. By some counts, there is already the necessary 2/3 calls in place. One of the better issues I’ve seen is the creation of a Judicial confidence vote every 8 years.
It is clear that both the left and the right are looking to the judiciary to create, not review, law. That has got to stop. I really believe society is at a tipping point; we need to re-instill a sense of confidence in our judicial system before the proverbial feces hits the rotating air displacement machine.
At the very least, it is time for the states to convene committees to start hashing out the agenda and scope.
June 29th, 2015 at 8:35 am
DMA, the Powerline boys have always thought themselves above the second tier rabble.
June 29th, 2015 at 8:47 am
You are right Tweety. Our problems are systemic. Electing good people is not enough anymore.
June 29th, 2015 at 9:47 am
Yes, when the GOP….ill-timed if you ask me…put the marriage definition decision on the ballot, we all heard “the people have spoken”.
Now personally, I would like to see government out of the marriage business altogether and stick to simply defining contract law.
A different take: to all those celebrating the SCOTUS marriage decision..congratulations, if that’s what you really wanted…because you are affirming that your “rights” are now granted to you by government.
June 29th, 2015 at 9:52 am
Adrian, now that they have undermined it, “marriage” becomes a tool for the left. Until the last vestige of tradition, common sense and decency is obliterated, they will defend it with mind numbing, inchoate talking points, glitter bombs, vandalism, grafitti, feces…pretty much every weapon in their arsenal.
June 29th, 2015 at 12:05 pm
If marriage is a contract, what do you do with the children in a split up? They can’t be sold and the money split by some formula.
June 29th, 2015 at 12:52 pm
PM, you do the same thing you do now; hire a spendy law talker and duke it out in court.
I have become a proponent in getting the government out of the marriage biz. Not because it’s right; I think the government has a valid interest in encouraging intact families to raise kids; but because government can no longer be entrusted with it.
Pull the plug on marriage licenses. It denies shelter to the enemy, and everything the license provided, and is still necessary, can be accomplished via contract law. (For those watching at home, yes, that exposes one of the key arguments from the sand is food crew for the utter bs it is.)
June 29th, 2015 at 2:31 pm
Yes, marriage is a contract. My point being marriage began as a religious construct, was then usurped by government…not neccesarily originally for nefarious reasons.
Heterosexual for decades and decades have cohabitated without marriage and even produced children, yet no license granted them the right to do, no contract binds them, and if they split up they typically do no hire a divorce attorney. Yes both are responsible for any children that are the product and rightly so.
So we had those calling for marriage for straight couples and civil unions for gay couples, the result is the same, and really who cares? If you can find a church that will marry you, if you have a civil union but call yourselves married…as long as there is no forced recognition who really gives a rip?
I am straight and since Minnesota legalized gay marriage i didn’t feel the need to start dating witin my own gender to improve my chances of being married. I doubt that scenario would apply to anyone.
Now take whatever benefit marriage provides that is paid for by another (Tax credits)…take government licensing out of it…find a church that will marry you, make up a church that will marry you…call yourselves wife and wife, husband and husband or whatever combination you can make out of that…don’t force ANYONE to recognize it….that would include insurance companies, banks, employers, florists or bakeries
June 29th, 2015 at 2:51 pm
Mitch:
I have a question given the light of the US Supreme Court decision. If a man can marry man because it’s okay to be happy shouldn’t a baby developing in the woman’s body have a right to be happy to live a long life by mom being restricted on how to kill it?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
June 29th, 2015 at 4:10 pm
Now that the SCOTUS has ignored the Constitution with their stupid decision, we will see requests for legalizing polygamy and beastiality very soon. According to libidiots, everyone has to be included, no matter how perverted they are!
June 29th, 2015 at 5:45 pm
Maybe conservatives should use some ju-jitsu. Occasionally I will read about some PO’d conservative writing in the word “other” or “American” in a form where you are asked for your race. Stop it. Check the box that says “Black” or “Hispanic”. Start identifying yourself as gay. Or a member of the opposite gender. There are no standards other than self-identification. Who is the federal government to tell that you aren’t dark enough or have the wrong ancestors to qualify as “Black” or “Hispanic”? If Obama can check the “Black” box, I can check the “Black” box.
June 29th, 2015 at 5:57 pm
Mingo, my community will not rest until there is a Canary box.
No justice, no peace, haters!
June 29th, 2015 at 9:01 pm
“…what do you do with the children in a split up? They can’t be sold and the money split by some formula”
If they’re under the age of majority, in the eyes of the law they’re somebody’s property.
June 30th, 2015 at 9:13 am
What do you do with the children? Well, there’s 1 Kings 3:16-28, but with the government not quite having the wisdom of Solomon. Oops.