There is a limit to interpreting the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment. The key word is "protection," as a marriage license is a privilege offered by government in order to receive state benefits, in the same way that incorporation entitles you to certain privileges, such as limited liability.
Anyone can incorporate, if you follow the terms, just as anyone can get married, if you similarly meet its requirements. If the Constitution expressly forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, then it would be unconstitutional to deny gay marriage.
Expect at least one of the five Republican Justices to vote in favour of forcing gay marriage on the entire country, just like Justice Roberts decided in favour of the constitutionality of Obamacare.
If they force gay marriage, it's going to be pretty hard to justify the prohibition against polygamy, as there is more of a historical and natural case for polygamy than there is for gay marriage. But the Justices don't care about consistency. They will bring down their iron fist rulings in the way that suits them.
There is a remedy -- impeachment -- and all of them could be removed for violating their oath to uphold the Constitution, based on one or more decisions. Then, Congress could pass a law saying marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and restrict all federal court cases, and then cases could only be heard directly by the Supreme Court, but no Justice would dare to after impeachment.
So it's not true that Supreme Court decisions are final until decided otherwise. It's just that not enough Americans have wanted to play hardball like those in Hollywood and in organized Christianity who have relentless set the conditions for acceptance of gay marriage, which even Hillary Clinton admitted was inconceivable when she was growing up.
To clarify, Congress should properly say the definition of marriage is left to each State, since they don't constitutionally have the power to define marriage any more than the courts do.
3 comments:
There is a limit to interpreting the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment. The key word is "protection," as a marriage license is a privilege offered by government in order to receive state benefits, in the same way that incorporation entitles you to certain privileges, such as limited liability.
Anyone can incorporate, if you follow the terms, just as anyone can get married, if you similarly meet its requirements. If the Constitution expressly forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, then it would be unconstitutional to deny gay marriage.
Expect at least one of the five Republican Justices to vote in favour of forcing gay marriage on the entire country, just like Justice Roberts decided in favour of the constitutionality of Obamacare.
If they force gay marriage, it's going to be pretty hard to justify the prohibition against polygamy, as there is more of a historical and natural case for polygamy than there is for gay marriage. But the Justices don't care about consistency. They will bring down their iron fist rulings in the way that suits them.
There is a remedy -- impeachment -- and all of them could be removed for violating their oath to uphold the Constitution, based on one or more decisions. Then, Congress could pass a law saying marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and restrict all federal court cases, and then cases could only be heard directly by the Supreme Court, but no Justice would dare to after impeachment.
So it's not true that Supreme Court decisions are final until decided otherwise. It's just that not enough Americans have wanted to play hardball like those in Hollywood and in organized Christianity who have relentless set the conditions for acceptance of gay marriage, which even Hillary Clinton admitted was inconceivable when she was growing up.
To clarify, Congress should properly say the definition of marriage is left to each State, since they don't constitutionally have the power to define marriage any more than the courts do.
Thanks, faux!
Post a Comment