32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
This is the second time in 2 days that the Supreme court let the GOP off the hook.
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776
Did the esteemed Chief Justice of the Supreme actually write that in his dissent a day after doing exactly what he's complaining about in the Obamacare case. Why yes he did. The man sure can talk out of both sides of his mouth.But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.Under the Constitution, judges have power to say whatthe law is, not what it should be. The people who ratifiedthe Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.”
Quo usque tandem abutere, Trump, patientia nostra?
The SCOTUS decision was 5-4 with megalomaniac Kennedy the decider -- all pretty much predicted.
So that means it was 4-4 along ideological lines, not about the constitution, per se.
Then Kennedy, always wanting to be the "Me, me!" of the SCOTUS, contrived an as far reaching argument as possible, not referencing the "equal protection" clause of the 14th many thought would be referenced, but instead the "due process" clause of the 14th and in a very nebulous reference, that no one really expected.
So watch out, boys and girls, as the next time a cat-owner wants to enter their cat in a dog show, "due process" will support 'em!
Seriously, does anybody even care about the definition of words anymore as the foundation to determine if something like "due process" applies???
Marriage means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".
There is no rational "due process" reference that can change that reality.
And, of course, 5-4 is hardly a mandate.
"Due process" doesn't mean you have the liberty to do whatever you want simply because you or enough of you want to. That's ludicrous!
It's a huge stretch to say that what happens in one state must be allowed in another state, as this ruling sets precedent. Now one state can legislate anything and then every state has to allow it. There goes state's rights.
But to step out off that limb and say that "due process" can prevent a state from declaring "we will not allow the perform of the oxymoroninc "gay marriages" in our state" is the height of Kennedy's dictatorial ego.
Roberts is right: the constitution had nothing to do with this decision.
Why even the four liberals were sitting on the "equal protection" clause, a plausible yet still definitively inapplicable reference with respect to the subject matter: "marriage". "Due process"? Nope .. though, sure, they'll go along with Master Kennedy, to get what they ideologically want.
Kennedy stepped off solid constitutional ground and into irrelevant ether.
Thus the last word simply has not been spoken here, not by a long shot.
Religious liberty will now most certainly mount some challenges that could easily overturn this ridiculous and fragile ruling.
When the election is over and we open our eyes, it will sadly be too late to wonder what the hell just happened.