Tuesday, April 28, 2015

"Faith leaders demand that liberal justices sit out gay marriage case"

"Standing on the steps of the Supreme Court"
“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.”

14 comments:

bagoh20 said...

Traditional marriage proponents are gonna have to be resigned to having marriage as they see it stay in the personal/religious sphere rather than the political where it never should have gone in the first place. I wish same sex proponents could be satisfied with the same.

People who see government as their church will never stop wanting it to sanctify their choices.

Methadras said...

If SCOTUS decides that homosexual marriage is now a fundamental right, then the next stop will be the direct attack on the church for choosing to not sanctify such unions.

ricpic said...

Goes without saying that Ginsburg and the fat lesbo should recuse themselves but they won't because THE AGENDA is their morality.

G Joubert said...

Turn about is always fair play.

Titus said...

Ted Olsen looks like an old lesbian.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

From the little I followed it sounded like they were just going thru the motions... the formalities. Their minds are made up.

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

Which is perhaps why forcing SCOTUS to abide by the Federal bench's code of ethics (I know...) isn't so silly, after all.

Methadras said...

If SCOTUS decides that homosexual marriage is now a fundamental right, then the next stop will be the direct attack on the church for choosing to not sanctify such unions.

Since "Ginsburg and the fat lesbo" (thanks, ric) should recuse, if they don't, it means the moral authority of the Court is shot.

Now, if we can only get some governor with a pair (even if it's Nikki Haley) to say, "Mr Roberts has made his decision...", maybe we get this whole thing off square one.

edutcher said...

PS For any legal eagles (one time TOP might be of some value), a serious question -

If one or more of the Supremes (like 2 or 4) can be shown to have tipped their hand or just plain decided before the case is even heard and don't recuse, isn't the decision supposed to be null and void?

Or have I seen "Davy Crockett Goes To Congress" too many times?

Trooper York said...

Theist step is the court forcing churches to offer the sacrament of marriage to same sex marriage.

If you want to see how this plays out watch "Wolf Hall" on Masterpiece Theater.

Trooper York said...

That is to say the next step is forcing ministers to perform same sex marriages or they will take away their ability to perform marriages altogether.

edutcher said...

If so, the Executive and Judiciary are in willful violation of the First Amendment and will have broken the compact made with the people through the Constitution.

I get the feeling we're coming to the "When, in the course of human events..." moment.

Trooper York said...

Ed they haves already done it. Wake up.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Trooper:

It won't play out quite that way, I think.

What is more likely is to do two things:

> Strip non-compliant clergy of their licenses to perform civil marriages. That will mean that if you marry in a church that doesn't cooperate, you have to go get married civilly as well; but if you get married in a compliant church, you won't.

(Which raises a question: does this violate the establishment clause? If so, solution might be to strip all churches/clergy of civil marriage licenses.)

> The other step will be as the Solicitor General hinted: strip non-compliant churches of their tax status. Same question regarding the Establishment clause.

Not really sure how it'll play out vis-a-vis the "patriotic" churches, except that they don't have much political clout...