This part of the article is one of the keys to the question, but he completely glosses over it. He gets into further detail about past cases where judges have recused themselves, and the reasoning behind most of them is obvious - the justice in question has a specific financial state in the merits of the case.Rather than being impartial on the matter, they have shown themselves to be gay-marriage activists and de facto members of the homosexual lobby.
Unrelated? It has everything to do with state's rights!I don't understand how state legislation is any better than federal marriage legislation. If you're going to tell the government to butt out, just stick to it instead of tacking on an unrelated states rights issue.
Since we're talking about the Supreme Court, we're also talking about the Constitutionality of gay marriage (or, in my opinion, any marriage). The Constitution does not have any provisions or clauses to indicate what the definition of marriage is. Therefore, it should not be a Federal issue (and, in my opinion, any legislation on the federal level that uses that as a basis - for example, taxes - is in violation of this). Since it isn't a Federal issue, then it should be regulated by the individual states, if they even want to get involved at all (e.g. Oklahoma's current proposal to get the government out of marriage).The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Interesting! Do you have a link to an article focused on the details of that case? In any case, the judges could come to an entirely different conclusion with... whatever case the author of the article is referring to this time around. I noticed that that was suspiciously absent - which specific case is he asking Kagan and Ginsburg withdraw from? Just anything related to gay marriage? Some sort of blanket "must withdraw from this case because of their previous actions" isn't going to fly, either.And yet, there's section 1 of the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court ruled on Alabama's gay marriage ban recently and threw it out on those grounds.
You would be correct about that. But if a Jewish cook - or Muslim, or vegan, or whatever - refused to cook ham because it was against their beliefs, I would say that that would be perfectly within their rights as well. At least in my opinion.Something to do with no good nonreligious arguments against it, maybe? The only one I see around here any more is "Christian wedding photographers!!" Whatever. We don't ban ham as a wedding food because Jewish chefs might have to serve it.
*opens mouth*Also pretty sure it wouldn't have passed had they known it actually enshrined same-sex partnerships.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 guests