Friday, June 26, 2015

Now You Will ALL Get Gay-Married.

Yesterday’s Obamacare decision told us that we do not live under the rule of law. Today’s gay marriage decision tells us we do not live in a democracy. These are dark days.
-- John Hinderaker PowerLine Blog
Today SCOTUS dropped yet another left-wing bombshell. In this case the traitor to the conservative cause was Anthony Kennedy (he was also a traitor yesterday--but was overshadowed by Roberts) who ruled that Gay Marriage is essentially a state right. The four Conservative justices were infuriated--each writing a separate, often snark-laden response.

What are we to make of this?

Don't Go To The Courts
The first thing that Conservatives should take away from this is that you can't "trust" Supreme Court Justices to rule in your ideological favor. This chart shows that under Roberts--a conservative justice--the court has issued more and more liberal rulings:
If you say "Ah! But in this case the liberals brought the suit!" you are correct--BUT there were some non-judicial remedies that could have been deployed earlier. For example, a constitutional amendment to let STATES decide marriage rules. Trying to have a constitutional convention to make marriage a man and a woman was a bridge too far--but a less severe play might have forestalled this. We'll never know now--but the lesson ought to stand: just like with a boxing match, you DON'T want to leave things in the judge's hands. Ever.

This Should Take Gay Marriage Off The Table for 2016: It Won't

And they even seem happy about it--THE FOOLS!!

Unfortunately the ruling will NOT take the issue off the table: Here is Vox's list of 2016 candidates responses ranked by level of anger (the first four):
  1. Mike Huckabee: "The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do — redefine marriage. I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch... The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature's God on marriage than it can the laws of gravity."
  2. Bobby Jindal: "Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that. This decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision."
  3. Rick Santorum: "Today, five unelected justices decided to redefine the foundational unit that binds together our society without public debate or input. Now is the people's opportunity to respond because the future of the institution of marriage is too important to not have a public debate... Marriage, the family and our children are too central to a healthy society to not fight for what is best. I realized that fact early on and that is why I lead the charge against some in my own party in 2004 to ensure the Federal Marriage Amendment received a vote and I continue to stand for marriage, for families, for freedom."
  4. Scott Walker: "I believe this Supreme Court decision is a grave mistake... As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage."
This positioning will keep the issue alive and in reporter's hands until election night. This is especially true since the Iowa voting bloc is highly evangelical and several candidates (the top 3) need to win to be relevant. With Walker, the current favorite, diving in with the Amendment-Solution they will need some way to get to the right of him. This will fan the flames.

Next Stop: Polygamy?
The right is saying this--when they aren't invoking NAMBLA or man-dog marriage. It's an interesting question though (consent and legal-age take care of the more ridiculous comparisons). Is Polygamy next? Well, maybe--but there IS an argument against it that works with "age of consent." It's this: people have a legitimate interest in marriage--ask any SoCon--or gay person who wants to get married. As such, they have a legitimate interest in marriage rules supporting their orientation (i.e. gay people would like to be able to visit their loved ones in the hospital or share employer-provided health insurance).

There is, however, no comparable interest for polygamy. Polygamy isn't an orientation, at least not yet--and society has no compelling need to treat it like one. Now, in the brave new world of people who turn black because they say they "feel black" we might get a "I'm genetically polygamous--my love--it cannot be contained/constrained."

So, okay, sure--maybe--but we don't have to. Something will need to lube that slope a little more to convince The Omnivore that Polygamy Is Coming To The USA.

The End Of The Republic?
This has been a bad week for The Conservative Right. Not only have the court's decisions all (and somewhat unsurprisingly) gone against them--but Donald Trump is polling in 2nd place and the GOP just capitulated on the flag.
THAT . . . is . . . Scary.
The New York Post's Ross Douthat re-releases The Terms of Our Surrender:
I am being descriptive here, rather than self-pitying. Christians had plenty of opportunities — thousands of years’ worth — to treat gay people with real charity, and far too often chose intolerance. (And still do, in many instances and places.) So being marginalized, being sued, losing tax-exempt status — this will be uncomfortable, but we should keep perspective and remember our sins, and nobody should call it persecution. 
But it’s still important for the winning side to recognize its power. We are not really having an argument about same-sex marriage anymore, and on the evidence of Arizona, we’re not having a negotiation. Instead, all that’s left is the timing of the final victory — and for the defeated to find out what settlement the victors will impose.
Buck up everyone, The New York Times just discovered additional Hillary emails--that'll end her campaign for sure.

No comments:

Post a Comment