Friday, July 3, 2015

On to the Supreme Court

California probably won't have the last word on gay marriage

On to the Supreme Court

0 comments
Blog Image
Next stop...?

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has done what it normally does...legislate from the bench.  The activists on the California court have struck down the democratically-enacted ban on gay marriage in that state, thereby paving the way for a showdown in the Supreme Court.   Frankly, I'm not sure activists from the LGBT community should be too happy about that eventuality.  

There are four probable votes against legalizing same sex unions, from John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and, of course, Antonin Scalia who was none too happy when the court struck down laws that criminalized sodomy in an opinion written by Anthony Kennedy nine years ago.

And the composition of the court is somewhat different from what it was in 2003, with a liberal lion, Justice John Paul Stevens, having retired, and the possibility  that another liberal lion will be retiring in the not-too-distant future (Ruth Bader Ginsburg is looking very frail these days.)  That leaves Stephen Breyer, Elana Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor as the left-leaning anchor of the court, and only Breyer is a reliable vote for social engineering.  Sotomayor has proven to be surprisingly moderate during her tenure (to my pleasant surprise) and Kagan-who sometimes concurs with Alito-is also more balanced than expected.

And what about Kennedy, champion of legalized sodomy?  Well, he assured us in his opinion in Lawrence v. Texas that "The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."  So he was very careful to distance himself from any pronouncement about legalizing gay marriage.  And, um, he's a practicing Catholic.  You do the math.

Of course, this is all conjecture.  But the activists have now made it quite clear that they don't give a damn about the voice of the people.  They prefer the voices of the judges.

Watch out what you wish for.

 

0 comments
We encourage respectful comments but reserve the right to delete anything that doesn't contribute to an engaging dialogue.
Help us moderate this thread by flagging comments that violate our guidelines.

Comment policy:

Philly.com comments are intended to be civil, friendly conversations. Please treat other participants with respect and in a way that you would want to be treated. You are responsible for what you say. And please, stay on topic. If you see an objectionable post, please report it to us using the "Report Abuse" option.

Please note that comments are monitored by Philly.com staff. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable. Personal attacks, especially on other participants, are not permitted. We reserve the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions.

Additionally comments that are long, have multiple paragraph breaks, include code, or include hyperlinks may not be posted.

Read 0 comments
 
comments powered by Disqus
About this blog
See Christine Flowers on Channel 6's "Inside Story" Sunday at 11:30 a.m.

Email Christine M. at cflowers1961@yahoo.com Reach Christine M. at cflowers1961@yahoo.com.

Christine M. Flowers Daily News Columnist
Also on Philly.com
letter icon Newsletter