SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

While Nepal is in ruins and while Baltimore is burning, the SCOTUS has been hearing oral arugments this morning in the case Obergefell v. Hodges, "which is consolidated with three other cases, on the questions of whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires that states grant and/or recognize same-sex marriages."

I was reading through the transcripts of the first half of oral arguments and found an exchange which every Pastor or Minister better pay attention to. The link to the website with all the transcripts and audio of the oral arguments from today is below.

JUSTICE SCALIA: But but right to thisday, we have never held that there is a constitutional right for these two people to marry, and the minister is to the extent he's conducting a civil marriage, he's an instrument of the State. I don't see how you could possibly allow that minister to say, I will only marry a man and a woman. I will not marry two men. Which means you - you would - you could - you could have ministers who who conduct real marriages that that are civilly enforceable at the National Cathedral, but not at St. Matthews downtown, because that minister refuses to marry two men, and therefore, cannot be given the State power to make a real State marriage. I don't see any any answer to that. I really don't.

JUSTICE SCALIA: They are laws. They are not constitutional requirements. That was the whole point of my question. If you let the States do it, you can make an exception. The State can say, yes, two men can marry, but but ministers who do not believe in same sex marriage will still be authorized to conduct marriages on behalf of the State. You can't do that once it is a constitutional proscription.

MS. BONAUTO: I think if we're talking about a government individual, a clerk, a judge, who's empowered to authorize marriage, that is a different matter that they are going to have to follow through, unless, again, a State decides to make some exceptions. In Connecticut, after the court permitted marriage, it did actually pass a law to do deal with implementation issues, including these kinds of liberty issues.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Because it was a State law. That's my whole my point. If it's a State law, you can make those exceptions. But if it's a constitutional requirement, I don't see how you can. And every State allows ministers to marry people, and their marriages are effective under State law. That will not be the case if, indeed, we hold, as a constitutional matter, that the State must marry two men.

So here the conservative Justices are stating that if SCOTUS rules that SSM's are a Constitutional right, every Pastor or Minister will be forced to officiate a SSM, regardless of religious beliefs, because it's a Constitutional requirement.

Of course, the liberal Justices and the petitioners claim religious freedoms will always be honored and no one will be forced to violate their religious beliefs.

Tell that to the bakeries and other businesses which have been fined and have had to close their business because of lawsuits. I don't believe for one NY minute that should SSM become a Constitutional right that activists will sit back and allow Pastors or Ministers to refuse to officiate SSM's.

There's more...

The Justices are now hearing from US Solicitor General Verrilli, who represents the obama administration and is representing the petitioners.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Counsel, I'd like to follow up in a line of questioning that Justice Scalia started. We have a concession from your friend that clergy will not be required to perform samesex marriage, but there are going to be harder questions. Would a religious school that has married housing be required to afford such housing to samesex couples?

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed samesex marriage?

GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I don't think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it's certainly going to be an issue I don't deny that. I don't deny that, Justice Alito. It is it is going to be an issue.

The petitioners have admitted that tax-exempt status' will be an issue if SSM becomes a Constitutional right! And this won't only apply to Christian colleges. This will branch to churches which refuse to recognize SSM's.

SCOTUS Blog is predicting a 5-4 ruling in favor of SSM.

SCOTUSBlog Source Link

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

Somewhere on here, PO mentioned Senator Ted Cruz proposed a bill which would take away the SCOTUS ability to rule on this issue. It's looking like SSM's will be declared a Constitutional right, come June 30th. I'm hoping Congress can flex its muscle and remove SCOTUS' ability to make a ruling before it does so.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

Sen. Cruz: The People Should Decide the Issue of Marriage, Not the Courts
Introduces marriage amendment and bill to protect states from judicial overreach

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/doc...0Amendment.pdf

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

This is what happens when the government is allowed to be the final authority on marriage. Marriage should be a private contract. Not a civil institution. Get the government out.

Interesting article:

Bad idea for ministers to sign marriage licenses, pastors insist
https://www.baptiststandard.com/news...pastors-insist

Churches should bless couples as being married in the eyes of God and allow individual couples to seek civil marriage benefits separately from their church related vows.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

I agree. The conservative movement in the 90s and during the W years to push through legislation defining marriage is what caused all this to happen. It was a mistake. What they should have been doing is removing government from the institution of marriage, instead of relying on the government to define and preserve it.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

Amen.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

Here's something I agree with. It's called, The Marriage Pledge. Part of it states:

"Therefore, in our roles as Christian ministers, we, the undersigned, commit ourselves to disengaging civil and Christian marriage in the performance of our pastoral duties. We will no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage. We will no longer sign government-provided marriage certificates. We will ask couples to seek civil marriage separately from their church-related vows and blessings."

Here's the link to the entire pledge: http://www.firstthings.com/marriage-pledge

Personally, I think Christians should take a queue from the early Quakers and abandon the "civil" institution of marriage entirely. If the government refuses to recognize our marriages... so be it.

Here's another excellent article: http://www.church-and-state-in-ameri...thout-license/

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

And yet another excellent article (lol): http://www.truthinliving.org/Marriage_Covenant.php

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

The point is, "civil disobedience", could include refusing to act as agents of the state and simply blessing Christian covenant marriages. Allow individual couples to go groveling to the government for civil benefits, if they so choose. Beyond that, the ring and the covenant certificate should be enough for any pastor to recognize the union as a marital union in God's eyes.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

So, if they declare a constitutional right to SSM... we do well to abandon the civil institution altogether. Let "civil marriage" be a couple's choice.

Besides, aren't almost a third to a half of all couples in the US already leery of civil marriage? Maybe they have good reason to be.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

I appreciate all your posts on this subject. Thanks for the information. You've been on top of this for a long time. I agree ministers would be better off having a Christian ceremony and leaving the legalities to a civil authority.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

People think I'm crazy. But as the years pass, I assure you... what I see will not seem so crazy.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

Franklin Graham, as well as many other prominent Christian leaders, have signed a pledge warning the Supreme Court not to redefine marriage for all 50 states.

Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage

We stand together in defense of marriage and the family and society founded upon them. While we come from a variety of communities and hold differing faith perspectives, we are united in our common affirmation of marriage.

On the matter of marriage, we stand in solidarity. We affirm that marriage and family have been inscribed by the Divine Architect into the order of Creation. Marriage is ontologically between one man and one woman, ordered toward the union of the spouses, open to children and formative of family. Family is the first vital cell of society, the first government, and the first mediating institution of our social order. The future of a free and healthy society passes through marriage and the family.

Marriage as existing solely between one man and one woman precedes civil government. Though affirmed, fulfilled, and elevated by faith, the truth that marriage can exist only between one man and one woman is not based on religion or revelation alone, but on the Natural Law, written on the human heart and discernible through the exercise of reason. It is part of the natural created order. The Natural Law is what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., referred to as a higher law or a just law in his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail.

Marriage is the preeminent and the most fundamental of all human social institutions. Civil institutions do not create marriage nor can they manufacture a right to marry for those who are incapable of marriage. Society begins with marriage and the family.

We pledge to stand together to defend marriage for what it is, a bond between one man and one woman, intended for life, and open to the gift of children.

The institutions of civil government should defend marriage and not seek to undermine it. Government has long regulated marriage for the true common good. Examples, such as the age of consent, demonstrate such a proper regulation to ensure the free and voluntary basis of the marriage bond. Redefining the very institution of marriage is improper and outside the authority of the State. No civil institution, including the United States Supreme Court or any court, has authority to redefine marriage.

As citizens united together, we will not stand by while the destruction of the institution of marriage unfolds in this nation we love. The effort to redefine marriage threatens the essential foundation of the family.

Experience and history have shown us that if the government redefines marriage to grant a legal equivalency to same-sex couples, that same government will then enforce such an action with the police power of the State. This will bring about an inevitable collision with religious freedom and conscience rights. The precedent established will leave no room for any limitation on what can constitute such a redefined notion of marriage or human sexuality. We cannot and will not allow this to occur on our watch. Religious freedom is the first freedom in the American experiment for good reason.

Conferring a moral and legal equivalency to any relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman, by legislative or judicial fiat, sends the message that children do not need a mother and a father. As a policy matter, such unions convey the message that moms and dads are completely irrelevant to the well-being of children. Such a policy statement is unconscionable and destructive. Authorizing the legal equivalency of marriage to same-sex couples undermines the fundamental rights of children and threatens their security, stability, and future.

Neither the United States Supreme Court nor any court has authority to redefine marriage and thereby weaken both the family and society. Unlike the Legislative Branch that has the power of the purse and the Executive Branch which has the figurative power of the sword, the Judicial Branch has neither. It must depend upon the Executive Branch for the enforcement of its decisions.

As the Supreme Court acknowledged in the 1992 decision of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, its power rests solely upon the legitimacy of its decisions in the eyes of the people. If the decisions of the Court are not based on the Constitution and reason, and especially if they are contrary to the natural created order, then the people will lose confidence in the Court as an objective arbiter of the law. If the people lose respect for the Court, the Court’s authority will be diminished.

The Supreme Court was wrong when it denied Dred Scott his rights and said, “blacks are inferior human beings.” And the Court was wrong when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in Buck v. Bell, “three generations of imbeciles are enough,” thus upholding Virginia’s eugenics law that permitted forced sterilization. Shamefully, that decision was cited during the Nuremburg trials to support the Nazi eugenic holocaust.

In these earlier cases, the definition of “human” was at issue. Now the definition of “marriage” is at issue. The Constitution does not grant a right to redefine marriage — which is nonsensical since marriage intrinsically involves a man and a woman. Nor does the Constitution prohibit states from affirming the natural created order of male and female joined together in marriage.

We will view any decision by the Supreme Court or any court the same way history views the Dred Scott and Buck v. Bell decisions. Our highest respect for the rule of law requires that we not respect an unjust law that directly conflicts with higher law. A decision purporting to redefine marriage flies in the face of the Constitution and is contrary to the natural created order. As people of faith we pledge obedience to our Creator when the State directly conflicts with higher law. We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross this line.

We stand united together in defense of marriage. Make no mistake about our resolve. While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross.
http://defendmarriage.org/pledge-in-...efend-marriage

Key Signers to the Pledge - thus far
http://defendmarriage.org/signers

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

I am in complete opposition to this statement by Ted Cruz. "the people" shouldn't decide the "issue" of marriage.

There is no issue to decide.

Marriage is between one man and one woman. Period.

Everything else is a circus.:icecream

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

I agree that marriage is between one man and one woman; however, the way this nation was formed, the people (States) are the one's who should decide this issue. Not Congress. Not the courts.

Cruz is speaking about the role of government, and he is correct that the people (States) should decide.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

By "the people" he is referring to the 10th Amendment, i.e., state's rights.

How old are you anyway?

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

Well, get ready boys, they're going to through us in prison... I smell a prison revival.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

The people as States, and not as one aggregate nation should decide. Why someone has not proposed a Constitutional amendment that would allow the States to decide for themselves this issue is beyond comprehension. Of course if the SCOTUS interpreted the Constitution correctly, there would be no need for such an amendment.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

Correct, I should have said the states.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

We already have a 10th Amendment - The Federal Government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

A lot of our laws, already on the books, are not being enforced. We keep making unnecessary amendments and laws.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

I knew what you meant.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

This many....:thumbsup

And I know what he means in regards to states rights. Personally I was in favor many years ago of the Federal Marriage Amendment that would have dealt with this once and for all. Granted I don't think it ever had a flying chance, but the reality is even if the states are left up to "decide" eventually we're going to have the same results. Same Sex Marriage is becoming more and more "socially acceptable". Every state will ultimately eventually comply. Of course making this a states rights issue does buy conservatives some time, and it will be easier for the left to begin the process of persecuting those who don't fit into their mold... but we're still ultimately going to loose this culture war, regardless. If it's not now it will be in the next generation. The homosexual agenda is so far-reaching, all we can do at this point is "buy-time".

Just get ready for REAL "prison ministry" boys, from the inside....:happydance

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

I agree that it is becoming more socially acceptable. However, you cannot throw out the 10th Amendment based on that argument.

It is still - "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

The state's involvement in what should be a private contract/covenant is at the heart of the problem.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

Even though marriage is about relationship, there are too many mutual civil and legal matters tied up in marriage to have that happen - children, property, finances, etc.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

State will always be involved.

There's other people and property involved.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

By the original intent of the Framers, the States already have the right to decide. This is not the Federal Courts' jurisdiction at all.

And how is 1% of the population wielding so much power?

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

And the term "We the people", according to James Madison, means "the people as composing thirteen sovereignties" (now 50), not "the people as composing one aggregate nation". There is no "American people" in an aggregate sense.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

Agreed! Good point and reference! :thumbsup

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

On the topic of the Constitution, Mark Levin made a great point some time back about the Senate.

The Senate seats were supposed to be appointed by the state's legislature, to represent the will of the states. Now, however, senators are elected by vote, same as representatives (which were intended to reflect/represent the will of the people). This is a major problem, as it means senators are really no different than representatives.

I think this is another major reason we have such a dysfunctional government. Rather than one house representing the people, and another representing the states, both are representing the people with no representation for the states.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

Sadly Madison completely flip flopped on this point right before he died.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

Just realized, I should have add "theoretically" before 'representing the people', heh. Unfortunately, it's too late to edit my post now.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

And who tied them all up? Government.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

Down through the centuries many Quakers have been married "in care of the meeting" without registering their marriages or seeking civil certification. These typically have necessary powers of attorney as it relates to healthcare and finances. And yes, there have been divorces. These typically turn to private arbitration, many through their faith community, to settle any disputes privately.

Many early Quakers really took it seriously that only God could join a man and woman. The resisted any notion that a man or woman could be joined by priest or magistrate. They also resisted the notion that any human priest or magistrate could put the union asunder. Secondly, they didn't believe in going before unbelieving courts (as admonished by Paul in I Corinthians 6:1-7). So, if at all possible, they often avoided any civil interaction that could lead to having to go before the civil court system.

Many can't imagine marriage not being governed by the state. That's how deep statist thinking on the issue has become. But before civil marriage, nearly all marriages were recognized under Common Law/Natural Law. Yes, common law marriage is older than civil marriage. And these marriages were typically handled as private contracts and/or agreements.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

I agree. Constitutionally speaking, any statutes government marriage should be decided at the state level. This isn't the Federal Court's jurisdiction.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

Lots of civil and legal issues in the Christian community with divorce and child custody cases.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

Where do you think the quakers would have ended up if they didn't have private arbitration?

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

They would have ended up viewing marriage and intimacy through the prism of statist logic as most do today.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

It doesn't matter if the state is the arbitrates the divorce or the church or whatever other arbitrartion process you use.

Unless there is a prior arrangement on how to handle this kind of stuff before the marriage (and there almost never is)...

At that point someone has to decide how property and everything else gets divided up between the divorcees.

The only benefit in not getting legally married isn't that the state stays out of the dividing up process of divorce, it's that other than custody the person you are "divorcing" cannot do anything about the things that are in your name if you were never legally married. There isn't even an arbitration process of any kind that they get to divide up any of that stuff.



However, if non state sanctioned marraige ever became a norm don't think for a moment that the same party that sanctions the non-state sanctioned marraige would not also request to be the arbitrator in the event of a divorce.

Re: SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today
 

Two days left (Friday and Monday) for SCOTUS to release its opinions in the remaining five cases left.

I would be shocked if this court doesn't side with SSM.