'Cause I Said So…

Controversial Supreme Court Case Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

Posted in Democrats, Politics, Supreme Court by kevinsoberg on February 12, 2010

The Supreme Court issued a decision in Smith V. Sanford. The majority handed down a two part decision. Part one threw out the claim of one party due to lack of standing in federal court, based on citizenship issues. Part two was more far reaching and ruled unconstitutional a federal law allowing states to make law concerning an individual’s rights. In addition, the Court found existing states’ laws restricting these rights to be null.

The immediate effect of this decision is believed to be that those persons living in states where their rights are not currently restricted are now allowed to exercise those rights in all other states. The result being a practice once illegal in a majority of states is now legal in all States and U.S. Territories. Opponents are criticizing the decision as being politically motivated, with the new Democrat President having covertly coerced the final outcome.

No, you didn’t miss a big headline, or the parades of scantily clad men and ruggedly handsome women.

The first party’s name wasn’t Smith, but Scott. The federal law thrown out wasn’t The Defense of Marriage Act, but the Missouri Compromise. The right held to be protected wasn’t “same-sex marriage.” It was to own slaves.

The Dred Scott Decision was never overturned by the high court. The first part of the decision was only nullified by the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment, when all former slaves were made citizens.

So, no one ever tell me the court can’t make “same-sex marriage” legal in all states. It’s done much worse in the past. All they need do now is say they are following precedent.

Ain’t the law fun?


4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. jpenaz said, on February 13, 2010 at 8:13 pm

    I see what you’re saying and my non-law educated mind believes you have a point. I do not like the outcome though. Okay so the Dred Scott Decision says it was okay for a state to say slave holding was okay and to have those same rights in any state allowing slavery. But a state could also deny slave holding. Right? Or is it that if you started in a pro-slavery state, you could relocate to a state that was anti-slavery, but still own slaves? Gack, I’m confused. I never studied anything about the Dred Scott Decision. Obviously.

    • kevinsoberg said, on February 13, 2010 at 9:36 pm

      The Court ruling nullified state laws against slave ownership. No clarification was given concerning the buying and selling of slaves. So, slave owners could transport their “property” to other states and retain ownership. What is to stop the court from following this precedent with regard to “same-sex marriage.” If a right is personally held with the government acting as “protector” of that right, then like property its “ownership” is transportable from state to state.

  2. Stickeenotes said, on March 3, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    Do you think they could just as easily go the route of Loving v. Virginia and cite equal protection as precedent?

    • kevinsoberg said, on March 3, 2010 at 7:30 pm

      Well, of course. Equal protection has been the route most ‘civil rights’ have been expanded. I was just going through a little thought experiment to illustrate the fallacy of basing legal decisions on previous Court rulings. Leftists legal scholars go on forever about previous precedent being sacrosanct. All decisions were at some point precedent. All have been overturned at some other point. So, in reality, it’s only those cases with which they agree.
      You know, for shits and giggles.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: