Republicans, Religious Groups Urge Supreme Court to Uphold Gay Marriage Bans

[Natural Citizen]

Republican officials and religious organizations dominate a growing list of more than 60 groups urging the Supreme Court to uphold state bans against same-sex marriage.
The flood of “friend of the court” briefs arriving at the court by last week’s deadline easily made the upcoming case the most heavily lobbied in the court’s recent history. Earlier this month, more than 70 briefs were filed by proponents of gay marriage, including one signed by more than 200,000 people.

Sixteen states led by Republican governors were among those calling for the bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee to be upheld. Among them were nine states where same-sex marriage bans have been struck down by federal courts — an indication that the battle there and elsewhere will be renewed if the justices uphold the bans.

States opposing gay marriage include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia, where federal appeals court rulings have struck down state bans. The Supreme Court refused to reconsider most of those decisions last October.
Last month, 18 states submitted briefs opposing bans on same-sex marriage, including some with Republican governors. The major one was written by officials from Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, and included California, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania.

The flood of legal briefs from both sides is indicative of what’s at stake in the debate. Unlike 2013, when the court ruled 5-4 that the federal government must grant benefits to legally married gays and lesbians, the justices likely will decide this June on same-sex marriage rights nationwide. The case will be heard April 28.

Fifty-seven Republican members of Congress called on the court to use restraint in this “unchartered area” and let states act as laboratories. “The relative novelty of same-sex marriage weighs against the mandatory redefinition of marriage,” they argued.

Only six senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and presidential candidate Ted Cruz of Texas, signed the brief, along with 51 members of the more conservative House. Missing were House Speaker John Boehner and other White House hopefuls, including Sens. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio.

Continued - Republicans, Religious Groups Urge Supreme Court to Uphold Gay Marriage Bans

 

[jmdrake]

If religious conservatives were smart they would moot all of these cases being preemptively getting rid of marriage licenses altogether.

 

[Terry1]

If they'd let the people of the states decide and stop usurping their votes by fiat like the liberals have done in the past in some states "because they think it's the right thing to do"--they'd be a lot better off.

These state SC's simply have too much power when they can over-ride the vote of the people. If it's for gay marriage--they should leave it alone and if it's against gay marriage they should leave it alone if that's what the people of that state decided.

If the people of a state decide to legalize gay marriage, then all of the same benefits should follow as with hetero couples. This is so simple if they'd stop messing with the people's vote.

We didn't even get a chance to vote on it here in MA. They took a preliminary poll to feel out where it would go and when they saw that the vote was going to be against gay marriage here--they made it law by fiat. That's just so corrupt--yet the SC's are getting away with this crap every day.

 

[OReich]

If they'd let the people of the states decide and stop usurping their votes by fiat like the liberals have done in the past in some states "because they think it's the right thing to do"--they'd be a lot better off.

These state SC's simply have too much power when they can over-ride the vote of the people. If it's for gay marriage--they should leave it alone and if it's against gay marriage they should leave it alone if that's what the people of that state decided.

If the people of a state decide to legalize gay marriage, then all of the same benefits should follow as with hetero couples. This is so simple if they'd stop messing with the people's vote.

We didn't even get a chance to vote on it here in MA. They took a preliminary poll to feel out where it would go and when they saw that the vote was going to be against gay marriage here--they made it law by fiat. That's just so corrupt--yet the SC's are getting away with this crap every day.

The constitution says we all get equal protection under the law, which means the law demands gender equality. So long as a state sanctions marriage between a man and a woman, it has to also sanction marriages between men and men. If women get to have state-sanctioned marriages to men, then men get to have state-sanctioned marriages to men also. This is a perfect example of why we're a republic and not a democracy, a democracy can violate ppl's individual rights and divide them into arbitrary categories with different laws for different ppl. Fortunately, we're in a constitutional republic where individual rights trumps the opinion of he masses.

 

[Terry1]

The constitution says we all get equal protection under the law, which means the law demands gender equality. So long as a state sanctions marriage between a man and a woman, it has to also sanction marriages between men and men. If women get to have state-sanctioned marriages to men, then men get to have state-sanctioned marriages to men also. This is a perfect example of why we're a republic and not a democracy, a democracy can violate ppl's individual rights and divide them into arbitrary categories with different laws for different ppl. Fortunately, we're in a constitutional republic where individual rights trumps the opinion of he masses.

Yes and it should always be put to the vote of the people of the states and these corrupt SC's wanting to push their agenda's shouldn't have that much power to change the people's vote at all. This is the most corrupt vile thing a politician can do.

But I'm with Ron Paul when he said that the Constitution has been raped, pillaged ripped apart and violated to the extent now that it's pretty much redundant and sadly so. I mean--Obamacare sent us spiraling into pure socialism. We're just screwed.

 

[OReich]

Yes and it should always be put to the vote of the people of the states and these corrupt SC's wanting to push their agenda's shouldn't have that much power to change the people's vote at all. This is the most corrupt vile thing a politician can do.

But I'm with Ron Paul when he said that the Constitution has been raped, pillaged ripped apart and violated to the extent now that it's pretty much redundant and sadly so. I mean--Obamacare sent us spiraling into pure socialism. We're just screwed.

So you're saying that democratic votes should over come the constitution's equal protection clause? Are you saying that LEGALLY the equal protection clause cannot invalidate statutes (when it does actually), or are you saying we should ignore the constitution on this and/or other issues?

 

[Brett85]

The constitution says we all get equal protection under the law, which means the law demands gender equality. So long as a state sanctions marriage between a man and a woman, it has to also sanction marriages between men and men. If women get to have state-sanctioned marriages to men, then men get to have state-sanctioned marriages to men also. This is a perfect example of why we're a republic and not a democracy, a democracy can violate ppl's individual rights and divide them into arbitrary categories with different laws for different ppl. Fortunately, we're in a constitutional republic where individual rights trumps the opinion of he masses.

Then so long as the state sanctions marriage between a man and a man, the state should sanction marriage between a man and 10 women, or between a man and 10 men. There still won't be "marriage equality" even if the Supreme Court rules that there's a Constitutional right to same sex marriage. The gay rights lobby isn't arguing that anyone can get married to anyone, just that gay marriage should be recognized by the government. You also still won't be able to marry your sister or your first cousin and have it be recognized by the government.