Deuling editorials: Right thing to do, wrong way to do it

The New York Times editorial said the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling “fits comfortably within the arc of American legal history.”

The editorial continued, “As Justice Kennedy explained, the Constitution’s power and endurance rest in the Constitution’s ability to evolve along with the nation’s consciousness. In that service, the court itself ‘has recognized that new insights and societal understandings can reveal unjustified inequality within our most fundamental institutions that once passed unnoticed and unchallenged.’”

The decision may fit in the arc of changes in attitudes and politics, but it grasped never intended power for five of nine unelected justices.

Justice Atonin Scaliea called it a putsch.

The editorialists at The Wall Street Journal put it this way: “The revolution in mores about gay and lesbian participation in the institution of marriage is among the most dramatic cultural shifts in U.S. history. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges is a declaration of social inclusion whose outcome is welcomed by ever-more Americans. The complication is that the Constitution is silent about marriage and social-policy preferences, which are supposed to be settled by the people and the political branches.”

Nevada voters approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage by a voted of 69.6 percent in 2000 and 67.1 percent in 2002. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2014 struck the amendment as unconstitutional. It is questionable whether it would pass today, if it were on the ballot.

The Washington Post editorial also mentioned changes in attitudes. “Yet the fact that it’s foreseeable to Mr. (Justice John) Roberts that same-sex marriage bans would fall, state by state, to popular pressure shows how far the country has come, and quickly. In states where lower courts had already ordered same-sex marriages to commence, the transition has been generally calm. We expect to see the same maturity and acceptance across the country now.”

The editorialists at Investor’s Business Daily also questioned the power of the court to do what it did. “Do five men and women believe they can rewrite traditions dating back thousands of years with a few strokes of their mighty pens?” they wrote.

“Apparently so. So much for our democracy.”

As I noted before in comments, the ruling opens a new chapter in the interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. WSJ also noted as much: “A better response — as practical politics and for civic comity — would be to support laws that protect the conscience rights of religious believers and faith-based institutions that do not honor same-sex marriages. The unfortunate truth is that the political left is rarely magnanimous in victory, and its activists may not be satisfied until the force of government stamps out private values and practices they find deplorable.”

Likewise IBD: “Justice Samuel Alito made plain that the decision ‘will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.’ Those who continue to believe gay marriage is wrong, he added, ‘will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers and schools.'”

The five justices have opened a can of worms.

It will be interesting to see how the once libertarian-leaning Las Vegas newspaper opines on this topic, if it does.


23 comments on “Deuling editorials: Right thing to do, wrong way to do it

  1. Patrick says:

    Justice Kennedy’s “evolving” community standards has long played a role in Constitutional interpretation. From the interpretation of the 8th amendments prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments to the 1st amendments standard for prohibiting pornograhic material in communities.

  2. Zip-a-Dee says:

    Full circle of the ‘evolution’ circle.
    OT – Thomas, the water tanks in our small little NV community are being fenced with the heavy duty web fencing and the 3 barb wire arm pointing out. Do you know if it’s a Fed mandate? Mineral County says they don’t have funds, so what’s the story behind this? Thanks.

  3. Sounds like more control from the BLM. Have not heard about this.

  4. Winston Smith says:

    In the pre-14th Amendment America, the SCOTUS would have left this issue to the states, but now every part of our existence is to be examined and, if necessary, altered by the federal government, one way or another.

    The old saying, “Don’t make a federal case about it”, has been rendered meaningless.

  5. Barbara says:

    So the question becomes, how do we stop this or reverse the dangerous path our nation is on? Have we crossed the Rubicon or is there a way back?

  6. nyp says:

    You mean, to roll back Loving v. Virginia?

  7. Barbara says:

    Have you not understood anything I said?

  8. Rincon says:

    “So the question becomes, how do we stop this or reverse the dangerous path our nation is on? Have we crossed the Rubicon or is there a way back?” My suggestion is to keep your eye on the ball. Although antidiscrimination laws applying to gays and others can be onerous, I’m not sure what harm is going to be done by allowing gays to marry. Conservatives are wasting their ammunition on the wrong issue. Let this one go unless you can show the great harm likely to be done.

  9. Nyp says:

    An awful lot of people thought that anti-miscegenation rules were God’s law, Barb.

  10. Steve says:

    Rincon,,”allowing”? are you saying rights come from government?

  11. Barbara says:

    Rincon – I believe more than enough has been said to demonstrate the harm to the nation and our Constitutional form of government that this ruling protends.

    NYP – Those were man’s laws, not God’s or nature’s laws.

  12. Rincon says:

    Steve: Previously, government had prohibited gay marriage. When the prohibition was removed, then gay marriage became “allowed”. How else would you have me phrase it?

    Barbara: Although I certainly may have missed something, I don’t recall anyone here specifying the harm done by allowing gay marriage other than the harm done by improper procedure, i.e., the court deciding rather than the legislature. Yes, I understand the harm in failing to follow the Constitution. I’m referring to the direct effects of the action itself.

  13. Steve says:

    Rincon, that is no answer….government has not the authority to “allow” a right.

  14. Winston Smith says:

    To some, maybe many, maybe even most, these types of events are only a fulfillment of last days prophecy. We knew that even the United States, with its Christian foundation, could not dodge the corruption that is endemic to our planet. That the SCOTUS proved (again) its design to slowly destroy our Christian culture through judicial activism is no surprise, and despite the protests of certain people, these types of decisions are unveiled attacks on our society.

    So, after decades of attempted normalization, with the help of the media, academia and various governments, the gay agenda has scored a major victory, and we will see what is next. Will it be like Canada, as my first linked article warns? Or how about those crazy pedophiles, will they ratchet up the pressure, as covered in the second link? Probably both.

    It is my observation that some of those who don’t like to be referred to as “sinners” by Christians will seek to suppress them, one way or another, because they don’t want to deal with any potential guilt.

    The thing is, with abortion and homosexuality, these changes have been sold to public as a freedom issue, and now that they have essentially been victorious, they are out of major freedom issues to push. It is unlikely the the public will buy into other liberal issues that aren’t based on freedom, such as gun control. They are quite dumbed down enough yet to accept it. Maybe a generation from now.

    Of course, there are already people warning conservatives to not over-react, especially violently, and just go along with the show. Because of this, I look for false-flag ops to demonize conservatives over these latest rulings, in order to justify installing draconian measures by the feds. Attacks on gay weddings would be likely operations.

    Anyway, this divide-and-conquer game plan is being carried out so that we cannot unite and deal with the fascist/globalist banksters and their Machiavellian machinations. I would be surprised if they don’t own the SCOTUS, like they do the president and most members of Congress.

    So, this is all just affirms that we are approaching some serious shit, and it is best if we are prepared, physically, mentally and spiritually.

    Meanwhile, others that strive continuously to confuse the issues and rewrite history can be ignored, for they are a waste of our time.

    As usual, identify the end-game, recognize the manipulations, and prepare for the defense of our principles and true freedoms.

    War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength

  15. nyp says:

    Yeah, look at Canada. Since they permitted same sex marriage 10 years ago the place has gone straight to hell. A completely dysfunctional society.

  16. Winston Smith says:

    Apparently you didn’t bother to read about the loss of free speech in Canada since 2005. Or you don’t care, which wouldn’t be a shock.

  17. Steve says:

    From Huffington Post Canada;
    Think Canada Allows Freedom of Speech? Think Again

    But this probably pleases Nyp.

  18. nyp says:

    yeah, I admit that the level of free speech protections in Canada is not high on my personal list of concerns.

  19. Steve says:

    For sure, but when it comes nationalized health care Canada is you favorite.

  20. Patrick says:

    So the Supreme Court tells Hobby Lobby (and the rest of the religious right) that because their “good Christians” they can just ignore the law and the Constitution. The Supreme Court also tells us that Christians get to put religious stuff up on government property cause, as we all know, Christians are good people, and after all, who cares that the Constitution is otherwise. And also that other Christians are entitled, pursuant to the Establishment Clause that Uncle Justice Thomas claims doesn’t even pally to the States (guess he missed that day in Con Law when they discussed why). And that the government can lend money to religious schools. That a parent, not having custody of their child, may not object to religious indoctrination of that child, by the state because that parent lacks standing.

    The cases I cited, or at least the factual basis from those cases, have all been heard by the Court since 2000.

    The far right has rejoiced so many times, with regard to Supreme Court decisions in the last 15 years that I can’t get their singing out of my ears.

    But NOW, after a decision that actually finds a liberty interest, in people the Christians hate, these libertarian hypocrites want to talk about having to dissuade people from being violent? And that (with the code learned from the likes of Sharoon “right” Angel) they need to get themselves in shape physically for what’s coming?

    How far down the rabbit hole are we Alice?

  21. Rincon says:

    Allowing gay marriage has nothing to do with free speech, so your points about Canada are irrelevant.

    “Rincon, that is no answer….government has not the authority to “allow” a right.”
    “Allowing” a right is merely a lack of interference by government. My choice of words for a perfectly obvious concept. Prohibiting gay marriage was an exercise of government power. Conservatives talk out of both sides of their mouths. Are you for individual freedom or not?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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