The Die Is Cast
That's
Chuck Colson's opinion of the issue of homosexual marriage barring the passage of a Defense of Marriage constitutional Amendment. Here's what he's basing it on:
If those things don't happen, then indeed, the die is cast. At that point, the only option is a constitutional amendment.
Originally posted Tuesday, June 6, 2006, revised 07-Jun 6:05 PM
May 2006 Posts
No comments.
Let me explain the precedents that make it inevitable that the Court will uphold gay "marriage." In the 1992 case Casey v. Planned Parenthood, Justice Kennedy affirmed the right of abortion with a sweeping definition of liberty as the right of a person to determine for himself the meaning of life.The best hope when such a case reaches the Supreme Court is that the Roberts Court, with Alito replacing O'Connor, would rule that the prior cases were incorrectly decided, justifying the ignoring of the precedents Colson just cited. The justices might also rule that this is a states' rights issue and void prior rulings.
Many feared this definition could embrace anything. Soon enough, it did. In 1995 the Court struck down a democratically enacted state referendum in Colorado denying special civil rights based on sexual orientation. Kennedy wrote the opinion, Romer v. Evans, saying the vote of the people demonstrated "animus," that is, bigotry, against homosexuals.
Then in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law banning sodomy. Again Justice Kennedy, who could have used a very simple Fourteenth Amendment guarantee argument, resorted instead to his holding in Casey and in Romer v. Evans. By legislating against homosexual behavior, the state was guilty of bigotry or prejudice.
Justice Scalia delivered a blistering dissent. "Today's opinion," he said, "dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted the distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions..." He went on to charge that the case meant the end to the possibility of all legislation concerning morality.
Now, what all of this means is that the Supreme Court, following its own precedents, will declare any law restricting the right of homosexuals to marry unconstitutional.
If those things don't happen, then indeed, the die is cast. At that point, the only option is a constitutional amendment.
An appeal is already coming up from a Nebraska case in which a judge threw out a statute banning gay "marriage" as unconstitutional. Within two years this will be at the Supreme Court, and the axe will fall.Let's hope that things change before then because I trust Colson's opinions on this. After all, he was Nixon's chief White House counsel.
Originally posted Tuesday, June 6, 2006, revised 07-Jun 6:05 PM
May 2006 Posts
No comments.
