There are significantly different takes on today’s Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) marriage decisions. The preliminary analysis I have read range from descriptions that they are very bad, but not worse case scenario, because states that have not legalized same sex “marriages” do not (yet), by the rulings, have to recognize same sex marriages from those states that have . . . to a view that they are very-very bad because of their assault on peoples’ referenda and the language and implications in the majority opinion that impugn motivations to protect marriage as between one man and one woman.
Reading excerpts from Scalia’s dissent we lean toward the later analysis. This is not to say that there is not still hope to hold the line on cultural chaos. We need to put the Senate and the Presidency in conservative hands to avoid the coup-d-gras of another liberal Supreme Court appointment should a conservative leave the bench.
Some have suggested that in part the decision was states’ rights leaning — we think not really — although that concept is suggested in Kennedy’s majority opinion, other language therein would seem to give fodder for political maneuvers that obviate state law and the Supreme Court will do nothing about it as happened with California..
Read these dispatches about the decision providing different constitutional and political analysis.
- Gary Bauer writing at Campaign for Working Families.
- Hadley Arkes writing at National Review online
- Thomas Peters also writing at National Review Online
R Mall
Well Chris Christie “aka The Whale” has come out and said the ruling was wrong. I wonder if that is going to hurt his Democrat base? Could the Whale be positioning himself towards our way already for 2016? I bet he thinks he has enough goodwill built up between himself and he Lib media from all those Jersey Shore walks with Obummer.