Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
- Thread starter
- #241
I would agree that attending the wedding would not be the same as officiating and I am disappointed that Kagan did not think this was improper. Don't think for a minute that the gay lobby isn't saying that we got her in the bag for our side and that this will really stick it to all those homophobes.
It goes further than that. There is no person on earth who would doubt how Kagan or Ginsburg (they both officiated at gay weddings/the dismantling of the structural meaning of the word marriage as presided over by the fed) will cast their vote at the Hearing coming up in April.
Blithering nonsense. The Windsor court explicitly found the NY state definition of marriage that included same sex couples as constitutionally valid....As both Maryland and DC voted same sex marriage in in the same fashion as NY state did.
And HOW did Windsor 2013 find that the woman's marriage was valid? Because a STATE SAID SO. In fact, the Court used its 56 times it avered that STATES have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to define marriage in defiance of the fed in order to strike down part of DOMA (a fed looming over the states) and award her the money.
Then on the eve of a question of law where one side seeks a federal mandate to dismantle the physical structure of the millenial-old word "marriage" (ironically and in duplicity) and the other side wishes the states their Constitutionally-supported right to preserve it if they like, two Justices (federal entities) show up looming over states that have dismantled the word.
Gee, I wonder how those two Justices are going to vote on the question of "dismantled by federal mandate or not"? And the truth is that nobody wonders how those two Justices will vote as a result. Which is why they are mandated to recuse themselves according to their own finding in 2009: 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co where the premise was successfully argued and upheld that even the appearance of bias or suspicion of bias meets the standard where a judge must recuse themself.
It's the law. Nobody is above the law.
Last edited: