The Supreme Court has once again proven its willingness to rewrite the Constitution. It its 5-4 precedent-setting decision, the Supreme Court eviscerated the Defense of Marriage Act. Justices, Sotomayor, Bader-Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer and Kennedy, the court’s very own weathervane, voted to grant gay married couples the right to Federal benefits.
Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for the decision. Like most “I-want-it-to-be-true-so-it-is,” activist liberals, the majority ruled that not granting Federal benefits to gay married couples was unconstitutional because they considered it unfair.
The Weekly Standard quotes Kennedy’s decision:
“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By . . . treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others… Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reasons of government decree, in visible and public ways.”
No legitimate purpose?” Why, because Kennedy and the leftists say so?
Dissenting opinions were held by Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Scalia. Roberts, Alito and Scalia wrote dissenting opinions. All four Justices held that the majority decision was activist, emotionally based, and constitutionally unfounded. Justice Scalia was point-blank with his rebuttal:
“To question its high-handed invalidation of a . . . valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to ‘disparage,’ ‘injure,’ ‘degrade,’ ‘demean,’ and ‘humiliate’ our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual… It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.”
Not surprisingly, SCOTUS declined to rule on California’s Proposition 8. If SCOTUS mandates that Federal benefits for wedded, same-sex couples are Constitutional, what argument is there against same sex marriage at all? The answer is “nothing.”
Justice Scalia wasn’t shy about tackling that issue and “outing” the Court for establishing an underhanded precedent:
“It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here — when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will ‘confine’ the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.”
And, finally, “the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad . . . We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide. But that the majority will not do so . . . the Court has cheated both sides (of the debate). . . . We owed both of them better.”