Tags

, , , ,

NOM Sharply Condemns US Supreme Court Over Illegitimate Rulings Legislating From The Bench on Marriage and Rewarding Corrupt Politicians and Federal Judges on Prop 8 and DOMA

– See more at: http://www.nomblog.com/35831#sthash.LJQtfmwp.dpuf

NOM Sharply Condemns US Supreme Court Over Illegitimate Rulings Legislating From The Bench on Marriage and Rewarding Corrupt Politicians and Federal Judges on Prop 8 and DOMA

– See more at: http://www.nomblog.com/35831#sthash.LJQtfmwp.dpuf

NOM Sharply Condemns US Supreme Court Over Illegitimate Rulings Legislating From The Bench on Marriage and Rewarding Corrupt Politicians and Federal Judges on Prop 8 and DOMA

– See more at: http://www.nomblog.com/35831#sthash.LJQtfmwp.dpuf

“Despite the ruling on Proposition 8, the decision leaves intact the marriage amendments adopted by thirty other states as the Court refused to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, as celebrity lawyers David Boies and Ted Olsen had been urging throughout the case. More importantly, the DOMA ruling, which turns on the primacy of the states in setting marriage policy, calls into serious question the correctness of Judge Vaughn Walker’s initial decision invalidating Proposition 8.”

via http://www.nomblog.com/35831.

Related:

“Scalia Blasts ‘High-Handed’ Justices in Scathing Dissent of DOMA Ruling” – Fox News

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “dis- parage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. 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.

 

Advertisements