In February, Ginsburg told Bloomberg that it ?would not take a large adjustment? for Americans to accept nationwide marriage equality, given the ?enormous? change in people?s attitudes about same-sex marriage. New York Times columnist Gail Collins wrote in January that Ginsburg has a ?strong hunch? about the way the case will turn out. ?I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court retreats from what it has said about same-sex unions,? Ginsburg told Collins, referencing the 2012 decision that found the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages.
Religious leaders are calling on members of the Supreme Court?s liberal wing to recuse themselves from the blockbuster gay marriage case that the court will begin considering on Tuesday.
Standing on the steps of the Supreme Court, Scott Lively, president of Abiding Truth Ministries, told reporters he?s filing a motion with the Supreme Court calling for the recusal of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan.
?Justices Ginsburg and Kagan, knowing full well that unique legal issues regarding the definition of marriage would soon come before them, deliberately officiated at so-called homosexual wedding ceremonies creating not merely the appearance of bias, but an actual and blatant conflict of interest,? he said.
?In my personal view they have committed an unparalleled breach of judicial ethics by elevating the importance of their own favored political cause of gay rights above the integrity of the court and of our nation.?
The case before the court, known as Obergefell v. Hodges, stems from a 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to uphold same-sex marriage bans in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky. The court has grouped the appeals from the couples in the four states together and will hear two and a half hours of arguments Tuesday morning, 90 minutes more than the court typically allows.
In their rulings, the justices will seek to answer whether states are required to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and whether states have to recognize same-sex marriage licenses from other states under the 14th Amendment.
Lively said Kagan and Ginsburg's ?vividly demonstrated disposition? in favor of the same-sex couples shows they are unable to render a fair judgment.
He and more than a dozen leaders of anti-gay-marriage groups stood behind a wall of empty cardboard filing boxes stacked on the steps of the court on Monday morning.
The boxes ? 60 in all ? were there to "symbolically" represent 300,000 restraining orders that Faith2Action President Janet Porter said will be delivered to the Supreme Court and to Congress to keep the justices from ruling on gay marriage.
?We have appealed to Congress to restrain the judges, and the good news is Congress has heard our cry,? Porter said.
Last week, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) introduced the Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act of 2015, which would remove jurisdiction to rule on gay marriage from federal courts. In the Senate, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has introduced The Protect Marriage from the Courts Act, which would also limit the federal courts? jurisdiction to consider same-sex marriage cases.
?Congress has the ability to remove appellate jurisdiction,? Porter said. ?What that means is, we can actually take from them their right to rule on marriage before they even rule on marriage.?
During the press conference, Larry Sternbane, 51, stood quietly back behind the crowd holding a sign that read, ?Don?t like gay marriage? Don?t get gay married.?
?This right here is the last gasp of a group that is losing this issue in the public square,? he said. ?They are talking to themselves. There are a bunch of tourists listening, and the only ones clapping when somebody ends is them.?
I was just reading a great article on this case. Here is link https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-supreme-court-gay-marriage-arguments-what-the-117695904751.html
It lists key comments by many of the justices. Here is that of the head conservative the chief justice.
Chief Justice Roberts has long been troubled by the idea that courts might short-circuit a democratic debate over marriage equality by imposing a constitutional right to marry by judicial fiat. In his dissent from the Windsor case in 2013, he wrote that he was reluctant to ?tar the political branches with the brush of bigotry? without convincing evidence that a law?s ?principal purpose was to codify malice.? He might vote to uphold same-sex-marriage bans on the grounds that the people, not judges, should decide the future of marriage.
Roberts also hinted that same-sex-marriage bans might be vulnerable as a form of sex discrimination. ?I?m not sure it?s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case,? he said. ?I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can?t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn?t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?? Still, a majority of the court seems more interested in striking down the bans as a violation of liberty, equality, and dignity, and it would be surprising if Roberts joined majority opinion emphasizing sex discrimination.
That Catholic Church just proves that they don't know what they're talking about.
That could be a touch harsh - not as argument, but as explanation I offer the following.
Also - sorry for those who have no interest in this kind of stuff -
Jesus on divorce - asked and answered - same event in Mark and Matthew
Mark 10 2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Matthew 19 3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
I think the major difference between a protestant reading of the above and the Catholic reading of the above is the difference in understanding of the greek words Porneia vs Moicheia.
The ?fornication? in vs 9 above is a translation of Porneia. The general protestant understanding of that is akin to adultery, but the greek word for adultery is Moicheia. So, in general, adultery would be an acceptable reason for divorce.
The Catholic interpretation for porneia - is more than adultery, it is the root word for pornography, and literally means to draw the prostitute. For us, it is interpreted as a catch all for all kinds of sexual immorality, or abuse. Or things that would nullify the ability of someone to enter into a real marriage of their own free will. As an example, to Catholics, someone so consumed by these kids of sexual feelings, does not have the ability to make a valid marriage vow. In our view, someone like that entering in a union, could not be joined together by God, any more than a gay marriage would. So to us that type of marriage never occurred, and could be annulled.