Politico has a story about how Republicans in Congress are staying eerily quiet about the news that the Supreme Court is going to be addressing gay marriage. Anti-gay bigots are outraged that Republicans no longer have their backs:
“…it’s clear GOP elites don’t want to talk about it and want to keep it as quiet as possible,” said Maggie Gallagher, a founder of the National Organization for Marriage and a fellow at the conservative American Principles Project. “That’s so obvious, I don’t see any point in pretending otherwise.”
Tom McClusky of the Family Research Council said he assumes from conversations he’s had with congressional aides that lawmakers are pleased the high court is taking up the issue. “But there’s just radio silence” publicly, McClusky said. “I was disappointed there wasn’t more from the Hill.”
And a top gay-rights activist, who asked not to be named because of his outreach to Republicans, said he hasn’t “heard or seen anything” from GOP leaders or members. “They’re really just hoping this issue will go away.”
This is obviously not ideal. Mitt Romney ran a whole campaign predicated on the belief that if he didn’t mention any of the issues he felt strongly about, Americans would elect him anyway. That philosophy obviously didn’t work for Romney, but it has worked for Republicans in states like Wisconsin and Michigan. But that silence comes at a huge cost for conservatism, too: if the party line is to just shut up about gay marriage, it seems as though we’re not too far away from a time when moderate Republicans publicly embrace gay marriage.
What are you supposed to be, some sort of drama queen? The Supreme Court will listen to the lawyers presenting arguments in Court. At least they’re interested enough to discuss it. The Supreme Court has become rather politicized, but it’s not appropriate for the Legislature to lobby the Judges. Shirley there must be some TV pseudo news program that could rustle up some pundits to speculate on the news before it’s news, and maybe even interview a few politicians to get their pandering, if you go in for that sort of thing.
Gay
a.
1. Merry; airy; jovial; sportive; frolicksome. It denotes more life and animation than cheerful.
Belinda smiled, and all the world was gay.
2. Fine; showy; as a gay dress.
3. Inflamed or merry with liquor; intoxicated; a vulgar use of the word in America.
Gay, n. An ornament. [Not used.]
Webster’s 1828 dictionary
Marriage
n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb.13.
1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.
The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Matt.22.
2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev.19.
Webster’s 1828 dictionary
The Supreme Court will take a very, narrow view. If the words “gay” and “marriage” are used, they will reject the measure based upon the improper use of English grammar. If the the terms ‘homosexual domestic partnership’ or ‘same gender civil union’ were to be used for instance, and grounds were cited under Equity pursuant to the 14th Amendment, then there would be a reasonable chance that it might be affirmed.
Rollergirl: you may not be aware of it, but it isn’t 1828 anymore.
The only four words that should matter to the SCOTUS are the ones written over their front door: “Equal Justice Under Law”.
Hey Rollergirl aka stjohns rules! How’s business these days? Staying busy?
@ TSW:
i’m putting my money on Multnomahn/Dr. Minsk…..
Scalia has already equated sodomy with murder, so I’m sure he’ll view the cases with an open mind.
A law is interpreted under the meaning of words at the time that the law was written. If you could change the law by re-writing the dictionary, there would be no need for the Legislature. A homosexual couple enjoined in a mutual contract can refer to their arrangement in what ever terms they wish. They can tell everyone they know that they are gay AND happily married if they want to, but when it comes to legal privileges, such as insurance and intestate inheritance, they must use proper English grammar. As far as sodomy goes, as long as sexual relations are not spelled out specifically as a state granted privilege, then there ought not be any conflict with other laws. If you’re seeking the privilege to engage in sexual intercourse on a public picnic table, that would probably be a deal breaker.