GAY TRUTH

High court's new liberal interpretation of the Constitution may mean the end of law-making as we know it If five U.S. Supreme Court justices can concoct a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage, what else might they impose? Just about anything on the Left’s agenda. Until barely a decade ago, the laws of every state had always defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That was true when the Constitution was first established, and it was true when the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. The intelligent citizen will reasonably wonder how five Supreme Court justices could have ruled two weeks ago that these state laws violate the 14th Amendment and that there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The short answer: Those five justices were just making it up. Oh, to be sure, Justice Anthony Kennedy ’s majority opinion tries to dress things up in the sort of legal-sounding jargon designed to mystify non-lawyers. But Kennedy and the four liberals ...

English: Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) As one of the four justices that dissented from today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling declaring that all 50 states must legalize same-sex “marriage, Justice Antonin Scalia issued a sharp rebuke of his colleagues’ arrogance, warning that “pride goeth before a fall.” “The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic,” he wrote. “It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the court to do so.” Scalia was speaking of his disapproval of five black-robed justices issuing an edict that he opined was “highly unrepresentative” of the nation and “hardly a cross-section of America .” “Today’s decree says that my ruler, and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine...

photograph of the justices, cropped to show Justice Scalia (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) It is disappointingly predictable that the media in Australia is obsessed by a slim majority activist US Supreme Court decision. At the same time there have been no reports of  an elected representative vote in another country of 110-26 against same-sex marriage. While we have heard much about the US Supreme Court's extraordinary ruling that a right to marry someone of the same sex has – somehow – always been constitutional, there's been hardly any mention about last week's overwhelming vote against gay marriage in the Austrian legislature. Most people in a democracy believe social policy should be determined by the people, not by dubious interpretation by an activist judiciary. The US Supreme Court majority has set a dangerous precedent for the US by asserting that the American people have, since inception, somehow misunderstood their own constitution.  As dissentin...

English: Anthony Kennedy, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) As many expected, the Supreme Court , by a 5-4 vote, ruled that under the Constitution, “ same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry .” Brushing aside arguments about history and the purpose of marriage, Justice Kennedy , writing for the majority, wrote “No longer may this liberty be denied to them.” This ruling is no surprise. All along, court-watchers knew that it would all come down to what Justice Kennedy thought about the issue. The votes of the other eight justices were never really in doubt. And it was obvious that Justice Kennedy, as the author of Planned Parenthood ’s infamous “mystery passage,” would have trouble excluding same-sex marriage from “the right to define one’s own concept of existence.” Justice Kennedy’s opinion, along with the four dissenting opinions, will be dissected and analyzed for some time. For now, though, I’d like to ta...