Has Roberts Already Made Up His Mind On Gay Marriage?

Given his constitutional betrayal regarding the ObamaCare “tax” ruling, this too does not pass the smell test….

In an open letter distributed by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Jean Podrasky writes, “Tomorrow, my cousin, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, will begin considering the fate of two of the most important cases impacting the rights of the LGBT community ever to go before the Court—the challenges to California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I want nothing more than to marry my wonderful girlfriend,” states Podrasky, who lives in the San Francisco area.

Prediction: 6-3, DOMA and Prop 8 Both Fall; Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts
Like most things in today’s federal government, giving a relative a front row seat in a case that will affect the nation is a gesture we should all be concerned about.

About The Author

  • Tallyman

    First,to n.n. This won’t be decided on logic, consistency or the Constitution, it will decided on the whims, prejudices and the corruption of the judges. In Marbury v. Madison, the Chief Judge in 1803 ruled, “The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.” That was in 1803, not now. Congress by law can define many things, including marriage. If there’s a right to homosexual marriage, there’s equally is a right to marry an animal or your sister or your daughter.

    Second, were Roberts an honest judge, he would recuse and not tolerate his relative with a vested interest in the case to be present before him during trial. “Laws or court rules provide for recusal of judges. Although the details vary, the following are nearly universal grounds for recusal.” “The judge is related to a party, attorney, or spouse of either party (usually) within three degrees of kinship.” “The judge has personal or financial interest in the outcome.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification

    But, Roberts is not an honorable man. It was reported that Roberts adopted two Irish children by illegally routing them through South America. http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Full-scale-of-illegal-adoptions-remains-unknown-says-Health-Minister-124027684 .html http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2987259/posts

    Does the Liberal media control those for whom it covers? Are the children Irish, Judge Roberts? Can Interpol issue a warrant for your arrest? Does your lesbian cousin have a vested interest to marry her lover? Are our courts rotten from the Chief judge on down?

    • n.n

      Of course not. I understand that. It is unfortunate.

      Still, my arguments have to be internally, externally, and mutually consistent. There is a personal motive to search for an objective standard, principle, etc. Anything less requires extraordinary effort and stress to defend. Life is already sufficiently challenging that it is my interest to avoid specious arguments as much as possible, whenever possible, especially when they can be exploited with ulterior motives.

      In this context, when we reject objective standards, then the only consistent standard must be universal. The arguments used by homosexuals and their heterosexual patrons do not meet that simple objective. Their demands for equal protection and treatment are uniquely hypocritical and discriminatory. Their heterosexual patrons of abortion and “choice” have even less credibility.

  • n.n

    If DOMA and Prop 8 fall, then so too must SSM or homosexual marriage. The issue under consideration is equal protection or treatment under the law. This standard cannot be met based on selective standards. While there is a biological and Constitutional argument to favor heterosexual unions, there is no basis for conferring distinguished benefits and rights to unions based solely on sexual behavior. The advocates for homosexual marriage must confer the same benefits to all unions, whether based on sexual or platonic relationships, or they must be exposed for promoting a selective prejudice supported by a personal interest which has no redeeming value to either society or humanity. They must support corporations.

    Any arguments for universal human and civil rights were derailed with the normalization of elective abortions. Anyone who supports that standard of human dignity and value, cannot offer a serious opinion on any other matter related to human and civil rights. This excludes both pro-abortion and pro-choice advocates from having a credible voice in this debate. This excludes most human and civil rights organizations from having a credible voice in this debate.

    That said, the Supreme Court was negligent and ignorant when it ruled in favor of elective abortions. Our national charter establishes unalienable rights to, among other things, Life from “creation.” Our constitution establishes equal protection, which precludes terminating a life without cause and due process. Let’s hope the Justices have learned from their past mistakes. They can either rule against homosexual marriage or they can rule in favor of all unions, irrespective of their composition.

  • n.n

    There is a constitutional basis to favor heterosexual unions, to distinguish them from other unions, both sexual and platonic.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    The Founders recognized the merits of evolutionary fitness. They recognized that not all behaviors have equal value to a society. They also implicitly recognized that other behaviors could be tolerated, which is why they did not explicitly proscribe their practice. They recognized and distinguished between the rights of individuals and society, and recorded statement which recognize both.