U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia predicted that when the high court struck down state laws against homosexuality in the Lawrence v. Texas case in 2003 and more recently a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), it would only be a matter of time before the court would force states to recognize homosexual marriages – and ultimately other types as well. Polygamists, for example, already are advancing a case in the federal courts, using the same arguments exploited by homosexuals.
We now have a U.S. Supreme Court judge saying that anyone who disagrees with homosexual marriage is a bigot and a hatemonger.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinions in both cases, cited “animus” as justification for doing so. States, Kennedy reasoned, that recognize only heterosexual marriage do so out of animus to “demean” and deny homosexuals the same privilege. Thus state governments’ rationale is steeped in bigotry, discrimination and hatred against homosexuals. This is outrageous. He must think Missourians were motivated by bigotry when they voted by a 71-29 percent margin in 2005 amending their state constitution to say that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. Perhaps more disturbing is we now have a U.S. Supreme Court judge saying that anyone who disagrees with homosexual marriage is a bigot and a hatemonger. Imagine the implications for say, a preacher, who declares homosexuality to be a sin. Kennedy’s language suggests they will be in serious trouble.
Homosexuals – with a federal hate crimes law, the nation’s judiciary, the Democrat Party (which, don’t forget, affirmed homosexual marriage at its national convention in 2012) and the news media in their pockets – are going to put the First Amendment to the ultimate test. Their goal has never been marriage, but rather total acceptance of their lifestyle and that includes silencing opposition. But we are not there yet.
Kennedy’s opinions in Lawrence v. Texas and DOMA do not specifically say states must recognize homosexual marriages, but the writing is on the wall. Kennedy’s opinions are invitations for federal lawsuits by homosexuals demanding their marriages be recognized. Kennedy even hints they will succeed. Scalia, in his powerful dissent in the DOMA case, warned of such impending developments: “As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe (to drop).”
It’s raining shoes.
Six federal lawsuits already have been filed challenging state laws banning homosexual marriage in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Nevada and in recent days in Kentucky and Ohio. Situations like the one involving John Arthur of Cincinnati, who is dying of Lou Gehrig’s disease, and his partner, Jim Obergefell, are among the federal suits filed. On July 11 Arthur and Obergefell flew to a Maryland airport and got married in the plane while sitting on the airport tarmac. They flew back to Cincinnati and sued state and local officials, demanding Ohio recognize their marriage.
In 2004, Ohioans voted by a 62-38 percent margin to amend the state constitution, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. None of that mattered to federal Judge Timothy Black, who ruled July 22 that Arthur could be listed as “married” on his death certificate and Obergefell listed as his surviving “spouse” to ensure that they can be buried next to each other in Arthur’s family plot, which is in a cemetery that only allows descendants and spouses.
In his decision ordering the marriage to be recognized on Arthur’s death certificate, Black, an Obama appointee, said Ohio law historically has recognized out-of-state marriages as valid as long as they were legal where they took place, citing marriages between cousins and involving minors.
“How then can Ohio, especially given the historical status of Ohio law, single out same-sex marriages as ones it will not recognize?” wrote Black. “The short answer is that Ohio cannot.”
Harvard Law School professor Mark Tushnet said the stage is set for hundreds of gay married couples living in states that ban homosexual marriage to file lawsuits similar to the Ohio case. “They’re already beginning to bubble up and almost certainly a fair number of them are going to be decided in favor of the married couples,” he said.
Most of the 35 states that ban or limit gay marriage, if not all of them, recognize lawful marriages performed in other states and that will lend success to other lawsuits, some believe. Sooner or later one will reach Justice Kennedy and the Supremes. Homosexuals know they cannot win at the ballot box in all 50 states, not even close. But as we are learning, there is more than one way to skin a cat.