By The Right Scoop


Mark Levin says that the Supreme Court has no business deciding this case, and he explains why below:

So let me suggest this to you with respect to the power of the courts, in particularly the Supreme Court. Where there is not a clear constitutional issue as there clearly was in Loving vs Virginia under the 14th amendment, a clear violation of the 14th amendment, then why should the federal courts intervene? Why should the Supreme Court intervene?

The Equal Protection Clause doesn’t say the ‘liberal promotion clause’ or the ‘radical egalitarianism clause’ where people can pour their economic or social agendas into the Constitution for the courts to decide. That’s not what that clause is there for and that’s not what it means.

‘So Mark, what should the court do?’

In my humble opinion, the court should strike down the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, and through it the district court’s decision in San Francisco. And the court should say:

We have no business in this case. The people of California voted, they passed Proposition 8 to amend their constitution. Maybe in ten years they’ll pass another proposition to reverse course. But there’s no federal constitutional violation here. This is not the same as segregation and racism. This is not a matter of equal protection.’

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • 57thunderbird

    Jay Sekulow was on Hannity’s radio show this afternoon and said almost the same thing.

  • Isaiah 54

    Justice Scalia asks:  When did it become unconstitutional for homosexuals to marry?
    Justice Scalia:
    When did sexual gratification become a civil right?
    When did
    emotions and deviant sexual desires come to mean a separate gender, orientation
    or race?
    Do you realize that to approve same-sex marriage opens the door to
    polygamy, intra-familial (incest), inter-species (bestiality) and
    intra-generational (pedophilia/ephebophilia) marriage on the same basis –
    rights, justice, etc.?
    Are you willing to bow to the noisy demands of 1.5% of
    Americans with deviant desires, ignore science research, medicine, mental health
    CDC, police and coroner statistics and create relational, psychological and
    moral chaos in this country?
    Do you really want to unravel society when you
    could simply vote NO?

    • deTocqueville1

      Isaiah 54 Exactly.

    • njmom

      Isaiah 54 This is an examply of why Antonin Scalia is my favorite Justice.

      • PVG

        njmom Isaiah 54 He is brilliant!

    • stage9

      Isaiah 54 What you just wrote reminds me of what Fisher Ames (framer of the first amendment) wrote:
      “Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.”(Source: Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.)

    • Watchman74

      Isaiah 54I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the show Battlestar Caprica but they depicte pluralistic marriages of men and women all married together. It’s quiet strange to see even tho it’s a show, but I think this is the direction it will go when we start trying to redefine marriage.

  • deTocqueville1

    Mark is clear and authoritative as usual.

  • PVG

    SCOTUS has no business deciding this PERIOD!

    • OneThinDime

      PVG The point of the case is the 10th Amendment, whether the voters in the state of CA have the right to amend their Constitution.  If the SCOTUS says no, the country is gone.

      • PVG

        OneThinDime PVG Right. The court should strike down the 9th circus (intentional) ruling and let the vote of the people stand. It will be amended in time but it is a state issue.

        • OneThinDime

          PVG OneThinDime Agreed!

  • Austrian Anarchy

    1138 reasons why the government needs to get out of the marriage business http://austriananarchy.blogspot.com/2013/03/1138-reasons-why-government-should-get.html

  • stage9

    Let’s assume he’s right. Let’s say the Supreme Court sends it back to the state of California to deal with this issue themselves, what will stop them from ignoring the will of the people and imposing their own will? Because that’s essentially what they did. The people voted, the activist court didn’t like it, and so they usurped the will of the people and sent it up the flag pole to the SCOTUS.
    He told an earlier caller to “get off your a** and move to a different state”. What happens when you run out of states. Colorado used to be middle of the road, but now it’s liberal. NC used to by red, now it’s purple. In MA the governor (Mitt Obamney) took a court OPINION (not a law, an OPINION!) and used it to impose counterfeit marriage there.
    So,you have activist judges, activist legislatures (as in Maryland) who are imposing 11th hour (middle of the night) rulings where the people have NOT SPOKEN!
    How the gay movement lobbies your state legislatorshttp://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/12d/tran_law_in_schools/lobbying.html
    Now forgive me, I’m not a lawyer…there may be a sensible answer to all of this, but I’m just curious how this will work any better on the state level.

    • PVG

      stage9 I don’t know either. But I don’t want 9 judges deciding this for all 50 states FOREVER!

      • stage9

        PVG stage9 I’m really torn. On the one hand I see what homosexual activists have accomplished on the state level — the lies, the manipulation and the coercion of state legislators. (see my link above)
        But on the other hand I think we need to insist on our voice being heard on these matters locally and with as much vociferousness as liberals do. 
        And then there’s the Constitutional question. No, the Constitution doesn’t answer this issue specifically, but why would it? There weren’t any homosexuals lobbying the Congress  in 1789 to adopt counterfeit marriage! And if their were, I’m pretty sure they would’ve been run out of town on a rail because that would have been unconscionable back then. 
        But with something as fundamental to society as marriage and family, which are in fact the very REASONS society even exists, how do you answer this question?

        • Stehekin912

          stage9 PVG Interestingly, there have been homosexuals for thousands of years and only recently, and only in America, have they demanded to marry.  There is no precedent culturally or socially or legally anywhere, so there is an ulterior motive, IMHO

        • PVG

          stage9 PVG As I posted the other day, it is amazing that we are so mired in this issue that involves < 4% of the population. Why are we letting marriage be re-defined and manipulated like this?

        • stage9

          PVG stage9 Yeah, really. Imagine what WE could do if we just tried!

        • stage9

          Stehekin912 stage9 PVG I think I may have read somewhere that ROMANS had a form of counterfeit marriage. I could be wrong. I know pedophilia was rampant, so it wouldn’t surprise me.

        • PVG

          stage9 Stehekin912 PVG Anything that has to do with religion, tradition, or the rule of law is a target.

        • 57thunderbird

          PVG stage9 Exactly!The best estimates on the percentage of the population that is homosexual(I refuse to use the word gay in this context)falls between 2 to 4 %..It is time the minority stops making the rules for the majority!Enough!

        • http://cfp4us.org/ AmericanborninCanada

          PVG stage9 I’ve been wondering the same PVG- especially when the article by Star Parker created such an outrage.  If they make up less than 4 % of the population, what are they in the republican party?  Must be less, yet to so many, it’s imperative that the party open the tent wider for them? 
          Not saying homosexuals have no right to be heard but why should their voices be as loud or more so than the rest of the population?

        • stage9

          AmericanborninCanada PVG stage9 I think it’s because liberals believe in the idea that the MINORITY should have a greater voice than the MAJORITY, because the MAJORITY can oppress the MINORITY.
          But Thomas Jefferson said:
          “[T]he will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is the only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived.”
          Scalia kind of answered this before too:
          “Don’t think the originalist interpretation [of the Constitution vs a "living Constitution"]  constrains you. To the contrary, my [originalist] Constitution is a very flexible Constitution. You want a right to abortion? Create it the way all rights are created in a democracy: pass a law. The death penalty? Pass a law. That’s flexibility.” (About, “Scalia on the Constitution” (at http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa022701a.htm).

        • OliviaHT

          Stehekin912 stage9 PVG No, not only in America, but in Europe also — but not without resistance, as in France. See here: http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2013/03/france-for-the-french/

      • 57thunderbird

        PVG stage9 Agreed!

    • Stehekin912

      stage9   Problem with moving to a different state is if we move out, there are fewer and fewer states with Conservative voices in them.  If we all move to, say, Texas, then only Texas will be conservative, and 49 other states will be blue.  Somehow we need to oxygenate our states (turn from holding their breath like spoiled brats – blue – to taking nice deep breaths and turning a healthy red).

      • stage9

        Stehekin912 stage9 Yeah that was my thought as well.

      • OliviaHT

        Stehekin912 stage9 I wonder if America can be restored at all or turned around from its current headlong descent into paganism and totalitarianism. It doesn’t help, as Ann Coulter recently remarked, that the original white European — and Western — culture is being displaced by third-worlders (via the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act), many of whom expect government to take care of them, and whose presence here also creates greater demand for “diversity,” “tolerance,” and “equality,” all the false liberal virtues erected to replace former Christian values and virtues.

    • 57thunderbird

      stage9 Mark and Jay Seulow are somewhat in agreement.Sekulow said the court could say that the people voted to amend their state constitution,which is their right,and over rule the 9th Cirucuit court and Mark says they should.Sekulow says he doesn’t think the SCOTUS wants to be responsible for another Roe v Wade debacle.I wait with great anticipation to see how this plays out.

      • stage9

        57thunderbird stage9 Yeah this is very scary especially after what SCOTUS did with ObamaCare.

        • 57thunderbird

          stage9 57thunderbird Indeed it is my friend.Pray hard!

    • njmom

      stage9 The only thing I know which has the power to change things is prayer but having said that I’m looking to move out of NJ to a more politically friendly state down south.

      • stage9

        njmom stage9 C’mon! We’d love have ya’ll!

      • MacWell

        njmom stage9 Hi again njmom. As a nj neighbor I wish I was in a position to join you. Alas it isn’t in the cards now. Maybe some day, if live that long.

  • 57thunderbird

    Traditional marriage is the bedrock upon which our nation was founded.The framers were adamant in their opinion of the importance of the family to the republic.The left realized this early on and have done all they can to see its destruction.

    • Watchman74

      57thunderbird I would traditional marriage is the bedrock for any society.

      • 57thunderbird

        Watchman74 57thunderbird Amen!And the left knows that which is why they seek its destruction.

  • njmom

    Totally agree with Mark. The courts should never overrule the will of the people.

    • maxsteele

      njmom That is not what Mark is saying, yet, it is what you are saying.  Actually, that is exactly what the courts are there for.  The courts are there to protect the individual from the tyranny of the despot, state, or the majority.  That is why the American system is the best in the world because it has the protection of the 3 branches to keep each one from becoming tyrannical.
      Yet, I agree with Mark that this case should be thrown out and the 9 circuit ruling be thrown out.

  • http://cfp4us.org/ AmericanborninCanada

    This never should have come before the 9th circus in the first place.  The people of California voted for the Amendment.  The presiding judge on the case is homosexual.  Activists in and out of the court over rode the will of the people.  The Supreme Court if they have any scruples left at all (I know- it’s a stretch these days to believe they do) should rule that the people of California have spoken, and leave it at that.

    • tinlizzieowner

      AmericanborninCanada  
      The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is a batch of liberal clowns and it always has been.

      • http://cfp4us.org/ AmericanborninCanada

        tinlizzieowner AmericanborninCanada That’s why its the circus court :-/

  • RayBrown1

    Alternative to facebook:  https://www.teapartycommunity.com/

  • tinlizzieowner

    Homosexuals et all, comprise 2 to 4% of the population. The percentage in the courts, the government, the schools and the entertainment industry is easily 3 times that. If you watch television these days, you would think that everybody has a ‘Gay’ next door neighbor, which is far from the truth.

    The people of California voted twice to mandate that  ‘marriage’ is between a man and a woman. There are Civil Union provisions in EVERY state that provide for the right of survivorship of those who don’t fit under the traditional ‘marriage’ laws.This is all about one word, the word ‘marriage’ and that’s it and the ability for Homosexuals to force ‘Gay’ marriages into churches that would not otherwise perform ‘Gay’ marriages.

    • stage9

      tinlizzieowner Some say the number is even lower….1.7% ( http://narth.com/2011/04/1-7-percent-of-the-18-and-over-population-identify-as-gay/ ) Either way, data has shown that only 26% of “homosexuals believe commitment is paramount in a marriage-type relationship.” 
      26%!!!
      26% of +/-1.7% of the population is going to redefine marriage for the entire country???
      Think about that! If that doesn’t put this whole thing in perspective, nothing will.

      • tinlizzieowner

        stage9 tinlizzieowner 
        That’s exactly what I was getting at.

  • JamesP.Delaney

    Precisely. It isn’t an issue about gay marriage or not gay marriage. It is a constitutional issue for me. The people have spoken and cannot be constitutionally overruled by the judiciary. It’s really that simple.

    • MacWell

      JamesP.Delaney James, James, you win the prize of the day, very well said sir. 
      “We the people”. 
      Does that 3 word statement really mean something any longer?
      Our laws of the land, begin with that simple 3 words, we the people. That simple phrase  IS the basis of the newly formed government that was the USA. Something so radical at the time, yet so simple in it’s meaning. Imagine, if you will; a bunch of men sitting around discussing how to form this new type of government, one that, till then, has never existed in history. A country where the government is given it’s authority from the common man, not the reverse. I’m afraid that if “we the people” do not get off our lazy butts and take back OUR government soon, there will be no USA to debate.

  • stage9

    Gay Tea Party Founder: If We Redefine Marriage, ‘We’re Going to Redefine Children
    http://cnsnews.com/video/washington/gay-tea-party-founder-if-we-redefine-marriage-we-re-going-redefine-children

  • WeAreAllActivistsNow

    “But Justice Kennedy, a California native, said California law about ballot measures gives a special responsibility to the sponsors of ballot measures. He said they can represent the people of the state when its officials refuse to defend a measure approved by the voters.”
    Hmmm is he saying that the officials refuse to represent the people of the state??? What is wrong with this picture?

    • Laurel A

      WeAreAllActivistsNow Yes he is and it’s precisely that. Jerry Brown as Attorney General and now Camalla Harris flat refused to defend Prop.8 in court. Same thing Obama and Holder have done with DOMA.

  • Alphamail

    Right on. The stats show right around 2% or less, and far
    less than half of those give a s**t about the same-sex issue. When I was a kid
    in the 40’s and 50’s my dad owned a bowling alley with a women’s softball
    league with most of the players being gay. They wanted absolutely nothing to do
    with marriage.
    Point being, about 1/2 of ONE percent of
    I’m-going-to-make-your-life-a-living-nightmare-if-you don’t-give
    -me-what-I-want Americans, are pushing us around like deck chairs.
    Their bullying argument centers on an unhealthy emotional
    plea, and the only way to defeat their ugly political correctness is with
    facts.
    Conservatives need to start being forceful with facts and be
    willing to take a few hits over PC – and not fold so fast to the emotional
    pressure – and before long the low-information public at large, who are
    basically honest and who naturally “feel” for others, will see that
    their initial healthy perception is actually very misguided and, if I may say,
    not normal – in light of the numbers.
    It wouldn’t bother me to see billboards with the actual
    percentages and message of what you’re discussing, tastefully available for
    common perusal by the public.
    Somebody out there with some bucks, please start a billboard
    campaign. Don’t forget to include crime statistics and demographics to protect
    the 2nd Amendment.
    You’ve decided to be in the kitchen so expect the heat –
    just be confident…the omelet will eventually turn out great.

  • The Sentinel

    Amen.

  • clubgitmo

    Who the hell knows what these clowns in the black robes will decide anymore?

  • http://www.therightscoop.com MadJack

    With the recent decision these clowns made on Obamacare I have little faith that they will make the right decision regarding Holy Matrimony.  According to the left there are no actions any longer that can be classified as a  sin.

  • MegoBisesi

    Spot on: 10th Amendment APPLIES!!

  • agas84363

    I  see young people today having babies,living together etc without even the thought of marriage..it seems to me most young people don’t want to get married….if gays want to get married let them…who cares…when it comes to government intervention on the marriage issue, it is the excuse of local government to be involved to stop the spread of vd….as i recall that is suposedly why government is involved at all……there is no constitutional issue on marriage…..its a Health issue…Where did we hear this before?

    • DebbyX

      agas84363 I hear what you’re saying.  But if it is considered a “legal” marriage, then the spouse has to be entitled to all the “benefits” of that marriage.  I for instance, work for a Catholic institution, I don’t think monsignor would be too happy providing my gay partner with health care and all that entails.  Heck, they wouldn’t even let me add my husband.  (That’s a long story, right there).
      Just sayin’

      • agas84363

        DebbyX agas84363 boy debbie you are so right….it is such a complex issue….myself i am roman catholic and don’t think i would be if i were gay…..but the issue at hand is weather the supreme court should be involved in this…in which i think no…but i totally understand where you are coming from….but when i start thinking about all the issues,i, can only figure that the government has grown to the point where they are involved in everything in my life …… want to make everybody happy, and our time on earth …………well it just doesn’t work that way

  • JohnDavidson1

    We all are awaiting to see if our voting rights are maintained.

    • ClintSlaven

      Our voting rights have been steadily eroding for years. With Black Panthers at polling stations, deceased voters and people voting multiple times it has made a mockery of our voting system. JohnDavidson1

  • ClintSlaven

    So what are we to when Churches are sued, and are forced to close due to a large judgment against them? People ate no longer being allowed to follow their own religious beliefs. In the future it will be a hate crime for a Church to refuse to perform a gay marriage.

  • AnthonySakal

    What is happening here is that one state is attempting to define marriage by usurping that states “will of the people”, via the liberal courts, and asking the Federal government to apply it to all states. Wrong! The Supreme Court is designed around Constitutional matters. This is not an equal protection issue that has, unfortunately, already been misapplied in so many previous cases. The DOMA issue is separate; It determines how the Federal government, for tax, inheritance and a few other purposes, treats marriages that are state recognized and therefore affect Federal laws pertaining to recognized marriages. It has nothing to do with preventing same sex marriages by the Federal government or the states. This is a 10th Amendment issue. Eminent Domain is an example where the Federal government wrongly used the “taking clause” and that required the States to create their own protection for citizens against unjust confiscation. Ultimately the states mitigated what would otherwise trump all states rights regarding the issue.
    The hope of the left wing, progressive mentality is for the courts fall for an unconstitutional interpretation that facilitates a power grab and advances their liberal agenda by becoming the law of the land.