Scalia goes there: 'When Did It Become Unconstitutional To Exclude Homosexual Couples From Marriage?'

By Correctamundo

The gay marriage question has made it to SCOTUS for the state of California, specially as regards Prop 8. 

During oral arguments today at the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia and attorney Ted Olson had a pointed exchange over whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Scalia's argument, which was advanced by Chief Justice John Roberts before him, was that when the institution of marriage developed historically, it was not done with the explicit intent of excluding gay and lesbian couples.

"We don't prescribe law for the future," Scalia said. "We decide what the law is. I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?"

For me this gets to the heart of the issue: We don't prescribe law, we decide what the law is. Unfortunately, as seen with Obamacare, we have activist judges who do just that. And the part about it being unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? Brilliant.

Olson countered that with a question of his own, bringing up two past high-profile cases involving discrimination.

"When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?" Olson asked.

As to the first point, interracial marriage was still between a man and woman, which has been the foundation of marriage since the beginning of time. The second violated the 14th Amendment based on the equal protection clause. Gay marriage, however, has to do with overturning what the definition of marriage is - one man and one woman. That's a bit different in my opinion.

"Well, how am I supposed to how to decide a case, then, if you can't give me a date when the Constitution changes?" Scalia said.

"Because in the case that's before you today, the citizens of California decide — after the California Supreme Court decided that individuals had a right to get married irrespective of their sexual orientation in California — then the Californians decided in Proposition 8, wait a minute, we don't want those people to be able to get married."

Oopsy - that didn't sound very persuasive. Sounded like the people of CA wants to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

This case is the poster child for how this country is degrading slowly but surely. And it's a big can of worms. What will be next: marriage between a human and a cat? Why not. What business is it of yours who someone loves? Why shouldn't they be able to proclaim that openly and in public by marrying? 

Society needs to have boundaries. It is harmful to change time-honored, traditional, and/or correct definitions to be politically expedient. The "fundamental right to marry" (as recognized by the U. S. Supreme Court) is one that belongs to every individual, NOT to every couple or group. You don't have a right to marry a child (pedophilia), a blood relative (incest), or a person who is already married (polygamy). These are not restrictions on the right to marry; they are part of the definition of what marriage is.