Saturday, June 07, 2014

Crabb: It's 'Consensus' Which Makes Law

Only 200 years ago, it was 'the laws of nature and nature's God'.  Now it's 'consensus.'

Judge Crabb: "In light of Windsor and the many decisions that have invalidated restrictions on same-sex marriage since Windsor, it appears that courts are moving toward a consensus that it is time to embrace full legal equality for gay and lesbian citizens.  --quoted from Althouse combox

Opposing gay 'marriage' has never been an argument from religion.  It's an argument from natural law, which NO major religion has contradicted in its teachings.


Anonymous said...

Look for Crabb to go even further than the immediate invalidation of the Wisconsin constitution. She asked the plaintiffs what else she should do to further their cause.

My money is on forcing Christian ministers and Jewish rabbis (but not necessarily Muslim imams - after all, they kill those who oppose them) to perform gay "marriage" ceremonies if they want to be able to continue to officiate any civil marriages.

Fred Garvin said...

Assuming "natural law" is embraced by the majority of citizens in a society.

Justice Crabb is on the right side of the law. Her reasoning is akin to destroying the last vestiges of state laws that prohibited blacks and whites from marrying.

The next step is a constitutional amendment.

Dad29 said...

One does not "embrace" gravity, nor the nature of H2O, nor that rocks are hard and mud is squishy.

Your racial comparo is old, tired, and inane. Race is accident, sex is essence.

in case you didn't notice, the constitutional amendment has passed. Gay "marriage" proponents lost.

And they will continue to lose. Sodomy has consequences ya'know.

Dad29 said...

Dear "John Mitchell":

When you're able to discuss natural law rationally, stop by again.

ConLaw doesn't mean shit in this instance.

John Mitchell said...

Nice big words there, Daddio. Make sure you slide an extra sawbuck in the offering plate Sunday, you pious loser.

Dad29 said...

I see you're back to normal, "John."

Supercilious twit.

Dad29 said...

I see you're back to normal, "John."

Supercilious twit.

RAG said...

The U.S. Supreme Court needs to take this on. For those who support same-sex marriage and who equate it to state laws banning interracial marriage invalidated by the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the Loving argument and summarily discarded it in the one-sentence 1972 Baker v. Nelson order letting stand the Minnesota Supreme Court's affirmance of a state statutory ban on same-sex marriages. The Minnesota legislature last year changed the statute but in Wisconsin it was the constitution that was amended by the voters. Frankly, I agree with the Minnesota Supreme Court that Loving doesn't apply -- it refers to interracial marriage between a man and a woman. Given the state of the state constitution, Van Hollen is obligated to defend it, contrary to what the editorial wizards at the Urinal say.