U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito blasted the Supreme Court’s decision that struck down prohibitions on toeivah marriage, saying in an interview with Bill Kristol that the decision effectively annihilated any sort of limits on constitutional protections.
Future justices could use this “post-modern” conception of freedom to attack minimum-wage laws or, in the case of socialists, to find a right to a free college education.
The court under Chief Justice Rehnquist, Alito said, had limited “liberty” under the Fourteenth Amendment as “rights that are deeply rooted in the traditions of the country. So you had to find a strong historical pedigree for this right,” Alito said. “But the Obergefell decision threw that out, did not claim that there was a strong tradition of protecting the right to same-[gender] marriage. This would have been impossible to find. So we are at sea, I think.” Read more at Conversations With Bill Kristol.
{CB Frommer-Matzav.com Newscenter}
Mr. Alito is %100 correct. We clearly see how Obama has systematically broken all values that America once proudly stood for. I’m not sure this reality can be corrected anymore.
Alito has a point regarding the logic of the decision, in that the “dignity” issue is too vague. But in fact there are serious equal protection issues regarding the denial of legal and financial rights to same gender couples that are available to opposite gender couples, and the full faith and credit clause should require that any marriage that occurs in one state should automatically be recognized in all other states. There would have been other ways to address this than legalizing same gender marriage nationwide but neither side was interested in compromise.
Furthermore, there was no historical pedigree for extending the equal protection provision to interracial marriages. Does Alito really want to bring back miscagenation laws?
Perhaps it should be recognized that social norm has changed and diversity in society has increased so much that there is no longer a reason for the law to be involved with defining and regulating marriages or whatever they are. Let people who follow a religion get married by their clergy according to everyone’s beliefs but with no civil effects, and for those who don’t, let them arrange and enjoy a ceremony to their liking. Then, let everyone write contracts if so they wish, e.g. about mutual financial support during their lifetime and beyond.