(My new American Thinker post)
The conventional wisdom is that a Roe v Wade version of same-sex marriage is about to happen. Some, like my friend Jazz Shaw, even think that it'd be good for conservatives. I guess that he thinks that it will settle the issue and then we can talk about deficits and spending.
I have no idea about the forthcoming opinion. However, I do believe that this is a bit more complicated than the abortion decision from 1973.
Also, a same-sex marriage decision won't settle any issue for conservatives. After all, have we stopped talking about abortion since it was legalized? I don't think so.
First, same-sex marriage is legal in some states already. Other states have seen judges overturn a ban voted on by citizens. It's already happening without the Supreme Court.
Second, some states like Texas have constitutional amendments that define marriage between a man and a woman. Are you going to tell 70% of Texas that their vote was worthless?
Third, what happens when you create a right by judicial fiat rather than a constitutional amendment? It creates all kinds of unintended consequences, as as was explained in a Union Leader editorial:
The U.S. Supreme Court, and those urging it to overturn individual state laws regarding gay marriage, should be wary of unintended consequences. The Wall Street Journal cited some of them in a noteworthy piece this week.
“Such a decision would also raise questions about what comes next. If a relationship characterized by love and commitment becomes a Constitutional right to marry, then no state restriction can withstand judicial review.
This applies to the number of people eligible to marry, the duration of the contract, and the nature of the individuals eligible to marry (age, degree of genetic relation and so forth). This is not meant as a parade of horribles, but it is a warning that the Court will find itself hearing many cases challenging any state regulation of marriage.’’
Further, warned the Journal editorial, “there may also be consequences for religious liberty if gay marriage becomes a right rather than a legal contract. Is it discrimination if a private institution such as a church or mosque recognizes only traditional matrimony within its private sphere?’’
Good questions, all. The court needs to consider them carefully.
What about religious schools? Just look at the confusion with ObamaCare.
Are we going to shut up black preachers who say that homosexuality is a sin? What about the Muslim baker? Or the Catholic photographer who refuses to take pictures?
Will all of these people now be violating someone's right because their faith tells them that same-sex marriage is wrong?
Therefore, I would not be surprised if five Justices punt and conclude that it's all a bit too complicated for nine human beings to decide.
After all, who said that nine humans in robes know what the definition of marriage is? Or should overturn something that has been around a lot longer than the U.S. Constitution itself.
Put me down in the minority. I believe that five Justices will decide that sending it back to the states is a better option.
Again, I don't see five Justices turning our culture upside down and creating a constitutional crisis with many states.
P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.
Tags: Same sex marriage To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
Tags: Iran nuclear deal, Iraq and ISIS, Trump 2016, Sanders 2016 To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
Tags: San Antonio elections To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
Tags: Mexico elections 2015, Pope Francis To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
Tags: A-Rod and 3,000 hits To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
Does President Obama listen to anybody before he goes out and talks about this or that?
Or is he on his own?
I don't know, but it would help if he edited some of his remarks before making them.
President Obama just missed an opportunity to bring the country together at a time of serious hurt from coast to coast.
Do you remember President Reagan speaking after the Challenger explosion of 1986? Or President Bush after the 2003 spaceship explosion? They delivered healing words that brought the nation together.
President Obama spoke well for a while, and then he dropped the partisan hammer:
Acknowledging the immediate need for mourning and law-enforcement fact-finding, Obama nevertheless wasted no time before looking to Congress, the gun-rights lobby and the American public as part of the decades-long debate about gun violence.
“Let’s be clear,” he said with urgency in his voice. “At some point we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence … doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. And it is in our power to do something about it.”
President Obama did not say what he had in mind, or what something he would propose to Congress. After all, we remind you that he had 60, 59, and 54 Democrats in the U.S. Senate and couldn't pass any gun control laws.
He also didn't take any questions to follow up on those comments that it "doesn't happen in other places."
I am not an expert on international mass killings. However, let me share a couple of thoughts:
1) Mexico and Central America have seen serious violence over the last decade. It's cartel-related, as we've posted before. The numbers are outrageous, and these countries have gun control laws. Mexico is full of guns, but there are laws against having guns. Go figure!
2) I was happy to read David Harsanyi. He reminded President Obama of a few mass killings:
Parlez vous Hebdo? Because surely the president recalls that in January of this year two gunmen entered the office of a satirical magazine in France with an assortment of guns and murdered 11 people (and injured 11 more). After leaving, they killed a police officer. And in a marketplace catering to Jews another five were murdered and 11 wounded. France is, allegedly, an advanced country, is it not? Perhaps if Obama had attended the anti-terror rally in Paris like every other leader of advanced countries did, his recollection would be sharper.
It take only takes some quick research to discover that rampage killers, acts of terror (as the Charleston shooting most certainly is), school attacks, spree killers are not unique to the United States.
Maybe someone in the media will get out of the tank and challenge President Obama's remarks. Or maybe someone will ask Secretary Clinton a similar question, since she said something about gun control, too.
I have no idea why this young man committed this awful crime. Nevertheless, I expect our president to back off the partisan stuff and let the nation heal.
Yes, we need a serious conversation about this latest mass killing in the U.S. However, the topic has to be more than guns. Let's talk about mental health and the number of people walking around who shouldn't be.
P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.
Tags: President Obama and the church shooting To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
Tags: Church shooting in South Carolina, Clinton 2016, Curt Flood, Carole King To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
(My new American Thinker post)
We understand that former Secretary Clinton said this about ISIS:
Clinton said she backs President Barack Obama’s strategy of increasing support for Iraqi forces without sending U.S. combat troops to fight the terrorists.
“I do not think it would be smart, effective or appropriate for us to put ground (combat) troops into Iraq. ... There are specific roles that our military is playing and can successfully play in better focusing the Iraqis themselves on what they have to do because, eventually, this will be won or lost by the people in the region.
“They are going to have to decide. Do they want to be oppressed and subjected by this regime of terrorism and give up their right to govern themselves to this group?”
She also once said that Saddam Hussein had connections to al-Qaeda and was busy redeveloping WMD.
We remind you that she also said 45 times that she supported the free trade deal that she's now evasive about.
She told Secretary Gates that her opposition to the surge was all about Senator Obama challenging her in the Democrat primary.
We have the right to ask a few questions:
1) How can we believe anything that this lady says?
2) How can she rule out ground forces at this stage of the game? She would be asked about President Obama's decision to remove troops in 2011. Did she support that decision?
Hillary Clinton may win the 2016 election. However, I cannot remember a candidate with less conviction or credibility than this woman. She is your classic "let me tell people what they want to hear" candidate, or exactly the wrong person at a time when we need the opposite in the White House.
P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.
Tags: Clinton 2016, Clinton credibility To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
At this time in 1967, President Johnson was ahead in polls and looked like a sure bet for the 1968 nomination.
Enter Senator McCarthy, and things changed in New Hampshire. (For the record, the 1968 NH primary was March 1968, or a bit later in that cycle than we are in this one.)
Today, Secretary Clinton has a big lead, but it is getting smaller.
As the world turns, Senator Sanders is gaining on Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire.
One poll is an exception. A second poll may be a sign of things to come. This is from The Washington Times:
The survey by Suffolk University found the 41 percent of likely Democratic primary voters would back Hillary, while 31 percent said they’d back the Vermont senator, an independent who identifies as a Socialist.
Back then, Senator McCarthy lost to President Johnson in New Hampshire. However, McCarthy’s strong showing proved that President Johnson was not electable because of the Vietnam War. It also proved that the excitement was with McCarthy and not LBJ.
Maybe the Hillary Clinton staff should go back and read a book about the 1968 campaign.
President Johnson quit the race less than a month later.
Again, McCarthy did not defeat LBJ. He just showed how vulnerable the president was.
Sanders may do the same thing to the Clinton campaign. I agree with R.E. Tyrell, Jr.:
From my conversations with Democrats and with media types, I sense their unease with Hillary. They would rather not talk about her problems. They acknowledge them but rush on to cite the multiplicity of candidates in the Republican field. My answer to them is that a multiplicity of good candidates is better than the Democrats’ scarcity of candidates. They know I am right, and in the weeks ahead their unease will grow.
All of my senses tell me that Clinton will be the nominee. Let me add a couple of thoughts:
1) I would not be shocked if her candidacy implodes later this year.
2) I would not be surprised if a lot of Democrats are hoping for an implosion – i.e., a post-Clinton party free of all of these scandals and problems.
P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.
Tags: LBJ 1968 and Clinton 2016 To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
Tags: Mexico elections 2015, Pope Francis and Colombia, Brazil corruption, US-Latin America issues To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!
