Skip to comments.Defense of Marriage Act Goes to SCOTUS
Posted on 06/04/2012 4:30:49 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
The Supreme Court is the next stop in the battle over the definition of marriage, thanks to a federal appeals court partially striking down a law defending marriage passed by a strong bipartisan majority and signed by President Bill Clinton.
Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996. It passed the House 342-67, and the Senate 85-14, with strong bipartisan supermajorities. But DOMA is under attack in federal court. Then President Barack Obama joined those challenges, with Attorney General Eric Holder abandoning his duty to defend Acts of Congress in court, and instead filing legal briefs arguing the courts should strike down DOMA. So Congress has retained outside counsel to do Holders job, with its Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) hiring the finest Supreme Court lawyer in the nation, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, to defend DOMA.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Yep, definitely keep an eye on Clement.
Whatever this defense costs should come out of ewik H’s budget X10.
So here we are in the early 21st Century in a noodle over what the definition of marriage means. Totally regressive and moronic scenario instead of being progressive. Our modern era is becoming on par with Sodom and Gomorrah plus the latter corrupted years of the Roman Empire.
But DOMA is under attack in federal court. Then President Barack Obama joined those challenges, with Attorney General Eric Holder abandoning his duty to defend Acts of Congress in court, and instead filing legal briefs arguing the courts should strike down DOMA.
If Holder is not upholding the duties of his office
he should be impeached.
Cicero noted the corruption of law in Rome in his time. It is caused by arbitrary laws-—laws made up for privileges of groups or relatives or friends which don’t give equal rights to all. Marriage between one man and one woman gives their natural children their natural right to their biological parents-—which treats human beings with dignity and respect (and implies duty with responsibility) instead of children as a commodity to be bought and sold or exchanged to whomever, not the people who would be most likely by genetics to love and nurture them because of their own genetic interest (nature).
US law is based on Natural Law Theory, not Barney Franks’ perverted evil urges.
Laws are NEVER arbitrary. If they are they are unjust and it no longer is a Just society-—chaos always results with corrupt laws—ones made up NOT ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF NATURE and RIGHT REASON.
Logic and Reason and Science have to be ALWAYS in line with Natural Law-—that is where logic and reason originates. Marxists throw out the Laws of Nature-—to get rid of Natural Rights from God.
Homosexual “marriage”—the absurd, evil practice of sodomy—is not a Natural Right. There is no Right to sodomy within the Natural Rights from God.
I missed the part where this natural law thingy relates to the speed of light in a vacuum, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Can you explain?
If you do some serious research, you can see how most of the Bill of Rights is based upon Natural Law; the idea being that the Bill of Rights is no more than a partial listing of those rights that God gave us.
I have a sense Natural Law will be declared a “hate crime” soon.
Yes. Natural Law Theory is the basis of our legal system since all Reason comes from these Laws of Nature.
The Laws of Nature are WHY we have the Laws of Physics-—without the Laws of Nature you could not predict ANYTHING. There could be no science-—no logic -—no reason-— nothing. There would be no possibility of even coming close to the idea of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is why the Greek culture and the West were so inventive. They developed Natural Law Theory—starting in earnest with Aristotle and even before. Other cultures stayed ignorant because of their lack of developed Natural Law Theory which was at its height in the West with St. Thomas Aquinas and then John Locke and Galileo and Newton.
All science is about predictability-—if you had no Laws of Nature-—like gravity, etc., you could not predict a darn thing.
Everything would be chaos-—arbitrary-—no Universal Truths derived from Natural Laws-—like our Constitution and Legal System—Natural Rights From God.
Arbitrary laws based on Barney Franks perverted urges are UNJUST LAW and thoroughly, absolutely against the Laws of Nature and unconstitutional by a myriad of reasons. Read my tagline.
Well, if that happens, then the Constitution will be a hate document.
According to John Marshall, laws are “null and void” if they contradict the Natural Laws which would contradict the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.
Natural Law Theory, which contains a “moral law” and Universal Truths, is the basis of US jurisprudence. Common Law was based on Natural Law also but with John Locke and St. Thomas Aquinas and others it became a very sophisticated and complex theory.
It is little understood today because Karl Marx and the Postmodernists and legal scholars who flooded the law schools with John Austin’s twisted thinking.....and progressive thinking wanted to eliminate Natural Laws so that they could overthrow the Constitution-—the idea “Natural Rights from God” comes from Natural Law Theory-—so does individualism. Marx hated the laws of nature-—he wants to mold men in his image and under his control with his standard of right and wrong-—so God has to go!
Clarence Thomas is the one who truly understands Natural Law. Even Scalia is not really versed in it-—which is common coming from Law Schools since Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. infected the legal system in the US.
Most laws today are unconstitutional and should be “Null and Void” according to John Marshall. John Austin’s ideas are incompatible with our Constitution.
Indeed. And the libs will say the Constitution is “unconstitutional”. :?
I think the libs have been saying the Constitution is unconstitutional for decades now. Libs are irrational....it is like Ayn Rand when interviewing with the idiot Donahue-—when she was mentioning the Postmodernists (including Marx) and saying how they threw out Natural Laws——and with it all reason and logic.
I’m hoping SCOTUS doesn’t become SCROTUS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.