Skip to comments.Obama urges Supreme Court to strike down federal Defense of Marriage Act
Posted on 02/23/2013 8:11:22 PM PST by RoosterRedux
The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to strike down the federal law defining marriage as a union between only a man and a woman.
The request regarding the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act was made Friday in a brief by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli that argues the law is unconstitutional because it violates "the fundamental guarantee of equal protection."
The high court is set to hear two cases next month on the issue: the constitutional challenge on Proposition 8, the 2008 California that allowed same-sex marriages in the state that two years later was overturned, and United States v. Windsor, which challenges DOMA.
Edith Windsor, a California resident, was married to her female partner in Canada in 2007 but was required to pay roughly $360,000 in federal estate taxes because the marriage is not recognized under DOMA.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
And Michelle is the beard selected by Jeremiah Wright (and what a beard it is!).
He is the perfect traitor to all that we treasure and respect.
But he will not die easily...because he is Satan's favorite son.
Has he bought a bridal gown yet, or is it Reggie Love who’ll wear that?
We can only hope that if he keeps sticking his pole in fecal matter, it will take its toll.
I wonder if Roberts and Kagan will recuse themselves?
The African communist scumbag thinks the Supreme Court can overrule Webster's Dictionary?
More specifically, noting that the states have never delegated to Congress via the Constitution the specific power to regulate marriage, the Founders made the 10th Amendment to clarify in general that such issues are automatically state power issues.
So I will reluctantly side with justices who decide that federal DOMA is unconstitutional. The joke is on patriots who don't bother to read the Constitution.
Are we all just allowed to ignore laws we don’t agree with...?
I’m sure all the black preachers will be advising their flocks to protest.
Evil is on the march.
Only God can save us now.
>> Obama urges Supreme Court to strike down federal DOMA
I guess then homosexual marriage law can also be ruled unconstitutional.
“Edith Windsor, a California resident, was married to her female partner in Canada in 2007 but was required to pay roughly $360,000 in federal estate taxes because the marriage is not recognized under DOMA.”
It’s not a tax. It’s a fee.
Thank you for your concern about the spouses of the deceased. Please consider the following concerning such spouses.
Not only has each state always had the 10th Amendment protected power to run its own customized SS program to insure that the spouses of the deceased have an income, but there's never been anything to stop the states from exercising their unique, Ariticle V power to ratify proposed amendments to the Constitution to do to grant Congress the specific power to tax and spend for a national SS program.
In other words, just as it did with constitutonally indefensible federal Obamacare, Congress wrongy established SS without first petitioning the Article V state majority to ratify amendments to the Constitution which would have granted Congress the specific powers that it needed to establish such programs.
If the primary argument here is “equal protection,” would that not also open a clear legal path for incestuous marriage and polygamy?
“The joke is on patriots who don’t bother to read the Constitution.”
No. The joke is on people who think they can interpret the Constitution with a straw man 2nd grade interpretation that is best utilized watching cartoons and InfoWars.
What if Edith Windsor was arrested in California because she was driving 100 mph, which is legal on the German Autobahn, and it cost her money and liberty?
Which laws of Canada or Mexico should extend across borders?
What if Canada legalized polygamy? Would polygamous marrieds demand special treatment in the US tax code?
They picked a bad case. The facts and the law are not on their side. The Congress sets tax policy, not the SC. The liberals on the SC will ignore reality no matter what.
It will be very close.
We are already there:
It’s not clear if the above is true, but it certainly is possible.
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.