FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 02/28/2013 3:55:11 PM PST by lbryce
The Obama administration threw its support behind a broad claim for marriage equality on Thursday, and urged the Supreme Court to rule that voters in California were not entitled to ban same-sex marriage in that state.
In a sweeping argument, the administration argued that denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause, and that any ban on same-sex marriage should be subjected to a test known as “heightened scrutiny” – a test that the law would be likely to fail. That argument is similar to the one made in the administration’s brief in a second case before the Supreme Court concerning the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which the administration has also asked the court to declare unconstitutional.
The latest brief, filed late Thursday, does not, however, ask the court to declare such bans unconstitutional nationwide; instead, it has focused its argument on Proposition 8, the California ban that was approved by voters in 2008 and is before the court in this case. That law was passed by a voter initiative just months after the state’s Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples could marry.
The brief notes that opponents of same-sex marriage in the California case have argued the state offers, through the equivalent of domestic partnerships, a marital state in all but the name. That logic must be rejected under the equal protection clause, the government said. The government also points out that seven other states -- Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island — have a similar all-but-marriage framework, through it does not call explicitly for the court to strike down the laws in those states. The implication of its argument, however, is clear.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
He also hates Christianity, the Constitution, and capitalism.
If the activist men in black dresses find for “discrimination against gloryhole thumpers” then they must find ALL washrooms to be a case of “separate but equal” discrimination that must be eliminated. Unisex bathrooms for all.
Men and women are born differently. DEAL WITH IT, homosexualists.
How can it be right for two men to marry and not for 1 man and two women? Why don’t the two women have their right to equality?
The US is urging the justices to overrule a VOTED marriage protection measure? I can’t seem to hear the ENTIRE COUNTRY’s outcry on this, only the whining of homosexuals, Commiewood, and the Marxist brigade. Of course, they speak for all of America. Perhaps Roberts will go our way on this one, to come across as being ‘fair’ to left and right. I won’t hold my breath though.
Whatever the court decides, I, as a sovereign individual, do not recognize a marriage that is anything other than a man and a woman bound to each other by their vows, taken in a religious ceremony. Everything else is BS.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Uh, that's not the only "inequality". One is how we were designed and one is sodomy, an utter perversion. Sex in marriage between a man and a woman is blessed by God. The other is condemned as an abomination to the Lord.
Who’s arguing for the Gay Marriage Ban?
Marriage is not a Constitutional issue, it is a states’ issue. Therefore, the Court should not decide on it and should remand it back to the California courts.
As I can agree with this, let's look at a similar position:
I say no. Many things go into selecting which state to move to if such is necessary - financial, taxes, schools for kids, access to shopping, jobs, ad infinitum. Marriage and voting are a state's responsibility, with differing limitations and requirements. There is no position for federal involvement.
Thanks for the ping, Tex.
“That law was passed by a voter initiative just months after the state’s Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples could marry.”
Prop. 22, CA’s first marriage amendment, passed by 61% in 2000, the same % NC passed theirs by last year. Prop. 8 passed by 52% in 2008, swinging 9% in 8 years. The thing with this is if our masters in black robes deign to uphold it, they will simply try another popular vote to repeal it. All they need is 50% + 1 vote, seems like it would probably pass.
Freegards
I believe this helps demonstrate Michael Reagan's article that says our side gets tangled up in the non-meat and is suffering for it. We see it as a pushing of homosexuality and an attack against religion (it is both) and we get distracted to the point that we don't zero in on the real goal which is to marginalize the People and the States so they can do as they will with us. Homosexuality and religious attacks are secondary to the real goal.
The Supremes will overturn the DOMA. Read Lawrence et al. v. Texas where this court minus the two Zero appointments in 2003 over turned the Texas Sodomy law. This could go down 8-1.
Scalia and Thomas dissented in Lawrence. (As did Rehnquist.) So perhaps we can count on their votes. Lawrence was decided on the (manufactured) right of consenting adults to engage in private sexual conduct. There is nothing private about state-licensed and state-recognized gay-marriage.
Scalia wrote in his dissent that if the Court refuses to validate laws based on moral choices (which Prop 8 clearly was) then laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity cannot be sustained. He also lambasted the majority for overturning Bowers and not respecting the legal principle of stare decisis that the same majority insisted be applied in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in order to uphold Roe v. Wade.
He was right. Here we are facing challenges to the illegality of same-sex marriage. Prop 8 was based on a moral choice made by the voters of California. DOMA was based on a moral choice made by the U.S. Congress, the elected representatives of We the People.
To rule that same-sex marriage cannot be declared illegal by the States or the U.S. Congress, the Court must first ignore centuries of legal precedent and second find that the States and federal government must sanction and publicly recognize essentially any relationship in which two consenting adults choose to engage regardless of its societal, cultural, or legal impact.
Same-sex marriage is the first domino. Everything else falls if it does. There can be no laws against immorality of any kind after that. It's not a slippery slope from there down. It's a devastating structural crack in the dam.
Having said all of that, I believe that any one person has the natural right under God, which should be enforceable by legal contract, to assign their property rights upon death and medical decisions to any other individual regardless of the other individual's sex. So if homosexual couples want to enter into legal contracts with each other to achieve some of the legal benefits provided by state-sanctioned marriage, that's their business. They do not, however, have a natural right to force an entire society to accept and approve of their moral choices, which is the end result of same-sex marriage.
Lol New York Times.
If both patriots and Obama would just take a few minutes to examine relevant amendments to the Constitution which were added after the 14th Amendment (14A) was ratified, then there would be no question that lawless Obama has once again not done his homework regarding how federal and state constitutons should be interpreted, so-called gay marriage rights the issue in this case. (Again, sometimes I think that many patriots interpret the Constitution's "pursuit of happiness" clause as a license to spend all their time merely complaining about tyrants like Obama; the Founding States arguably wasted their time writing everything following the pursuit clause.)
To begin with, the Equal Protection Clause of California's constitution is expressly based on the Equal Protection Clause of the federal 14th Amendment as the link below will show.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 7.
And since 14A's equal protection clause is now in the picture, what Constitution flunky Obama is wrongly doing with the equal protection clauses of both federal and state constitutions for political gain is this. He has put on his "magic glasses of self-deception" in order to read into these clauses the indefensible generalization that the states cannot make laws which discriminate against people. But examples of perfectly legal discriminatory laws are plentiful as evidenced by age requirements for purchasing things like alcoholic beverages and cigarettes, driving privileges, and gender distinctions as evidenced by men's and women's restrooms, etc..
The problem with Obama's PC fantasy concerning equal protections and gay marriage is that it ignores the following sequence of events. After the Civil War had ended, regardless that the brand new 14th Amendment's equal protection clause was undoubtly still very fresh in the minds of federal and state lawmakers, evidenced by California's inclusion of much of the language of 14A into its own constitution, note that some states continued to enforce voting laws which prohibited people from voting on the basis of race, sex, owed taxes and age as evidenced by the post 14A ratification of the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments respectively, 26A actually making prohibition of voting by age uniform among the states.
At this point, Obama's equal protection idea concerning gay marriage is trashed imo. This is evidenced by states, including California until 1911, which continued to prohibit otherwise qualified voters from voting on the basis of sex until 19A was ratified in 1920, regardless of 14A's Equal Protection Clause. So Obama's mischievous cherry-picking of California's equal protection clause to defend gay marriage doesn't hold water imo.
But let's also consider the Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett, decided after 14A was ratified.
Minor v. Happersett, 1874
In this case justices clarified that, regardless if a woman is a natural born citizen (ahem), being an nbc did not imply a constitutional right to vote if a state had a voting law which prohibited women from voting.
But more importantly, note that justices referenced the 14th Amendment in the Minor opinion. This is glaring evidence that the 14A's Equal Protection Clause did not trump state power to make laws which discriminated on the basis of sex.
Again, since California's equal protection clause is expressly based on 14A's Equal Protection Clause, the Constitution's history concerning issues, such as so-called gay marriage rights, that Obama is trying to spin as being protected by such clauses, shows that Constitution "expert" Obama really doesn't do his homework and consequently doesn't know what he's talking about.
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.