Skip to comments.SCOTUS: same-sex marriage decisions - Live Thread (Decisions at 97, 194, & 217)
Posted on 06/25/2013 9:54:04 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
At 10:00 AM Wednesday, the Supreme Court will deliver its final decisions of this term. We can expect decisions on both same-sex marriage cases.
California Proposition 8: Hollingsworth v. Perry
In November 2008, 52.3 percent of California voters approved Proposition 8, which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In May 2009, a California District Court ruled that Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and temporarily prohibited its enforcement, and the Ninth Circuit agreed, affirming the District Courts ruling. The United States Supreme Court will now consider whether a state can define marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman, in addition to considering whether the proponents of Proposition 8 have standing to bring suit in federal court. The Courts ruling will implicate the rights of gay men and lesbians, the role of the government in structuring family and society, and the relationship between the institution of marriage and religion and morality.
Defense of Marriage Act: United States v. Windsor
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer married in Toronto in 2007 where same-sex marriages were legal. At the time of Spyers death, the state of New York recognized the couples marriage. However, the IRS denied Windsor use of a spousal estate tax exception on the ground that, under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages for the purpose of federal benefits. The Supreme Court is now being asked to decide DOMAs Constitutionality. The Obama Administration is not defending DOMA, so a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) from the House of Representatives is doing so, arguing that DOMA is rationally related to the legitimate government objective of providing a uniform definition of marriage for federal benefits purposes. The Obama administration counters that the use of sexual orientation to decide who gets benefits is a suspect classification that deserves higher scrutiny. Under that level of higher scrutiny, the Obama administration argues that DOMA is impermissible. This case can affect what role the federal government can play in defining marriage and who in the federal government can defend the governments laws. Not only could this case provide large tax savings to Ms. Windsor herself, but it can also make federal benefits available to other same-sex couples who are legally married under the laws of their state.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
The entire issue that there can be same sex marriage is a red herring to break church doctrine.
They can legislate civil unions all day long, but marriage is a sacrament of the Church.
These two are not going to turn out well.
Hope I’m wrong.
Maybe. Maybe not. The 5-4 decision today for Voting rights was a bone thrown to conservatives. Tomorrow might be in favor of libtards, or whatever Odumbo commands Roberts.
That's what people don't seem to understand — I've been accused of
supporting the homosexual agenda because I assert that marriage is not properly within the authority of the State (certainly not the FedGov). Indeed, putting that authority into the State's hands is the best way for it to play into the
homosexual agenda, because once you establish that it's a legal )State) issue, they'll throw out all religious-argument and use their authority to define it [marriage] as they see fit.
I think SCOTUS will “86” DOMA within states that allow gay marriage - and take a pass on the Prop 8 case at this time.
That is, SCOTUS will rule that federal benefits will be given to gay couples in states that allow gay marriage. And, SCOTUS will overturn lower federal court rulings on Prop 8 and leave it intact - since it was PROPERLY voted on by the residents of CA.
The upshot will be a ruling that “marriage” is an institution controlled by the states - and in states that allow it, federal benefits have to be conferred to gay couples.
However, in states that allow gay marriage, religious institutions WILL NOT be required to perform gay wedding services [if they object].
Divorce lawyers. And I'm not kidding.
I have been screaming it for ages.
It is about infiltrating the Church via the Gov.
Just exchange a few words to confuse the rubes.
There is some truth in this but it is a separate phenomena to what is happening.
Shakespeare was right, all those years ago ...
All I will say is that if I were a polygamist or a zoophile, I would have an airtight case for recognition, that is if our court rules homosexual ‘marriage’ a right. There is no justification not to expand it further. Kennedy is with the rats this time, and Roberts may jump.
Ah, our founding fathers expected and stated that 'we the people' are government, not a bunch of overpaid lawyers dressing up in black robes, claiming supremacy. This bunch is messing in God's territory if they think they can decide perverts have rights to 'marry'.
This issue has nothing to do with "gay rights" or anything that amorphous. This has to do with a gigantic new gold mine for lawyers. Period.
*nod* -- On a somewhat tangential note: I was reading this thread and thought to myself,
we may see, in our lifetimes, Christian missionaries from Africa preaching in America.
Well, you do have a point.
On the eve of the Supreme Court decision I say: Only one Judge can define marriage. The one who created heaven and earth and sent his Son to redeem us. So decide what they may, the truth remains: “A man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” God have mercy,
I’ve already seen South Korean missionaries on college campuses, it’s happening! (And just in time, because OUR culture is so anti-Christian, and Biblically ignorant at the moment)..
the State in America has been overstepping its authority on the Church since dewey.
How shocking that only 5 years ago Prop 8 was passed in California. It would probably get under 40% of the vote today. It was like the last moral fiber in the state snapped after passage in 2008...
You may be right. It’s a logical prediction.
Amen and amen! There is but one Judge.
The supreme court is about as useful as a washboard in a muddy river full of sludge.
As the Church goes , so goes the Nation.
This is sad that it has come to this. Marriage is between a man and woman. We wouldn’t have the two sexes if it wasn’t. It should be that simple.
Ted Cruz is a Lawyer too.
Generally Lawyers are best at interpreting law.
It’s a damn shame most of them are crooks.
Being overrun by greedy lawyer-types in government is just another symptom. The root cause of our problems goes much deeper than that I believe.
It is that simple, but the libtards make it complex by re-defining words.
32 posts at one o’clock in the morning. Lord help us when the decisions come down in nine hours.
You may be right, but I predict that if that's the case, the issue will be back in front of California voters again very soon and will pass. It was close last time and polling shows support only growing.
I hate to be a one-trick pony with regard to my other posts, but that's exactly what lawyers are trained to do.
Get to bed!
No, you’re correct.
And, historically, who are the customers most responsible for enriching the legal profession, one might ask.
Might I suggest corporations on the one hand. And criminals -- in particular, drug cartels -- on the other.
Redefining words is exactly how this progressed.
They are doing it now with guns.
I saw some article the other day that said we should ban “Military style magazines”.
WTF does that mean?
What we all REALLY need to do is vote an end to the tyranny of the legal industry, And, yes, it IS an industry. Just like every other industry in America. Why should it be exalted above all others?
That works fine under Sharia law, but it is still an authority making a legal definition of marriage.
If individuals and Mosques, and Mormons, and gay goat churches all decide for themselves what legal marriage is, then the marriage war is lost, besides, government or a common authority always has to have laws dealing with marriage, it always has.
Case in point is that Japan has fewer than 50,000 lawyers. In Germany, lawyers have a much lesser role, because the law is so much more codified. Disputes are therefore much easier to sett led. Of course, the American example has been a bad on for the Germans, especially as the judges—and lawyers— want to gain more power.
Maybe yes, maybe no. The only saving grace with illlegal hispanics in CA is that most of them are Roman Catholic.
I will LMAO if they put another Prop on the ballot to repeal Prop 8 [assuming that SCOTUS upholds Prop 8] - AND the new Prop is defeated in large part due to hispanics ...
Or create something like "Obamacare" which they say they never read and thus cannot be held responsible for.
Seriously, the country would be much better run by the cattle or fisheries industries than the legal industry.
Let's try it.
Right, but marriage outside of A Church isn't ANY Church's business.
<....”This is sad that it has come to this. Marriage is between a man and woman. We wouldnt have the two sexes if it wasnt. It should be that simple”....>
Well they already broke the family up years ago...now it’s time to break the union up which creates the family.
Isn’t ironic the first two human beings God brought together is now being shredded....divorce was first...now the very definition of marriage.
God is angry!
Lawyers have to eat. What do you think is Washington's main profession?
There's a killing to be made from gay divorce.
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.