Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS: same-sex marriage decisions - Live Thread (Decisions at 97, 194, & 217)
Free Republic | 06/26/2013 | BuckeyeTexan

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 Court’s 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 Court’s 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 Spyer’s death, the state of New York recognized the couple’s 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 DOMA’s 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 government’s 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.



TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: doma; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; moralabsolutes; notbreakingnews; obamanation; prop8; ruling; samesexmarriage; scotus; ursulathevk; vanity; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-459 next last
You can read live reporting on the decisions at SCOTUSblog
1 posted on 06/25/2013 9:54:04 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ..

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

2 posted on 06/25/2013 9:56:36 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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.


3 posted on 06/25/2013 10:00:59 PM PDT by mylife (Ted Cruz understands the law, and he does not fear the unlawful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife

Agreed.


4 posted on 06/25/2013 10:01:55 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

These two are not going to turn out well.

Hope I’m wrong.


5 posted on 06/25/2013 10:04:23 PM PDT by Private_Sector_Does_It_Better (I AM ANDREW BREITBART)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Private_Sector_Does_It_Better

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.


6 posted on 06/25/2013 10:06:29 PM PDT by max americana (fired liberals in our company after the election, & laughed while they cried (true story))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mylife
They can legislate civil unions all day long, but marriage is a sacrament of the Church.

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.

7 posted on 06/25/2013 10:07:35 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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].


8 posted on 06/25/2013 10:10:51 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife
Agreed, but no one is following the money. Heterosexual couples are more and more living together without marriage. Gay couples are begging for marriage.

Who benefits?

Divorce lawyers. And I'm not kidding.

9 posted on 06/25/2013 10:11:55 PM PDT by JennysCool (My hypocrisy goes only so far)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

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.


10 posted on 06/25/2013 10:11:58 PM PDT by mylife (Ted Cruz understands the law, and he does not fear the unlawful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JennysCool

There is some truth in this but it is a separate phenomena to what is happening.


11 posted on 06/25/2013 10:15:36 PM PDT by mylife (Ted Cruz understands the law, and he does not fear the unlawful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JennysCool
Just to add an addendum to my earlier post: Washington is completely composed of lawyers and those who work for lawyers. When you realize that, everything that gets done at all levels of government makes a perverse sense. It always benefits lawyers.

Shakespeare was right, all those years ago ...

12 posted on 06/25/2013 10:17:32 PM PDT by JennysCool (My hypocrisy goes only so far)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Private_Sector_Does_It_Better

I agree.


13 posted on 06/25/2013 10:19:37 PM PDT by snarkytart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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.


14 posted on 06/25/2013 10:24:02 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
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

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'.

15 posted on 06/25/2013 10:24:12 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mylife
Nope. See my #12. Washington is all about lawyers ... Congress is lawyers, those who deal with Congress are lawyers, there are a zillion law clerks and just-graduated lawyers dedicated to representing the firm whatever the firm wants them to do. The flourishing and enriching of the legal industry is everything Washington is about. I'm just plain stunned that most people don't grasp this.

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.

16 posted on 06/25/2013 10:25:51 PM PDT by JennysCool (My hypocrisy goes only so far)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
This bunch is messing in God's territory if they think they can decide perverts have rights to 'marry'.

*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.

17 posted on 06/25/2013 10:27:48 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JennysCool

Well, you do have a point.


18 posted on 06/25/2013 10:30:20 PM PDT by mylife (Ted Cruz understands the law, and he does not fear the unlawful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mylife

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,


19 posted on 06/25/2013 10:31:17 PM PDT by uscga77 (the truth remains)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

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)..


20 posted on 06/25/2013 10:32:41 PM PDT by JSDude1 (Is John Boehner the Neville Chamberlain of American Politics?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mylife

the State in America has been overstepping its authority on the Church since dewey.


21 posted on 06/25/2013 10:33:18 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
That's pretty much what Scalia said in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas - that if the Court refused to uphold state laws based on morality that laws against incest, bestiality, adultery, pornography, etc. would crumble.
22 posted on 06/25/2013 10:35:12 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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...


23 posted on 06/25/2013 10:35:55 PM PDT by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

You may be right. It’s a logical prediction.


24 posted on 06/25/2013 10:36:01 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: uscga77

Amen and amen! There is but one Judge.


25 posted on 06/25/2013 10:38:19 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

The supreme court is about as useful as a washboard in a muddy river full of sludge.


26 posted on 06/25/2013 10:40:29 PM PDT by MestaMachine (My caps work. You gotta earn them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1

As the Church goes , so goes the Nation.


27 posted on 06/25/2013 10:42:28 PM PDT by easternsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mylife
I honestly can't believe that even the most perceptive FReepers don't follow the money on literally everything . I'll repeat: Washington is composed of lawyers. The President is an (apparently completely inept) lawyer, the Congress is pretty much all lawyers. The Supreme Court is most assuredly composed of lawyers, of course. Everything they do, from EPA wetland BS to "gay marriage" is designed to employ lawyers at every level in this freaking nation, from small town to big city. Imagine a nation completely dedicated to the enrichment of car mechanics, or tech workers. This nation's "leadership" is, at least presently, completely dedicated to the enrichment of one profession: lawyers. Only when this insane focus on one line of work ends will we achieve some kind of sanity.
28 posted on 06/25/2013 10:43:21 PM PDT by JennysCool (My hypocrisy goes only so far)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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.


29 posted on 06/25/2013 10:44:21 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JennysCool

Ted Cruz is a Lawyer too.

Generally Lawyers are best at interpreting law.

It’s a damn shame most of them are crooks.


30 posted on 06/25/2013 10:46:17 PM PDT by mylife (Ted Cruz understands the law, and he does not fear the unlawful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JennysCool

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.


31 posted on 06/25/2013 10:46:23 PM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

It is that simple, but the libtards make it complex by re-defining words.


32 posted on 06/25/2013 10:49:07 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

32 posts at one o’clock in the morning. Lord help us when the decisions come down in nine hours.


33 posted on 06/25/2013 10:50:47 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
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.

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.

34 posted on 06/25/2013 10:51:24 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
the libtards make it complex by re-defining words.

I hate to be a one-trick pony with regard to my other posts, but that's exactly what lawyers are trained to do.

35 posted on 06/25/2013 10:53:24 PM PDT by JennysCool (My hypocrisy goes only so far)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Get to bed!


36 posted on 06/25/2013 10:53:54 PM PDT by mylife (Ted Cruz understands the law, and he does not fear the unlawful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JennysCool

No, you’re correct.


37 posted on 06/25/2013 10:55:29 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JennysCool
This nation's "leadership" is, at least presently, completely dedicated to the enrichment of one profession: lawyers.

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.

38 posted on 06/25/2013 10:55:52 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mylife

Ima goin’


39 posted on 06/25/2013 10:55:53 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JennysCool

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?


40 posted on 06/25/2013 10:56:54 PM PDT by mylife (Ted Cruz understands the law, and he does not fear the unlawful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Gnight.


41 posted on 06/25/2013 10:57:18 PM PDT by mylife (Ted Cruz understands the law, and he does not fear the unlawful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Cementjungle
I don't think it goes any deeper. When you have one profession essentially ruling the country, that's what you get. How about a Congress composed of fishermen, architects, bus drivers, retired baseball players, bar owners, secretaries ... well, you get the idea. Our "leaders" represent ONE line of work, the one that benefits from controversy and trauma ... SURPRISE! We have a country made of controversy and trauma.

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?

42 posted on 06/25/2013 11:00:24 PM PDT by JennysCool (My hypocrisy goes only so far)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: mylife

Night!


43 posted on 06/25/2013 11:03:30 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

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.


44 posted on 06/25/2013 11:08:29 PM PDT by ansel12 (Libertarians, Gays = in all marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JennysCool

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.


45 posted on 06/25/2013 11:12:26 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
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.

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 ...

46 posted on 06/25/2013 11:18:28 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
I think it was back in the 80s, or maybe the early 90s, when suddenly Congresspeople became known as "lawmakers" -- as if they actually "made" something. The joke (an unfunny one) of course, is that all the laws were "made" some time ago. The lawyers in Congress usually do nothing but make them more specific or name them after somebody.

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.

47 posted on 06/25/2013 11:21:40 PM PDT by JennysCool (My hypocrisy goes only so far)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
marriage is a sacrament of the Church

Right, but marriage outside of A Church isn't ANY Church's business.

48 posted on 06/25/2013 11:33:02 PM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

<....”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”....>

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!


49 posted on 06/25/2013 11:42:21 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: caww
divorce was first...now the very definition of marriage.

Lawyers have to eat. What do you think is Washington's main profession?

There's a killing to be made from gay divorce.

50 posted on 06/25/2013 11:50:51 PM PDT by JennysCool (My hypocrisy goes only so far)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-459 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson