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.
You are correct, however, essentially what it says is that Gay marriage is a state issue, not a federal issue.
My bad.
I saw a video of that parade .....they were even performing sex acts on each other...some standing on the street with their front hanging out waiting for the next guy to come along and have a go....and not just a few doing that.
The meaning of sodom and gomorrah was all too obvious....terrible doesn’t say enough.
I wouldn’t advise people watch that.....those images were difficult to get out of my head thereafter they were so shocking.....there really are no words for that.
“A beast does not condone being slaughtered and used for food. Why should a beasts consent be necessary for sexual acts?”
Who does consent to being used for food? Your argument is irrational.
How about this: If two men, or a party of 1 man and 3 women declare themselves as married, just how exactly are you injured by that?
I know it when I read it. You seem to not know gays have been doing to each what they want for decades now. That at the very least living in a vacuum.
Prop 8 for all intents and purposes ruled unconstituitonal. We the People have no “standing.” This, my friends, is a judicial coup d’etat.
Your response is irrational. Try retreading what I wrote.
So that I understand: The court has overruled a legal vote in California because they do not agree with the result?
“I know it when I read it. You seem to not know gays have been doing to each what they want for decades now. That at the very least living in a vacuum.”
Get back to me when you actually make sense. That sentence is broken to say the least.
The (other) scary part about today is that a State’s whim on whether to pursue a case impacts the standing of a citizen to pursue relief in the courts. Clearly there are states that may opt to use this to manipulate the process.
Because it will bring the wrath of Almighty God down on our heads.
That's the bottom line.
“Your response is irrational. Try retreading what I wrote.”
Is that your way of saying “I have no answer for your question that makes any sense?”
At least you are open, unlike the other libertarians, you are openly defending men marrying each other.
“Because it will bring the wrath of Almighty God down on our heads. “
What part of “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” do you not understand?
And this is why we've arrived at this particular point. Two dykes who abuse each other with plastic toys, or two unnatural anally-obsessed males can call their perversion "marriage." And people (like you) label all objection as "pushing your morality."
We've descended into utter, screaming insanity.
Not only is this a savage attack on marriage, it's a brutal assault on federalism (that is, the power to legislate -- or vote, for that matter -- lies with the federal government, not with the states).
This appears to be a clear and direct violation of the US Constitution.
Amy Howe:
Here’s a Plain English take on Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage: After the two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court, declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court (in response to a request by the lower court) ruled that they could do so under state law. But today the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, it held, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case.
“At least you are open, unlike the other libertarians, you are openly defending men marrying each other. “
I am defending the principle that there should be no laws in reference to marriage (or any other activity) between adults. That is not defending a lifestyle, it is rather putting government in its proper place.
I see nothing in the Constitution that defines marriage.
Yet another episode of “As Civilization Crumbles”, and another triumph for evil.
As a nation His forgiveness has moved to something else many would deny though clearly evident....which is why what once was done in secret not only is done in the open and without shame...but ‘celebrated’ and unfortunatley ‘forced’ on those who oppose it.
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.