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.
Indeed. An important take-away from today’s decision on Prop 8 - Elections Have Consequences!
Seems to me that if the people of a state vote for an issue, the state has an obligation to defend that decision,, and it ought to be added to each states laws
Alright, let me ask you this: is there any area of life that the government should not control?
“That’s exactly right. God created the first man and woman for each other and united them as one flesh. Man....and woman. “
That was before some guy built a huge wooden boat with two of every insect, microbe, bird, lizard and mammal on it right?
LOL, I have to say, it is fun watching people who sit here and scream about how government is too much in their lives with things like Obamacare and taxes scream about how that very same government should be involved in something so personal as relationships.
Talk about hypocrisy. This is why the party is losing and will continue to lose. No consistent message.
I see now what I must do in the next election. After I fill out my ballot instead of returning it to the polling place I must send it to the 9th Circuit federal court so they can correct any of my votes they deem are "wrong" before my votes are counted.
“I see nothing in the Constitution that defines marriage.”
IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Apparently so.
Convenient? No. Hassle? Yes. Better than getting the Lunk Headed Federal Government involved? ABSOLUTELY.
“I don’t often post here so I had no idea you were the new troll.”
I guess some of us have been here just a tad longer than 2009..
Amazing stuff, how in the world did you end up at freerepublic with such leftist views?
Yeah, I see where you're coming from. It's the root of your problem.
Yep. Apparently, we, the voters, did not have standing?
Is that right?
Oh, that is rich. Keep your deities to yourself please.
No. I have a God-given, unalienable right to invoke Almighty God whenever I please, thanks.
You are trying to EXERCISE your religion on everyone else, which is explicitly forbidden in the Constitution.
Legislating according to the laws of nature is not forcing religion on anyone. It's simply acting according to reality.
If anyone is a "sky pixie" it's you. You're living in an imaginary world.
Well worth a re-post....our country has lost all it’s sense of goodness, justice and morality...it’s not America any longer...it’s “something else”...and more than fallen.
“Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect
that God is just,......that his justice cannot sleep forever.”
I have news for you, there are many people on the right who do not believe in your God.
That hurts so much. How can you be so mean?
“Legislating according to the laws of nature is not forcing religion on anyone. It’s simply acting according to reality. “
Where are these laws, I would like to read them so I understand. Oh, that’s right, you make them up as you go along.
The State of California refused to defend it, therefore the plaintiffs had no standing.
Satan, is that you?
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.