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.
Gnight.
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?
Night!
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 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!
Lawyers have to eat. What do you think is Washington's main profession?
There's a killing to be made from gay divorce.
Correct.
and there are others who are not religious , there are others who marry and have different religions like my wife and get a justice of the peace there are many , many examples of this and yet you can say you’ve been accused of supporting the homosexuals agenda but you only seem to look at marriage through your eyes.
Even the founding fathers used judges to marry, were they wrong too and maybe you are accused of supporting the homo agenda is because what you say is helping to support the homo agenda just like those said let them have civil unions etc
exactly but tyrant to explain that it’s only one person who recognizes marriage might be well in a proper Christian community but not in those who don’t believe in God or those who want a divorce, or those with different religions and get a judge etc
really so does the church decide on who gets the house and kids, does the Church marry a muslim to a Christian, does those who do not believe get married in a church.
Thinking it’s only the Church and God is great when one thinks of everyone as a Christian but all are not.
Thanks for setting up this live thread. Much appreciated.
There’s a ‘killing’ to be made from gay divorce.
Yep...if their life itself lasts long enough.
These are battles for things rightly belonging to the states and individuals not the federal government. The only involvement SCOTUS should have is to declare these a states' issue and remand back to the states accordingly.
As was once penned by Lincoln in the Gettysburg address, "Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure." The difference in this war is the right is FOR states' rights and individual freedom AGAINST the coercion and tyranny of a rogue federal government with ever increasing unconstitutional powers.
May God by his mercy and grace grant that "this nation, under God have a new birth of freedom", not just politically, in right decisions here by decentralizing federal government power, but more importantly, spiritually among the American people. May God once again save and bless America.
One sad reason the lunk-headed federal government gets involved in these things is people on the Right who don't like what others are doing try to use the federal government to force what they think on others. And as we all know that sword cuts both ways and eventually cuts all of us out of our God-given liberties.
Individual and states' rights and freedoms are the cornerstone of the freest constitutional republic the world has ever seen. Hard to keep it (as Benjamin Franklin once implied) because freedom doesn't always go our way, but in the long run, a free society is the healthiest and happiest on earth. (Besides, we can always move to another state (like we are right now) that lines up closer to our values.)
BTW, the decision was made long ago (Scalia’s comments hint at that). They’re only telling us about it now.
bkmk
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.