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.
I'll be saying a prayer for our nation.
Exactly...two queers cannot become one flesh...this nation is under judgement right now because our attitude toward queers is ‘whatever’.
I always say that it is the property of religious institutions. Churches, Mosques, synagogues, etc. If you don’t believe in a God, I wouldn’t call that marriage. It’s more an easily dissolvable union of financial interest.
This will simply make the Church will go its own way and not obey any changes in any law.
THe churches will simply not obey and keep it the way it is out of civil disobedence.
Yes, the Lib, Progressive model of marriage is gay, not Holy Matrimony.
Brokeback Mountain was about two Married Cowboys shirking their wives and children for a mess of putrid pottage. The left wants us to eat that pottage on the road to Sodom and Gomorrah.
Bad modeling bring bad results.
Yes, and what married people don't understand is that the end of DOMA signals the end of the marriage tax deduction.
The state recognizes marriage to protect children. It's not about adults at all. Things like SS confused the issue.
“...AND the new Prop is defeated in large part due to hispanics ... “
Wouldn’t that be something? God giving us what we need, instead of what we want. We see very little, and think we know all.
Yep, and look what profession has put the US in this mess. I have been saying for a decade that lawyers should not be allowed to own/hold political offices.
I actually haven't said anything regarding civil unions
, one way or the other, though I've replied to those who have.
The founding fathers weren't perfect, so just because the practiced something doesn't mean that it was right. (Having people born as slaves, for one example.)
Right on!
Thank you so much for the thread, sweetie pie.
BTTT
Yep.
Not much time left, in theory. It almost feels like everyone’s holding their collective breath.
Final prediction: DOMA’s going down in flames (pun intended). 6-3, which the press will breathlessly label as “sweeping” and “decisive,” barely concealing their joy.
Welcome, darlin’. xoxo
I don’t know. The court usually rules in favor of the Federal government and refuses to check their power. This usually favors the libs, but not in this case. I have a hunch DOMA will be upheld and Prop 8 sent back to California.
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.