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

Skip to comments.

SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN FEDERAL PROVISION DENYING BENEFITS TO LEGALLY MARRIED SAME-SEX COUPLES
Fox News ^

Posted on 06/26/2013 7:12:46 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty

Edited on 06/26/2013 7:25:51 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

Headline only

Text of decision here.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0bamaqueer; activistcourt; culturewar; doma; fags; federalism; gaymarriage; gaypridemonth; homosexualagenda; judicialactivism; libertarian; marriagelaws; meninblackdresses; moralabsolutes; obamanation; obamaqueer; queer; queeringamerica; ruling; samesexmarriage; scotus; smashmonogamy; smashthepatriarchy; taxdollarsatwork; vikingkitties; youpayforthis; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-413 next last
To: rxsid

Maybe those 20,000 illegal aliens at one address who collected $46million in tax returns were an extended couple.


351 posted on 06/26/2013 1:18:55 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

How is my statement that marriage has been recognized as a legal state for thousands of years a lie?

It’s a fact.

I don’t mean “legally recognized by the US federal government” obviously. Most civilizations recognized that “husband and wife” meant something different than “a man spending the night with a prostitute”.


352 posted on 06/26/2013 1:23:05 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: shadeaud
Soon I, being heterosexual, will be able to claim it a disability.

I, being a white, Christian, self employed male shoukld be considered a minority.

Where are my "goodies?"

353 posted on 06/26/2013 1:42:03 PM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal The 16th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: chopperjc

“Site your source on this.”

1. My company (3,000 workers) buys our health insurance from a pool comprised of similar companies in the same industry. Two years ago, the firm that manages the insurance pool conducted an audit of the names, addresses, and marital status of all of the insured in the pool, and discovered that about 8% of the people who were listed as spouses or children on family policies were ineligible.

2. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation in an article from last February on the Heritage Foundation blog:

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/14/valentines-day-treat-continued-marriage-tax-penalties-for-tax-brackets/


354 posted on 06/26/2013 1:51:21 PM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: shadeaud

Right on! And he didn’t even know about all the justices and politicians being blackmailed.


355 posted on 06/26/2013 1:53:30 PM PDT by VerySadAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RB156

I agree with you. I am glad this is for state’s rights only..not federal. I am a stong believer in state’s rights..thankfully this upholds them only. And each state voted for this.


356 posted on 06/26/2013 2:01:26 PM PDT by DallasSun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: riverdawg

The study had nothing to do with gay marriage. I get your point a certain percentage of people cheat on taxes and lie for benefits. You seem to imply that theses percentages will be higher for gay couples. That is what I thought we were talking about.


357 posted on 06/26/2013 2:03:31 PM PDT by chopperjc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: babygene

I do not agree. There are many asexual people who are married. Not sexually consummating a marriage does not make them less married than you and I...well, not you and I...you and your spouse and me and mine...sorry.


358 posted on 06/26/2013 2:05:36 PM PDT by DallasSun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot

Wha???? Who??


359 posted on 06/26/2013 2:07:07 PM PDT by DallasSun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
"Such things like defining marriage were never an issue until we started handing out benefits for being married....or minority....or disabled..."

How many States were pushing (Practicable) for homosexual marriages in the mid-late 1930s?
360 posted on 06/26/2013 2:26:44 PM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

Dunno probably now but now they will sue sue sue until either the Supremes rule on it or the States cave under the pressure.


361 posted on 06/26/2013 2:48:11 PM PDT by Mmogamer (I refudiate the lamestream media, leftists and their prevaricutions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: DallasSun

“Not sexually consummating a marriage does not make them less married “

Actually it does in at least 13 states...


362 posted on 06/26/2013 3:02:53 PM PDT by babygene ( .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

The cultural free fall continues, with no end in sight.


363 posted on 06/26/2013 3:05:16 PM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas ( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: babygene

I know to what you are referring. Still the fact remains, marriage and the sanctity of same has nothing to do with the sex act. It is so much more.


364 posted on 06/26/2013 3:21:44 PM PDT by DallasSun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: All

Is anybody really surprised by this decision from the Øbama Supreme Court?


365 posted on 06/26/2013 3:48:34 PM PDT by rdl6989
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: babygene

My husband and I know two couples who have been married almost as long as we have been married...47 years in Dec..neither have ever consummated their marriage. We also know a young couple who have been married for several. Because of injuries the husband suffered in Iraq, they will never consummate their marriage. These three couple’s marriages are ever bit as valid as mine. Sex does not a marriage make.


366 posted on 06/26/2013 3:49:57 PM PDT by DallasSun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

Next, no denying freebies to people married to their dogs or horses, or in polygamy or to family members.

This isn’t about marriage, never was. It was about homosexuals wanting in the early 1980’s to get free medical coverage from employers for their AIDS infected butt buddies.


367 posted on 06/26/2013 4:00:57 PM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
Wow. Holy smokes dude. You clearly haven't a clue who I am. I've never been a "libertarian" in my life. Furthermore, just where, did I say that this was a state's rights issue?

Fact of the matter is, though, the states do have some degree of differing laws as to the requirements to get a state issued marriage license.

And WTF do you get off telling me I don't care of tradition and that I "care alot about sex." What kind of twisted jerk are you? There is zero, nada, zilch, nothing in anything I posted here on this thread (or in my entirety of being here on FR) that would back up any of the frivolous allegations you laid at my feet.

My first interaction with you was in regards to your post to another Freeper: "What’s your brilliant plan with spousal visas?'

To which I simply replied:

"I would assume, that the feds would handle a spousal visa the same way they currently handle a spousal visa.

If a state say's someone is married, then the feds go with that."

Shame on you for twisting what I said into some kind of degenerate filth.

368 posted on 06/26/2013 4:04:48 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Indeed they do have ‘some degree’, but they do not have the authority to change the definition of marriage.

This is not a states right issue - the federal government does have the authority to regulate the definition of marriage.

The reason why visas are important is because they help to demonstrate why state definition of marriage is inadequate. It’s a loophole that Obama is going to exploit through abuse of the immigration system.

I apologize for going off on you. I’m just annoyed and aggravated to find myself arguing with the liberaltarians here cheering on this horrific decision.

You did not deserve to be treated that way.


369 posted on 06/26/2013 4:09:19 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: babygene; DallasSun
"“Not sexually consummating a marriage does not make them less married “

Actually it does in at least 13 states...

===========================================================

Is a law, a law, if it's not enforceable? I mean, pick any one of those states that has that law. How does the state know if people are consummating their marriage (as required by their state law)?

370 posted on 06/26/2013 4:10:34 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Excellent point, rxsid. And, whose business is it, really? Thank you for your reply.


371 posted on 06/26/2013 4:15:12 PM PDT by DallasSun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

“Is a law, a law, if it’s not enforceable? I mean, pick any one of those states that has that law. How does the state know if people are consummating their marriage (as required by their state law)?”

In the context of same sex marriage they will know, because the plumbing won’t fit...


372 posted on 06/26/2013 4:16:20 PM PDT by babygene ( .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
"Indeed they do have ‘some degree’, but they do not have the authority to change the definition of marriage. I never said they did, nor did I hint that they do.

This is not a states right issue - the federal government does have the authority to regulate the definition of marriage. To "some degree", otherwise, there would be no difference in marriage law from state to state are there exists now.

Thank you. I accept your apology.

I'm against the "state" (be it federal or state) siding with homosexual marriage not only because it's immoral (based on my religious belief), but it also goes against biology (mother nature) as it's a genetic dead end which is anti-natural.

That, of course, doesn't touch on the issue that has also been brought up here...in that this is a slippery slope. If two men are allowed to "marry", then there is nothing that would stop 5 men from marrying, or a father marrying his (of age) daughter. People would say, well, you can't do that because you might produce a genetically compromised offspring. Who says the marriage has to be about producing offspring? Obviously, that's God's will...but there are plenty of heterosexual marriages that are viable that don't produce offspring (for a variety of reasons). So, since offspring isn't (nor cant) be a requirement for marriage...what's is now to stop a father from marrying his daughter?

As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, the reason we had this decision today stems from the fact that the elected representatives (& courts) in the state of CA did not defend the will of the people of that state when they voted to ban same-sex marriage.

/rant off.

Cheers (& I mean it).

373 posted on 06/26/2013 4:23:29 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Thank you. Like I said earlier there were many folks cheering this on because, ‘it got the government out of marriage’. No, no, it didn’t.


374 posted on 06/26/2013 4:35:34 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

SCOTUS clerks are very powerful these days. Evidently, Kennedy has a few on his ... staff that support SSM.


375 posted on 06/26/2013 4:38:48 PM PDT by rfp1234 (Arguing with a marxist is like playing Chess with a Pigeon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

Keep in mind that any proposed Amendment requires a 2/3 majority vote in both houses of Congress before going to the states. That’s a pretty difficult hurdle to clear at present.


376 posted on 06/26/2013 4:55:03 PM PDT by Coronal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

Back to the states?

But God isn’t happy.


377 posted on 06/26/2013 5:24:08 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rcrngroup
This is a state's issue. I'm hearing that every state is like CA, that regardless of what the people vote for their state supreme court will overturn a vote against "gay marriage" (another oxymoron like "gay rights"). It is obvious from the last few elections and the political landscape, that CA is a socialist-left-leaning state. Maybe there aren't enough people there who want to change the way they run things in that state.

I mean how do these politicians get there? The people vote for them. How do the judges get there? One way or the other, it's the people either either directly or indirectly. The judges are either voted for or appointed by elected officials. It's up to the people of a locality or state to throw the bums out and see to it that trustworthy and honorable take their place.

Either the people are in charge of the states (and this country) or we've got bigger problems than this "gay marriage" oxymoron nonsense.

378 posted on 06/26/2013 6:06:19 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Dang man, somebody got it right. How many people are convoluted on this thing?

People who say they're against big government don't seem to mind when the government directs their unconstitutional power in a direction they agree with. These people want big government to solve their local problems. Just like the Left.

What happened to the ideas of a free constitutional republic? Got lost in the shuffle I guess.

379 posted on 06/26/2013 6:29:19 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
I agree with you. My prediction is that irregardless of the marriage constitutional amendments passed by significant large majorities in 32 states, that with the CA Prop 8 ruling, the homo/lesbian Nazis will simply file lawsuits until they find a judge (either state or federal) who in turn will throw out the marriage amendment as unconstitutional & "denying" the right of homos/lesbians to marry. I predict within 2 years "gay" marriage will be the Law of the Land. In fact any resistance or criticism to it by pastors or lay people will invite you to 8-10 years in prison for committing Hate Crimes.

Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus!

380 posted on 06/26/2013 6:39:08 PM PDT by rcrngroup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: Coronal
You can also amend via a constitutional convention. That only requires 2/3 of the states to convene, and 3/4 to ratify. And since far more than 2/3 of the states have already taken steps against homo "marriage," I think the convention could be summoned. Ratification might be a little tougher but I think it could be done.

At any rate, it's our last stop before outright war.

381 posted on 06/26/2013 6:45:09 PM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

The people who will be truly damaged by this will be bakeries, florists etc. who are against gay weddings on religious grounds. You will be sued if you refuse to supply cakes, flowers and what have you for gay weddings. There will be vicious gay activism to drag those folks into court.


382 posted on 06/26/2013 7:09:37 PM PDT by bergmeid (I told you so - now pass the ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Once again I am totally in accord with you. I have hope with Cruz. Got Cruz Fever! catch it.


383 posted on 06/26/2013 7:20:46 PM PDT by katiedidit1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

But a convention also opens the door to pretty much anything people want to try to put in there. Get what you wish for and you may end up with things you didn’t want.


384 posted on 06/26/2013 7:21:26 PM PDT by Coronal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
Homosexuals, illegals and abortions: the new America.
385 posted on 06/26/2013 7:23:03 PM PDT by ConservativeStatement ("World Peace 1.20.09.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

386 posted on 06/26/2013 7:51:39 PM PDT by Route395
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Thank you, JimRob

They got their big government, their socialist healthcare, their taxpayer funded abortion. They're currently destroying the military and our industrial might, and Obama is making America the laughing stock of the world. From superpower to flat busted and defenseless in less than five years of Obama. If they now get "gay rights" and open-borders amnesty, our last hill is the 2nd amendment. And they're definitely ramping up to take that. I don't put much hope in the likes of McCain, Graham, Flake, Rubio, McConnell, Boehner, Ryan, and the rest of the hornless, wooly RINO herd to suddenly grow spines. Very few dependable conservatives left in the GOP. Tokyo Rove must be awfully proud of himself. The last stand will be up to we the people. Praying we're up for it. Praying the Chicoms, Russians and their ilk don't decide now is the time before we get a chance to recover.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

387 posted on 06/26/2013 8:28:20 PM PDT by vox_freedom (America is being tested as never before in its history. May God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Now when you walk in this country and you see two males or two
female that look androgynous...you will tilt your head and think to yourself (in a tenor voice)...Hmmmm?HOMOoooo? We are in our last days for sure. Between the voting rights act and this crap!!! Be prepared for the worse.


388 posted on 06/26/2013 9:19:51 PM PDT by Mr Scorpio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

Exactly.

If played right, this is actually the best SCOTUS ruling we’ve seen in a long while. It should be a 10th amendment flood gate.

If Cali wants to ban guns and “marry” homos, more power to them. It has absolutely no affect on me whatsoever - so I don’t care, it’s their soul.

If Texas wants to build a border wall, deport illegals, and pass open carry... more power to them also. Austin will self-deport back to California and we can get back to not having traffic jams because it sprinkled a little bit.


389 posted on 06/26/2013 9:32:41 PM PDT by TheZMan (Buy more ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rhema

Thank you...BTTT


390 posted on 06/26/2013 11:52:09 PM PDT by Bradís Gramma (Psalm 83)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: rhema

A huge, heretofore hidden part of the gay agenda is the doing away of normal marriage.


391 posted on 06/27/2013 3:49:23 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: rcrngroup
Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus!

It won't be long. In the meantime, keep your light burning brightly.

But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. Luke 17:29,30.

So likewise you, when you shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Matthew 24:33.

392 posted on 06/27/2013 4:00:09 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: chopperjc
RedBadger said that there will be many more “fake” marriages (among newly “married” homosexuals) just for the income-tax benefits. I cited the Tax Foundation study which states that, for most middle-class taxpayers, there is a marriage penalty, not a marriage subsidy, embedded in the federal tax code. So, the tax code by itself is not an inducement for any couple (regardless of sexual orientation or degree of commitment) to marry.

The main reason for “fake” marriages among heterosexuals now is employer-provided family health benefits, and I assume this will carry over to homosexuals in states where they can legally “marry”.

393 posted on 06/27/2013 5:17:26 AM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

It is the duty of the conveners to manage the convention’s agenda. Any reasonably capable parliamentarian can keep the breadth under control.


394 posted on 06/27/2013 6:24:28 AM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: massmike
Teddy Kennedy kept his first choice off the court!

Do you mean Robert Bork? He still wouldn't have been part of this decision since he died in December.

395 posted on 06/27/2013 7:01:50 AM PDT by ELS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: DallasSun

Kagan, the Mexican kkk member, and the 3rd hag who seeks to have the US ruled by the UN empire.


396 posted on 06/27/2013 7:03:09 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot (Marxism works well only with the uneducated and the unarmed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: ELS
I know...and then Obama would have had a chance to replace a conservative with a liberal,making the court even WORSE than it is now...if that's possible!

Talk about a no-win scenario!

397 posted on 06/27/2013 7:10:00 AM PDT by massmike (At the heart of every Paul-bot argument is the fear that someone will keep them from their weed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: ELS

Right. How I wish Bork had been on SCOTUS. Probably 30 million or more unborn babies would have been saved because Bork instead of O’Connor would have heard and ruled on Casey. What Kennedy did caused these deaths as much as anyone, IMO.


398 posted on 06/27/2013 7:57:56 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I’m praying earnestly for our country.


399 posted on 06/27/2013 8:01:11 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: riverdawg

Hard to quantify. I would think it would be no higher than traditional marriage. We are going to get the chance to see. Within 3 yearS all states will have it. Kennedy in his ruling mention equal protection that means game over


400 posted on 06/27/2013 8:41:39 AM PDT by chopperjc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-413 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