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]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 401-413 next last
To: JCBreckenridge

Spousal visas aren’t my problem.

Cling to government involvement in your marriage, don’t be surprised with the forcible threesome when you get it.


151 posted on 06/26/2013 7:57:06 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: taildragger

No Inheritance tax exists with the FairTax. Gone with the IRS.


152 posted on 06/26/2013 7:57:21 AM PDT by listenhillary (Courts, law enforcement, roads and national defense should be the extent of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
Stroke of the pen, law of the land, United Sodomitestates of America.
153 posted on 06/26/2013 7:57:54 AM PDT by 444Flyer (How long O LORD?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

If some state recognizes polygamy, then the feds must pony up the benefits. Anything goes.


154 posted on 06/26/2013 7:58:03 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: greene66
What a degenerate cesspool America has become. Throughout the years, I always took the stand that I would have given my life fighting for my country. Not this faggotized sewer of Homo-America. It’s not worth lifting a finger to preserve.

What you said! The queers and Marxists have taken over.

155 posted on 06/26/2013 7:59:51 AM PDT by Marathoner (Sarah Palin is our Esther, for such a time as this)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: taildragger

What you say is so true...let’s extend the logic of today’s thinking: Identity is now anything you want yourself to be. A man can now declare himself to be a male lesbian (woman trapped inside a man’s body that likes other women) and reap all the Federal/Liberal benefits - and sue anyone who gets in the way - and $$$WIN !


156 posted on 06/26/2013 8:00:07 AM PDT by yadent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kabar

AMEN! You should read the Reynolds decision.


157 posted on 06/26/2013 8:00:42 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: NYRepublican72
While I don’t like the expansion of the welfare state, this is probably a “correct” decision from a Federalist standpoint.

I am unclear as to what has actually been decided. If states have a prohibition against gay marriage, can the Feds rule those laws null and void once they are challenged in the courts?

158 posted on 06/26/2013 8:01:05 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: NYRepublican72

“Not exactly shocked by either decision. Marriage has been something that is of state concern”

What’s your brilliant plan with spousal visas?


159 posted on 06/26/2013 8:01:23 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
You surely don't imagine that the Feds would step in and force churches to "recognize," so-called gay marriages, if it's left up to churches to define marriage, do you?

That's next on the agenda, by the way.

Soon believers will be meeting in "secret house" churches to avoid arrest, if they refuse to recognize and perform ceremonies for sodomites.

Sodomites and their cheerleaders will force all to "believe" as they do, or at least be silent on the issue.

160 posted on 06/26/2013 8:02:02 AM PDT by zerosix (Native Sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

[Romans 1:28-32]


161 posted on 06/26/2013 8:02:25 AM PDT by TurkeyLurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saoirise

Turning America over to the reprobate minds. Pray for the Lord’s mercy on His people.


162 posted on 06/26/2013 8:02:48 AM PDT by 444Flyer (How long O LORD?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

“Spousal visas aren’t my problem.”

“Am I my brother’s keeper?”


163 posted on 06/26/2013 8:03:04 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: LachlanMinnesota
Game, set, match. Now, on to polygamy!

Actually the pro-pedophilia crowd are gathering their lawyers as we speak. Think Gohmerica would never go for that? Give hollywood 10 or 20 years...think again.

164 posted on 06/26/2013 8:03:16 AM PDT by RckyRaCoCo (Shall Not Be Infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: zerosix

Yep, and imagine that - King O telling the Catholic church *submit* or be crushed.


165 posted on 06/26/2013 8:03:52 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: snarkytart

States still get to decide what constitutes a marriage, and a queer “marriage” in California will not be recognized in states that do not allow queer “marriage”. This is not a great victory for the sodomites. Something else might come out today. Maybe there is more to the decision, but so far states states decide who can get married, not Washington, DC.


166 posted on 06/26/2013 8:04:11 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: zerosix

Face it. Marriage was lost when government was allowed in.


167 posted on 06/26/2013 8:04:44 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Then get rid of the benefits.

Natl sales tax or flat tax. NO IRS.


168 posted on 06/26/2013 8:06:21 AM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Yes but California decided they didnt want gay marriage and a court over turned it and SCOTUS allowed that court decision to stand, and to me that isn’t the people of the state getting to decide.


169 posted on 06/26/2013 8:06:57 AM PDT by snarkytart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: commish

Well, as much as I oppose the notion of same sex “marriage,” I have to agree that the Court probably made the correct decision re: DOMA; after all the people of the State of New York approved this change in the law. And, the Court went to great pains to recognize the obvious: the States have always had virtually unlimited control over the definition of marriage (I say virtually because States may not violate the Constitution or incorporated Amendments thereto in defining marriage, e.g., the federal ruling that States may not prohibit Blacks and Whites from marrying one another). Otherwise, the rules are, and always have been, up to the States to determine.
That is the good part of the “gay marriage” decision today; it recognizes States’ rights in this domain.
I am confused, however, about the decision to avoid ruling on Prop 8 on the basis that citizens of California lacked standing to bring the appeal. I may be mistaken, but I thought it was, in the first instance, a federal court that struck down that portion of California’s amendment to its Constitution, which, as with New York, was voted on by the people. Under the rationale of the DOMA decision, how can the Supreme Court permit a FEDERAL judge to rule on an issue not within federal discretion? I need to find a copy of the decision.
As to homosexuals who are legally married in one State moving to another State that does not recognize such a relationship and retaining their status, that is a good question. Generally, States grant comity between and among the fifty States. However, it is also well-established that States do not have to grant comity if the other State’s law is violative of the other States’ public policy. Where would that leave us? I suppose the “gay” couple could receive federal, but not State benefits. Any ideas?


170 posted on 06/26/2013 8:06:57 AM PDT by BIV (typical white person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Don’t forget: Military housing, TriCare, retirement benefits for same sex spouses, SGLI, relocation allowance, etc.


171 posted on 06/26/2013 8:07:10 AM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: stormer

None that I know of, but it would not be out of the realm of possibility.......


172 posted on 06/26/2013 8:08:46 AM PDT by Red Badger (Want to be surprised? Google your own name......Want to have fun? Google your friend's names........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

Can’t say as I’m disappointed that DOMA is partially struck down as it’s bad law...it’s a Federal interference in a state issue. The problem is that there are so many Federal benefits IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Now that doesn’t mean I support gay marriage (I don’t) or I can’t weep for my country’s descent into the abyss. But I’m not opposed to this being a state issue.

The Prop 8 ruling is also interesting. SCOTUS basically just allowed the lower court in CA to pee all over the state referendum process. Judicial tyranny at its dubious finest.

}:-)4


173 posted on 06/26/2013 8:08:57 AM PDT by Moose4 (SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
“I will NEVER endorse marriage other than between one man and one woman.

NEVER!”

Dittoes! To do so would be taking part in the Big Lie and deception satan has cast forth on this nation today. He is the 'father of lies' and this is his victory today.

174 posted on 06/26/2013 8:09:28 AM PDT by 444Flyer (How long O LORD?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: BIV

Then why would Scalia be against state rights? IdK but when Thomas and Scalia are against something I don’t think it’s a win for our side.


175 posted on 06/26/2013 8:09:33 AM PDT by snarkytart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

That should be good for about a dozen F10 tornadoes, a coupla Katrinas, some 10.0 earthquakes, with a few tsunamis and a Yellowstone cauldron explosion!


176 posted on 06/26/2013 8:10:05 AM PDT by 2nd Amendment (Proud member of the 48% . . giver not a taker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
That’s what the liberal activists tried to claim when Rick Santorum spoke of the “slippery slope” in the wake of the Supreme Court decision protecting homosexuality as an afflicted behavior.


177 posted on 06/26/2013 8:10:10 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

“Face it. Marriage was lost when government was allowed in.”

Yes. A “license to mate”. Once you accept government control then don’t be surprised at what happens.

Marriage has a meaning that can not be altered, one man one woman. And you don’t need permission or a license.


178 posted on 06/26/2013 8:10:13 AM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; kabar
The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others,the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawfulmarriages. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the SecondCircuit is affirmed.

DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others.

In my opinion, that is the heart of the ruling, and not that some particular state does it differently and is ignored.

Not is their marriage less worthy. Their marriage is NOT marriage.

This is a social engineering decision and not a states rights decision.

Scalia nails it:

However, even setting aside traditional moral disapproval of same-sex marriage (or indeed same-sex sex),there are many perfectly valid—indeed, downright boring—justifying rationales for this legislation. Their existence ought to be the end of this case. For they give the lie to the Court’s conclusion that only those with hateful hearts could have voted “aye” on this Act. And more importantly, they serve to make the contents of the legislators’ hearts quite irrelevant: “It is a familiar principle of constitutional law that this Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.” United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 383 (1968). Or at least it was a familiar principle. By holding to the contrary, the majority has declaredopen season on any law that (in the opinion of the law’s opponents and any panel of like-minded federal judges) can be characterized as mean-spirited. The majority concludes that the only motive for this Actwas the “bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.” Ante, at 20. Bear in mind that the object ofthis condemnation is not the legislature of some once-Confederate Southern state (familiar objects of the Court’s scorn, see, e.g., Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578 (1987)), but our respected coordinate branches, the Congress and Presidency of the United States. Laying such acharge against them should require the most extraordinary evidence, and I would have thought that every attempt would be made to indulge a more anodyne explanation for the statute. The majority does the opposite—affirmatively concealing from the reader the arguments that exist in justification. It makes only a passing mention of the “arguments put forward” by the Act’s defenders, and does not even trouble to paraphrase or describe them. See ante, at 21. I imagine that this is because it is harder to maintain the illusion of the Act’s supporters as unhinged members of a wild-eyed lynch mob whenlators’ hearts quite irrelevant: “It is a familiar principle ofconstitutional law that this Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an allegedillicit legislative motive.” United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 383 (1968). Or at least it was a familiar principle. By holding to the contrary, the majority has declaredopen season on any law that (in the opinion of the law’s opponents and any panel of like-minded federal judges) can be characterized as mean-spirited.

179 posted on 06/26/2013 8:10:54 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

What is your brilliant plan with spousal visas?


180 posted on 06/26/2013 8:11:33 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

What’s your plan for spousal visas?


181 posted on 06/26/2013 8:12:22 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: RB156

“Not shocking. Kennedy is a libertarian, and DOMA infringes on states’ rights in his view. I’m just glad it wasn’t legalized nationwide, THAT would’ve been messy.”

And Roberts is gay and pwned by the left.


182 posted on 06/26/2013 8:12:30 AM PDT by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 444Flyer

Next are our children.


183 posted on 06/26/2013 8:13:06 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: apillar

“No Roberts was on the right side, it was Anthony “foreign law” Kennedy...”

Ah, Roberts wasn’t “needed” for this decision.


184 posted on 06/26/2013 8:13:46 AM PDT by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Of course it’s not a state’s right decision. Some here are just trying to make something good come from this horrible decision.


185 posted on 06/26/2013 8:13:54 AM PDT by snarkytart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: xzins
This is a social engineering decision and not a states rights decision.

It is a demonic decision. The Supreme Court has declared that what God calls "good" is evil and what God calls "evil" is good.

Prepare for some Woes.

This Country is clearly headed towards judgment.

186 posted on 06/26/2013 8:14:29 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Huh?


187 posted on 06/26/2013 8:15:41 AM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

It’s now the Defense of Money Act.


188 posted on 06/26/2013 8:16:29 AM PDT by ex-snook (God is Love)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

Talk of group marriage was much more chic in the 1970s than it is today. Group marriage isn’t simply polygamy (one man with several wives).

Can’t let the secret out the bag too soon. The sex positive proponents want to get their ducks in a row first.

The goal ultimately is to smash monogamy and smash the patriarchy. Feminists and The Weather Underground were quite open about that in the 1970s. Those same libs are still out there pushing the same anti-West agenda items.

Reflect on that when they ask “but how does this hurt YOUR marriage?”


189 posted on 06/26/2013 8:17:07 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

You say, “the state should not get involved in marriage”.

Does this mean you are opposed to the federal government issuing spousal visas to the spouses of American citizens?


190 posted on 06/26/2013 8:17:14 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: kabar

The problem the supporters of prop 8 had was that their own elected government officials ( governor, sec of state etc.) refused to defend the law that it’s citizens voted for...and the SCOTUS decided that the individual citizens did not have standing in federal court to argue for a bill that their own state government did not support

in other words the law they voted for was doomed by the people they voted into office

whether the supreme court would overturn a prop 8 like law that WAS supported by the state it was passed in and that government argued the case before the court is a different question... that I’m sure will now arrive at the SCOTUS sooner rather than later


191 posted on 06/26/2013 8:17:38 AM PDT by longfellowsmuse (last of the living nomads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

Cowards, all of them.


192 posted on 06/26/2013 8:18:41 AM PDT by ClayinVA ("Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

Roberts is completely compromised, IMHO. He leads another shameful and sick decision.

The people’s representatives create a law with a large majority. A federal judge rules against it. The people themselves voted for a constitutional amendment punctuating the original law, again by a large majority. Now more federal judges are turning that over.

We are witnessing two things.

1) The tyranny of specific judiciary members..co-opting the will of the people which is lawfully taken according to the laws of their soveriegn state.
2) The compromising of those same judiciary by a criminal, thugish enterprise in this current administration which is, IMHO, either bribing or coersing them to vote as they direct.

This will end badly for those law breakers and oath breakers. It may take a while yet...but if this continues, we will see a remedy similar to what our founders imposed on the King of england.

A MODERN DECLARATION OF LIBERTY
http://www.jeffhead.com/Modern-Declaration.htm


193 posted on 06/26/2013 8:19:45 AM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: green iguana

Lack of standing.


194 posted on 06/26/2013 8:19:52 AM PDT by ClayinVA ("Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

I am making a list of states that recognize “gay marriage” and crossing them off my list of places to visit. To hell with ‘em.


195 posted on 06/26/2013 8:19:52 AM PDT by windsorknot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

Not surprising. It would be illogical to deny benefits when gays are legally married. The fault lies with the original legalization.


196 posted on 06/26/2013 8:20:22 AM PDT by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zerosix

I don’t think they’d even need to go that far.

There are already churches out there which are happy to celebrate homosexuality. What you’re going to see is those churches being pushed more and more as the “mainstream” face of Christianity, with churches which object to this or refuse to allow same sex marriages to be conducted on their property being seen increasingly as dinosaurs incapable of “moving on” with a “progressive” society.

Sooner or later you will see Hollywood and television and the rest of the media presenting an America where the mainstream Christian churches are the likes of the Metropolitan Church and other gay-friendly groups, and those who attend older, more traditional churches will be seen as either oldsters who can’t keep up with the rest of us or kooks.


197 posted on 06/26/2013 8:20:38 AM PDT by dprice22 (And THEN, when people forget that the "intolerant" churches even exist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
What’s your brilliant plan with spousal visas?

Undoubtedly, this opens up a can of worms for the legislature to deal with. I guess they'll have to deal with it on a state-by-state basis.

198 posted on 06/26/2013 8:21:14 AM PDT by NYRepublican72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

Get rid of SS, Medicare, federal pension survivor benefits, etc.? How feasible is that?


199 posted on 06/26/2013 8:21:21 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
This court has delivered in two years some of the most society destroying decisions. First Obamacare being upheld, which imo is ten times worse than what they did today, and of course the Arizona decision on illegals and now this.

And to think we Bush replace a liberal jurist with a so-called conservative and this is what we get.
BTW, this should tell everyone who only care about ABORTION ABORTION ABORTION with SCOTUS nominees to go take a leap.
Roberts was so pro life according to some here back during his confirmation...pffff.

200 posted on 06/26/2013 8:21:25 AM PDT by snarkytart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 401-413 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