Skip to comments.SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN FEDERAL PROVISION DENYING BENEFITS TO LEGALLY MARRIED SAME-SEX COUPLES
Posted on 06/26/2013 7:12:46 AM PDT by The Sons of LibertyEdited on 06/26/2013 7:25:51 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
click here to read article
Per FOX Scalia is reading his dissent aloud (unusual) and is quite steamed .
Sorry - no decision due to lack of jurisdiction.
Maybe we should all leave before sodomy becomes mandatory.
I suppose one benefit of having Rand Paul be the next president is that all of these benefits would be gone for Sodomites
No Roberts was on the right side, it was Anthony "foreign law" Kennedy...
So....doin’ anything later? ;)
The Lord has us here for a reason. Obviously we still have a lot of work to do.
Shockingly, as I look into the ruling I am actually finding myself agreeing with the court — this is a STATE issue not a Federal one.
The Fed Gov should not be involved one way or the other, it should be for each state to decide - and this and the Prop 8 punt both send that message. States can decide whether they are for or against gay marraige and whether to give benefits.
It effective was. And it's going to REALLY get messy.
Now, these fake "Marriages" are going to be exportable, as a couple "marries" in Iowa and then moves to Texas. They will be recognized as "married" for federal purposes, and as many conditions as the federal government has in funding for state programs, this status will be capitalized upon to the max.
This is one time it might have been nice if Kennedy relied on international law to interpret the US Constiturion
Like maybe homosexual relationship law in Iran or Zimbabwe
Was the 5th vote Kennedy or Roberts?
Seems like you are saying it was definitely Kennedy?
IF they had cut the monetary goodies for being married from the Federal Government BEFORE this decision the issue would have dried up and been moot.
Instead the Right served up a nice slow hanging curve ball Named DOMA and the Gayberts crushed it and sent it out of the stadium.
Bottom Line, GAY Marriage is now enshrined into the DNA of the Fed Gov forever.
Marriage is now regulated by the Federal Government.
Well done Conservatives you just made Government EVEN BIGGER!
This wouldn’t have happened if Ronald Reagan had done his homework.
cheer up, we’re not all sodomites
we just have to pay them “benefits” for hooking up
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined, and in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined as to Part I. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined as to
Parts II and III.
So, when it comes time for a same sex couple to file for social security benefits, will only one will get full amount while “spouse” will receive half? If not married, both would get full benefit. Just ask’in...
He was only Reagan’s THIRD choice!
Teddy Kennedy kept his first choice off the court!
This has Ted’s fingerprints ALL over it
“What comes after slouching toward Gomorrah?”
Acts of GOD: earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, fire, famine, pestilence. GOD will not be mocked.
Good. The messier the better. Means more people get POs instead of just going along.
I appreciate the offer Norm, but I was being (figuratively) tongue-in-cheek. I prefer to take my chances with the God of the Bible and not risk eternal damnation with sodomy.
Yes but why would Scalia be against the STATE deciding? And the state DID decide in prop 8 and it sounds like they’re saying the ruling made to over turn prop 8 stands?
The local radio outlet for one of the conservative talkies I monitor uses ABC Radio news. They have a Yale Prof, a remote in San Fransisco, all gushing over first reports the only thing missing is camp follower Anne Compton with a dramatic reading.
His dissent is withering, and is excellent reading—worth seeking the pdf of the decision.
But the libs won again.
“When in the course of human events.....” is coming soon for America.
Exactly. This ruling sets up a supporting ruling on Prop 8.
Either sates have rights or they don’t. Conservative can’t argue states rights on Obamacare and then argue for Federal Control on marriage because it suits their cause.
Thank you. I forgot Breyer. Shame on us. Shame.
and that would mean they would have to pay more in taxes, right? I’m still single but I’ve always heard of the marriage penalty that slams people.
Isn’t it ironic, they are clammering for bennies that are broke, i.e. SSI, Medicare, Medicade etc etc etc. It is like being the king of wishful thinking. These programs need re-engineering and or privatization or insert buzzword here, but are they getting an empty bowl in the long run?
These programs will empty the bowl for all of us because our income and welfare is measured in the dollars we earn. The same dollars they will print until worthless because they will not prioritize, cap, and budget these welfare programs that are paid out in dollars the government does not possess.
America needs to wake up and understand our fate is interwoven with the dollar and the dollar is interwoven with government debt, spending, and quantitative easing that = welfare for the banks and stock market.
And which state requires consummation for a legal marriage to exist? Because of physical disabilities, not every heterosexual marriage can be consummated. And those marriages are very valid!
As long as you do not proclaim Jesus Christ as your Savior. Christianity it the real target here. Not heterosexuals. We (as heterosexuals) just became collateral damage in the war against Christianity
>>for the sins of my countrymen<<
These are not your countrymen, they are enemies to this country.
I heard the lower court ruling on Prop 8 would stand. WHAT WAS THE LOWER COURT RULING?
I can’t think to save my life today...
Not no jurisdiction - no standing. Decision just came out.
maybe a little of this, before all that.
Boy I hate to sound like a magic elixir salesmen, but Steve Forbes was right with the Flat Tax ( and ergo Flat Tax vs. Fair on the House floor is fine with me ).
My chance run in with the Hawaiian guy and this case from Canada and the inheritance screams for a new tax code, Inheritance taxes were also an issue for the Hawaiian dude if my memory is correct..
Dissent - Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, Sotamayor
Basically tossed the case for lack of standing, I guess the good news is their is no national right to gay marriage as some feared, or even forcing gay marriage on the 9 states with civil unions. Only applies to California.
But Fedgov says it’s OK now ;)
Tea, I guess you’re right. I am kinda attached to the whole hetro thing anyway.
Prop 8 was struck down. To be clear, the lower court ruling stands only with regard to California, not other states that define marriage as one man-one woman.
No, if they can file jointly instead of separately, it would in most cases be a tax savings at the expense of the American people, who seem to know nothing much at all from their poor-quality education.
Yes and you have friends getting “married”, straight people who had no desire to be married, getting “married” to they can cheat on taxes. Kennedy has got to be the dumbest SOB that ever walked the face of the earth. What a joke this country has became.
I guess when Obama said he was “disappointed” about the voting law ruling, that was code to his sycophants on the High Court that their bonuses might be in jeopardy if they didn’t shape up.
Why am I in this basket, and why is it so hot in here?
“Now, how many fake marriages will be done just to avoid INCOME TAXES?.....................”
99%. Like I just said Kennedy is moron.
We don’t deserve forgiveness and shouldn’t expect any.
And as usual they won because the damn GOP refused to stand up for traditional America.
Eventually even the most blinded sycophant has to see it.
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.