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
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.
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.