U.S. Supreme Court wipes out Proposition 8's gay marriage ban

MercuryNews.com ^ | June 26, 2013 | Howard Mintz

[Deo volente]

The U.S. Supreme Court today paved the way for same-sex couples to marry soon in California, effectively leaving intact a lower-court ruling that struck down the state's voter-approved ban on gay marriage.

In a ruling that assures further legal battles, the high court found that backers of Proposition 8 did not have the legal right to defend the voter-approved gay marriage ban in place of the governor and attorney general, who have refused to press appeals of a federal judge's 2010 ruling finding the law unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court ruling, which found it had no legal authority to decide the merits of a challenge to Proposition 8, sends the case back to that original decision -- and the only question now is how quickly same-sex couples can marry and whether that ruling will have immediate statewide effect.

The 5-4 ruling was written by Chief Justice John Roberts.

[rollo tomasi]

Reynolds vs the United States, a court decision in 1879 will not sway the current majority of the court. Equal protection and yes, federal goodies has opened up that can of worms. DOMA was the last firewall against the sexual revolution. Just looking at the current situation, sorry.

[tuffydoodle]

I was just watching news on NBC channel 5 in D/FW and they were doing the story on gay marriage. They showed one man talking to another man, saying he could now marry the man he loves, and they kissed. We are in big, big trouble.

[rollo tomasi]

That is a cop out. Try again, the ruling, not your ideology please.

[CatherineofAragon]

I read Romans 1, and you are right; it seems the nation has been given up to wallow in its evil.

[rollo tomasi]

“I don't agree that the feds have any constitutional authority over marriage whatsoever.”

What about military spouses base housing/privileges/benefits? Feds can't regulate that situation or just let homosexual "unions"/bigamist on that action as well. You are either too short-sighted or a homosexual agenda pusher.

[Orangedog]

That is a cop out.No, as I've told you at least a dozen times today, I'm not going to say I agree or disagree with a ruling over something the feds have no constitutionally authorized role in and the court has no constitutional authority to rule on.

[Orangedog]

You are either too short-sighted or a homosexual agenda pusher.

GFY, troll. What part of no constitutional authority under article 1, section 8 are you too pin headed to understand?

[rollo tomasi]

How can you not say the Feds can’t regulate marriage? The Feds have been doing that since the Revolutionary War ignoramus.

Now what about today’s ruling, quit copping out.

[rollo tomasi]

Tell me fool, how could widows of Revolutionary soldiers receive marriage benefits if the Feds had no hand in marriage in the first place?

Quit copping out.

[Orangedog]

How can you not say the Feds can’t regulate marriage? The Feds have been doing that since the Revolutionary War ignoramus.

Tell you what, go read article 1, section 8. Then go read the 10th amendment. Show us all where authority is granted to the fedgov to be sanction or regulate marriage. Until you can, go shut your piehole because you have no argument.

[Orangedog]

Tell me fool, how could widows of Revolutionary soldiers receive marriage benefits if the Feds had no hand in marriage in the first place?

Those were granted before the constitution was ratified. And on top of that, they didn't sanction or regulate those marriages. It was a religious institution. Still can't find that authority to sanction or regulate marriage, can you?

[garbanzo]

The State of California on behalf of the people of California. But since state
officials decided that they were more representatives of the state Democratic Party rather than of the people of California, they punted on the case. So rule of law in California depends entirely on which faction controls the government on a given day,

[OneWingedShark]

>>Tell me fool, how could widows of Revolutionary soldiers receive marriage benefits if the Feds had no hand in marriage in the first place?
>
> Those were granted before the constitution was ratified. And on top of that, they didn't sanction or regulate those marriages. It was a religious institution. Still can't find that authority to sanction or regulate marriage, can you?

Other than that, there's the 7th Amendment; society could determine both the definition of marriage and the appropriateness of spouses/children receiving those funds via the jury.

[rcrngroup]

You do realize that, in the 5-4 ruling you cite, Scalia joined him. I guess Scalia is becoming one of those reprobate faggots, too. Imagine that.

I stand corrected.... it was Anthony Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayer & Kagan that voted against DOMA. Scalia read the dissenting opinion & Roberts read the majority opinion. Which does not make sense to me, since Roberts (surprisingly) voted in favor of DOMA.

So what are you talking about when you make a disparaging comment... "I guess Scalia is becoming one of those reprobate faggots, too. Imagine that." Scalia read the dissenting opinion, that's it. Your comment makes no sense. And yes, faggots are reprobates according to Romans 1:18-32.

[rcrngroup]

I understand now what you’re saying. And yes, I guess Scalia & Roberts vote on Prop 8, does make both them eligible for the faggot loving title, and for thwarting the will of 52% of California’s citizens. If the 52% was for the liberal, gay side, they would be rioting in the streets even right now, if their 52% was ignored or overturned by any court. God forgive our wicked nation!

[tanknetter]

Could Harriet Miers have possibly been any worse??

Harriet Miers wasn't nominated for Roberts' seat. She was the original nominee for Alito's.

The sequence was that O'Connor announced her retirement. Roberts was nominated for her seat. Then Rehnquist died and Roberts nomination was moved to the Chief Justice position. Harriet Miers was nominated for O'Connor's seat. Then Miers withdrew and Alito nominated in her place.

[rollo tomasi]

Sorry went out for dinner:

September 29, 1789 (1 Stat. 95), March 23, 1792 (1 Stat. 243), 1818 Pension Act (3 Stat. 410), May 15, 1823 (4 Stat. 269), and July 4, 1836 (5 Stat. 128).

" society could determine both the definition of marriage and the appropriateness of spouses/children receiving those funds via the jury."

Do you have the audacity to suggest that those who wrote the Constitution had homosexual marriage on their minds?

Look what the Feds did to bigamy in the 19th century, lol. You do support this homosexual expansion (hence your "society cop-out), you are just too scared to admit that on this forum.

[rollo tomasi]

"Those were granted before the constitution was ratified."

For one year, then the Feds eventually got involved under the current Constitution.

[TangledUpInBlue]

“Children?”

Hmmm, maybe. I could see that argument. Though obviously someone would have to take up the cause on a minor’s behalf.

That being said, I suspect the answer to that would be adoption. Anyone can adopt, married or not. A single hetero can adopt. So could a single gay.

I don’t mean to be overly pessimistic. I just don’t see this being reversed.

[OneWingedShark]

Do you have the audacity to suggest that those who wrote the Constitution had homosexual marriage on their minds?

No, I have the audacity to suggest that they had the audacity to leave things out of the control of the government and in the control of the States, or the people.

Look what the Feds did to bigamy in the 19th century, lol. You do support this homosexual expansion (hence your "society cop-out), you are just too scared to admit that on this forum.

No, I just severely distrust the FedGov and think ceding any more authority to it is stupid. The 4th is explicit, as is the 6th, yet the NSA abused it's ability and power legally, though not lawfully, justified by the FISA-court.

If then our highest law is discarded and other twisted legalisms (based on Federal law, regulation, and/or *spit* precedence) are held higher than that then what will come of defining marriage in the federal level?
Seriously, you're begging for more tyranny.