Posted on 06/28/2013 6:43:20 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Edited on 06/28/2013 8:30:03 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Under the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages even in states that have legalized it. This week, the Supreme Court ruled DOMA unconstitutional.
There are two possible grounds, distinct and in some ways contradictory, for doing so. The curious thing about the Court’s DOMA decision is that it contains both rationales.
The first is federalism. Marriage is the province of the states. Each state decides who is married and who is not. The federal government may not intrude. It must therefore recognize gay marriage where it has been legalized.
If that were the essence of the argument, the Court’s 5-4 decision would have been constitutionally conservative, neither nationalizing nor delegitimizing gay marriage. It would allow the issue to evolve over time as the people decide state by state. It would thus be the antithesis of Roe v. Wade. That judicial fiat swept away every state abortion law that did not conform to the Court’s idea of what abortion law should be. Even many liberal supporters of abortion rights have admitted that Roe was an unfortunate way to change the law. It prevented a stable social settlement of an issue, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, that at the time was headed in the reform direction.
I occasionally have issues with Krauthammer but I found that article to be well-stated. All it needed was the closing paragraph regarding handbaskets and paths...
I have to wonder if there is a single one of the five in DOMA that feels like mandating queer marriage nationwide is an over reach that will cause the court to be further politicized.
Even RBG has acknowledged how badly Roe upset the democratic process.
That said, I have no confidence in this court next time up.
If Kennedy is not removed fromt he court for his obvious non-judicial opining over a judicial matter, then America is lost because these black robed little hitlers will now be free to rule any class of citizenry as 'enemies of the almighty progressive state'.
Too bad Reagan didn’t do his homework and went with the “Ford Republican” Kennedy.
So a 15 year FBI agent’s, or a Marine Colonel’s family transfers from New York to Houston, he loses his marriage benefits and his spousal legal relationship and some legal powers over his children? What if he is killed in a terrorist attack there while on duty (or off)?
I don’t see this happening.
This ruling leads to the following question:
Some states recognize common law marriage where a couple live together and present themselves as husband and wife over a period of time but never have a formal marriage as recognized by the state. So if this common law couple move to a state where only formal marriage is recognized is the new state now compelled to provided benefits that are reserved only for those that the state recognizes as married? Further does that also apply to federal benefits?
“Some states recognize common law marriage where a couple live together and present themselves as husband and wife over a period of time but never have a formal marriage as recognized by the state. So if this common law couple move to a state where only formal marriage is recognized is the new state now compelled to provided benefits that are reserved only for those that the state recognizes as married? Further does that also apply to federal benefits?”
What a corporation/company or the federal government pays its employees (or benefits provided) is not of concern to the State as long as they comply with any minimum (pay/benefit/taxes/license)threshold determined by that State.
Homosexuals have moved the nation toward legitimizing the same sex lifestyle via an aggressive media campaign. That’s top down and it doesn’t stick all that well.
They win on kindness and basic compassion. We’re all children of God, no?
Conservatives need to countermand those two ideas.
The first is that homosexuality is normal. The second is that they don’t deserve discrimination. The two ideas go together.
What do we have to do to change the way Americans, specifically voters young and old, think about homosexuality?
We have on our side the science. There is no ‘gay gene’. It appears that homosexuality is nearly entirely environmental - caused epigenetically in the womb or via sexual imprinting by an older molester - given this, can we use compassion and ideas to undo the harm that embracing the homosexual lifestyle does?
Clearly, hormonally caused homosexuality can be undone. We already have hormone treatments alleviating other diseases. What about sexual imprinting, can this be undone by psychology? What about family structure and school indoctrination?
To win the above must be addressed. We have the first hypersexualized generation and one that is more narcissistic than the current generations. Can it be undone and how?
You raise excellent questions that are normally filed under “unintended consequences” that have to be dealt with in the dark of the night so nobody has to take responsibility.
Get government and courts out of the marriage racket.The freaks will always find a church,libtard judge,and freak friendly town.We need to pick the right battles.We seem to get sucked down these social rabbit holes too much.I do not dismiss the fact that this is leading to polygamy,beastiality and pedophelia;the country is basically going to Sodom and Gomorrah.This country has so much stuff coming from the Obama regime purposely to keep us off track and out of focus.Valerie “lizard”Jarret is the real evil genius behind the curtain:a tranny Karl Rove.
As long as a marriage is also viewed as a form of a contract, there will be a need for government and the courts to be involved. That’s a simple, undeniable fact that will not go away, no matter how much wishing is done.
I’ve been saying the *same* thing over and over and over. If you render unto Caesar what is God’s, THIS is what happens.
No more government interference in sacraments. Current child custody and divorce issues could be replaced by civil contracts that could be entered into for tax and legal purposes.
But seriously, good observation there. It's a shame no Justices are removed for failing the 'good behavior' requirement.
IF the House were populated with honest, honorable, representatives of We The People, Kennedy would be impeached and removed post haste. That the feckless republicants won’t even address the offense tells US the Republic is ended.
Governors could push the issue. It would be fun
watching them [FedGov] try to squirm out of that one.
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.