Skip to comments.Obama urges Supreme Court to strike down federal Defense of Marriage Act
Posted on 02/23/2013 8:11:22 PM PST by RoosterRedux
The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to strike down the federal law defining marriage as a union between only a man and a woman.
The request regarding the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act was made Friday in a brief by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli that argues the law is unconstitutional because it violates "the fundamental guarantee of equal protection."
The high court is set to hear two cases next month on the issue: the constitutional challenge on Proposition 8, the 2008 California that allowed same-sex marriages in the state that two years later was overturned, and United States v. Windsor, which challenges DOMA.
Edith Windsor, a California resident, was married to her female partner in Canada in 2007 but was required to pay roughly $360,000 in federal estate taxes because the marriage is not recognized under DOMA.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
And Michelle is the beard selected by Jeremiah Wright (and what a beard it is!).
He is the perfect traitor to all that we treasure and respect.
But he will not die easily...because he is Satan's favorite son.
Has he bought a bridal gown yet, or is it Reggie Love who’ll wear that?
We can only hope that if he keeps sticking his pole in fecal matter, it will take its toll.
I wonder if Roberts and Kagan will recuse themselves?
The African communist scumbag thinks the Supreme Court can overrule Webster's Dictionary?
More specifically, noting that the states have never delegated to Congress via the Constitution the specific power to regulate marriage, the Founders made the 10th Amendment to clarify in general that such issues are automatically state power issues.
So I will reluctantly side with justices who decide that federal DOMA is unconstitutional. The joke is on patriots who don't bother to read the Constitution.
Are we all just allowed to ignore laws we don’t agree with...?
I’m sure all the black preachers will be advising their flocks to protest.
Evil is on the march.
Only God can save us now.
>> Obama urges Supreme Court to strike down federal DOMA
I guess then homosexual marriage law can also be ruled unconstitutional.
“Edith Windsor, a California resident, was married to her female partner in Canada in 2007 but was required to pay roughly $360,000 in federal estate taxes because the marriage is not recognized under DOMA.”
It’s not a tax. It’s a fee.
Thank you for your concern about the spouses of the deceased. Please consider the following concerning such spouses.
Not only has each state always had the 10th Amendment protected power to run its own customized SS program to insure that the spouses of the deceased have an income, but there's never been anything to stop the states from exercising their unique, Ariticle V power to ratify proposed amendments to the Constitution to do to grant Congress the specific power to tax and spend for a national SS program.
In other words, just as it did with constitutonally indefensible federal Obamacare, Congress wrongy established SS without first petitioning the Article V state majority to ratify amendments to the Constitution which would have granted Congress the specific powers that it needed to establish such programs.
If the primary argument here is “equal protection,” would that not also open a clear legal path for incestuous marriage and polygamy?
“The joke is on patriots who don’t bother to read the Constitution.”
No. The joke is on people who think they can interpret the Constitution with a straw man 2nd grade interpretation that is best utilized watching cartoons and InfoWars.
What if Edith Windsor was arrested in California because she was driving 100 mph, which is legal on the German Autobahn, and it cost her money and liberty?
Which laws of Canada or Mexico should extend across borders?
What if Canada legalized polygamy? Would polygamous marrieds demand special treatment in the US tax code?
They picked a bad case. The facts and the law are not on their side. The Congress sets tax policy, not the SC. The liberals on the SC will ignore reality no matter what.
It will be very close.
We are already there:
It’s not clear if the above is true, but it certainly is possible.
When did Freepers become so insulting to one another? I remember when people on here had civilized discussions and even when they disagreed, they were respectful and polite. Has Obama turned us all into rude, short-tempered, obnoxious little jerks?
Obama is the only unconstitutional element in the case. This court case is simply his outrage of the day, today an assault upon an institution created by God as a sacred relationship between man and woman, instituted for the purpose of creating family and procreation in a loving supporting social environment.
Eventually the Creator will tire of being taken in vain by these communists, and then will mete out justice with mercy upon those who deny the
Lord and his teaching - remember the first miracle was at Cana.
This is no matter for resolution in legislation and court challenge. This action is an assault on our God given freedoms and His establishment of life on the earth. God will handle the cultural relativism outrage at a personal level with those promoting blasphemy. Believe it.
Direct your question to the arrogant and condescending poster,10th Amendment.
I’m sure you were here during the presidential primaries. I left for awhile, I didn’t think my skin was thick enough to stay..
Just doesn’t seem the same as several years ago. We are supposed to be on the same side, but you wouldn’t know it by some of the posts on here. Sad.
10th Amendment was merely giving you factual, provable information. The vitriol is coming entirely from you and others criticizing him. Perhaps he was condescending to you, but if so that appears to have been the proper approach to take to you since you have nothing but personal insults with which to rebut him.
Are we to believe that a marriage would have $360,000 in tax relief... or is this just the total taxes she has paid period?
Well then Donald, it is now also time for you to submit a brief that argues 0bamacare is unconstitutional because it VIOLATES "the fundamental guarantee of equal protection".
Socialist cronies of Barack get 0bamacare waivers while Hobby Lobby takes its economically-harmful and freedom-killing provisions in the a**.
Where is the justice?! Where is the equal protection?!
Equal protection does not wash either because a homosexual being has the same right as a heterosexual being in regards of having the same opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex (DNA not sowed on or cut off genitals).
My take, cut every Federal spousal benefit, get rid of the Social Security Act, Medicare/Medicaid, Federal Welfare programs and streamline the tax laws if the majority (Judges) thinks the Federal gov. should stay out of the marriage business. Of course consistency in our government is severely lacking, mainly do the the ignorance of the "common mans" barking/begging like a trained seal for scraps that representatives throw at them.
Sodom did not stand forever. God struck it down.
You might be flamed but I reluctantly agree. Besides the X Amendment there is the full faith and credit clause. In the 40s, 50s and early 60s partners seeking divorce ended up in Reno Nev. States like NY which recognized adultery and physical abuse as the only reasons for dissolution of the marriage still had to recognize Nevada divorces when the parties returned to NY. The purpose of DOMA was to allow states the cover of federal statute if the will of the legislature or polity did not want to accept same sex marriage when those same sex partners returned or moved to their state.
> If the primary argument here is equal protection, would
> that not also open a clear legal path for incestuous
> marriage and polygamy?
Yes, as well as polyamory, which is multiple marriage among as many genders as the government recognizes.
And don’t forget pedophilic and bestial marriages, even marriages to blowup dolls.
This is “factual, provable” and not “vitriol”??
Quote from OP:
“The joke is on patriots who don’t bother to read the Constitution.”
The movement started in Babylon California. It has become so wide spread (like a plague), nature and the God of nature will correct it. AIDs was designed by nature to cleanse the disease, but man kind got in the way. Nature will choose a stronger course this time.
I don't think the coastal regions of California will last past this summer, because the nations children are being dragged into this abomination. I see a massive wave coming to cleanse it. No more fooling around. The plates are starting to shrug like crazy already.
God designed nature to cleanse itself, and no man can war with the forces of nature. Nature always wins.
Do you know if that is real or photoshopped?
LOL! Funny but not funny.. I thought the same thing. Roberts is a turncoat sissy la-la. The nerve of 0bama to do this, but what else would we expect from our first black, Marxist Muslim gay illegal alien president!
There is no secular argument against gay marriage. The problem with conservatism is that it becoming more and more secular.
..and you’ve heard too that Orly Taitz says the clerks at SCOTUS did NOT forward critical exhibits of hers to 5 of the Justices!
Where is that photo from?
I heard this on the radio yesterday. So depressing.
When was that? I've been here 15 years in a couple of months, and I don't remember it.
I agree with that too. It's a moral issue and the federal government should not have any business in making laws on moral issues. It should be left entirely to the states.
If we allow states to refuse to recognize marriages from other states, I’m fine with waving goodbye to DOMA. No coerced reciprocity. If Vermont, say, wants to allow homosexual marriage, let them but don’t force South Carolina to recognize the work product.
instead of resorting to ad hominims to challenge the constitutionally substantiated points that I have made concerning federal marriage laws, I ask if you would please volunteer any clause in the Constitution to substantiate your seeming stance that the states have indeed delegated to Congress the specific power to regulate marriage. (Or do you possibly not understand why the Constitution was made in the first place?)
Otherwise, I have poined out the black and white fact that, since the term "marriage" cannot be found in the Constituton, there is no way that any of the clauses in Section 8 of Article I, or clauses in any other part of the Constitution, can be reasonably construed as an express delegation of power to Congress by the states to address marriage issues, including to define marriage as a one man, one woman union.
In other words, Congress cannot make laws to protect one man, one woman marriage any more than it can make laws regulating our 1st Amendment protections.
And given that the 10th Amendment clarifies that powers not reasonably delegated to Congress are reserved uniquely to the states or the people (paraphrased), it's sad that many of the states, evidently inexcusably unaware that Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate marriage, have foolishly put their faith in the constitutionally indefensible federal DOMA Act, as opposed to making their own 10th Amendment protected laws to protect one-man, one-woman marriage.
Finally, there's been nothing to stop the states from using their unique, Article V power to ratify proposed amendments to the Constitution to do so to make traditional one man, one woman unions a constitutonally protected right. But the fact that Constitution-ignorant patriots applauded Congress for making constitutionally indefensible federal DOMA without a proper amendment to the Constitution to enable Congress to make such legislation means that the Constitution is essentially dead because patriots themselves don't know the Constitution. (Constitutonally ignorant "patriots" arguably deserve corrupt Congress and corrupt presidents.)
Corruption promotes CORRUPTION !