Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama urges Supreme Court to strike down federal Defense of Marriage Act
FoxNews.com ^ | 2/23/2013

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 ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-60 last
To: RoosterRedux

The things you see and hear when you dont have a rope


51 posted on 02/24/2013 2:35:03 PM PST by Friendofgeorge (SARAH PALIN 2016 OR BUST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

“instead of resorting to ad hominims to challenge the constitutionally substantiated points that I have made”

You started with the ad hominems with your sarcastic comment to another poster about “having not read...the Constitution”. Because others disagree with you, you resort to the snark and thus opened up that can of worms.

“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.”

Sure they can. And they do. Some are unconstitutional and others are not.

“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.”

So, the states have the right to redefine a word that has been culturally accepted for hundreds of years in this country and thousands of years worldwide?

The common sense error that you make is that some states will right foolish laws, even unconstitutional in some cases, yet affirmed by Blue state State Supreme Courts.

The legal and constitutional song you are singing, has long since sailed through the night. You are absolutely incorrect and the Supremacy clause and Necessary and Proper Clauses in the same Constitution you cite have been ruled consistently to defeat your position.

So, we conservatives can do what you are doing. We can pretend we live in a fantasy land and not play in the arena.

The other option is to play by the rules of the game that have been set. Socialist politicians are going to play fool court press and we can either play defense and lose by time and attrition, or we can play by the same set of rules and attempt to win, as they do.


52 posted on 02/24/2013 4:30:46 PM PST by rbmillerjr (We have No Opposition to Obama's Socialist Agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
Amendment10: “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.”

rbmillerjr: "Sure they can. And they do. Some are unconstitutional and others are not."

ROTFL

You're really stepping into it. I'll continue commenting when I stop laughing. Too difficult to type now.

rbmillerjr: "So, the states have the right to redefine a word that has been culturally accepted for hundreds of years in this country and thousands of years worldwide?"

You may have a point. The Supreme Court previously defended traditional marriage with common law, I believe, when they decided against polygamy in Reynolds v. United States in 1878. The problem is that Reynolds did test not the limits of 10th Amendment protected state powers since Utah was still a US Territory, not a state, when the Court decided Reynolds. And I don't know how common law, referenced in the 7th Amendment, relates to the Constitution well enough to know if common law would reasonably trump 10th Amendment protected state powers or not.

But what I do know is the following.

As a consequence of the states long forgetting that they uniquely control what the Constitution says as evidenced by Article V, they have failed to protect traditional marriage from the corrupt federal government with an appropriate amendment. And since the Supreme Court is now arguably controlled by gay-tolerant activist justices, the Court can easily strike down federal DOMA based on the state sovereignty information that I have noted, imo, common law or no common law.

rbmillerjr: "You are absolutely incorrect and the Supremacy clause and Necessary and Proper Clauses in the same Constitution you cite have been ruled consistently to defeat your position."

I rarely reference the Supremacy and Necessary and Proper Clauses. So off hand I don't know what posts you might be talking about. But when I do mention the Supremacy Clause, for example, a clause often cited by Constitution-ignoring liberals, I am usually careful to note that the clause applies only to powers which the states have expressly delegated to Congress via the Constitution. And regulating marriage isn't one of those powers.

Regarding the overall gist of your replies to my previous post, I will again state the following. Although patriots are now blaming Obama and Congress for unconstitutionally big federal government, many patriots have only themselves to blame for evidently not knowing enough about the Constitution, particularly the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers, to have regularly exercised their voting muscle to keep the corrupt federal government from escaping its constitutionally limited-power cage, as is the situation now.

53 posted on 02/24/2013 9:02:59 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: xkaydet65
Of course the clowns on here will flame him. One is there the people that will assume he is pro gay, then there is the one’s that will think he is pro gay but be more subtle about like suggest that he should also be against social security and the like. Then there will be people that just have no clue about anything. DOMA was created by well minded individuals who side a tide coming, but that doesn’t make it constitutional at all.

Well minded individuals should just let the states decide and if the states decide for gay marriage, then be appalled, try and change minds, or find comfort in the end of days line, whatever helps you sleep well at night, but don’t pretend you know the constitution better than anyone else, and no I’m not talking directly at you, more so the post I picked to rail against the people that think they know more than they do.

54 posted on 02/24/2013 9:32:34 PM PST by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

Logic is not something you can count on in this argument. or consistency.


55 posted on 02/24/2013 9:34:12 PM PST by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

“I rarely reference the Supremacy and Necessary and Proper Clauses.”

That’s because that knowledge goes beyond your bubble gum machine Law Degree. lol

Very convenient ignorance, since the consistent history of of these Constitutional Clauses disprove your interpretation of the Constitution.

Turning your head to the Constitution doesn’t assist mastery of the Constitution that you selectively cite.

Do some additional study on the basics and we can constructively debate. Note that it is not what supports our ideology that matters, but the reality of what is in the Constitution.


56 posted on 02/25/2013 7:09:41 AM PST by rbmillerjr (We have No Opposition to Obama's Socialist Agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

57 posted on 02/25/2013 7:47:51 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr; All
Amendment10: “I rarely reference the Supremacy and Necessary and Proper Clauses.”

rbmillerjr: "That’s because that knowledge goes beyond your bubble gum machine Law Degree. lol"

Allow me to clarify my previous statement. I am very familiar with the clauses in question, including how both clauses have been twisted to allow the power-hungry federal government to overstep its constitutionally limited powers.

So regarding my previous statement, perhaps I should have said that I rarely reference them in posts that I make in FR.

58 posted on 02/25/2013 10:28:52 AM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux
God's point of view:

 
Marriage = One Man and One Woman
Til' Death Do Us Part

59 posted on 02/25/2013 6:29:01 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

Hell, they might just rule the government has no business in the marriage licensing business, that is a religion issue and the government should not be involved.
Then rule for tax purposes ‘civil unions’ are acceptable, in all states.


60 posted on 02/26/2013 11:48:06 AM PST by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-60 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson