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]

Bump to post #257 as well.

[rollo tomasi]

Founders never envisioned a sexual revolution and break down to the extent of redefining marriage. Also the monster Entitlements yet that still happened as well as the 16th along with the Social Security Act where the feds explicitly defined marriage. Make that stuff unconstitutional (16th requires another Amendment) then originality will start to be restored. Today, the feds expanded marriage, not draw the definition back.

Horrible situation all around unless you favor homosexual institutional "rights".

[JCBreckenridge]

Oh, it will be relevant soon enough. It’s not enough to destroy others. Sin recruits. Once it’s legal it will be taught in Kindergarten.

[Salvation]

Back to the states.

Forget what God wants?

[JCBreckenridge]

Your strategy has failed.

You’ve got nothing left to sell.

[Orangedog]

You do support this homosexual expansion

Liar. That is the only reply you will get from me from this point on.

[rollo tomasi]

Why were pensions granted to widows? The Feds fully understood marriage, the institutions responsibility and importance. Also, the people spoke to the Feds and the Fed politicians aligned with the people. How do you explain that? Where was your firewall that prevented expansion? In the Supreme Court, lol. Originality/Constitution is long gone, the feds are just functioning based on biases and disingenuous arguments.

Hell, you are supporting Ginsburg, Kennedy (Libertarian fluky), the two lesbos, and Breyer. Pretty glorious company you have there.

[rollo tomasi]

What was the only defense against this expansion then? Something you are arguing against, ignoramus.

[OneWingedShark]

Founders never envisioned a sexual revolution and break down to the extent of redefining marriage.

We are in complete agreement here.

Also the monster Entitlements yet that still happened as well as the 16th along with the Social Security Act where the feds explicitly defined marriage. Make that stuff unconstitutional (16th requires another Amendment) then originality will start to be restored.

We have to repeal the 17th, too. The States need representation in the Federal system.

Today, the feds expanded marriage, not draw the definition back.

Marriage was put into the realm of the feds via DOMA*, it really was overreach (9tn and 10th Amendments) — the terrible ruling was Prop 8, where they said [basically] that the only people with standing are government officials (who may be malfeasant or misfeasant or nonfeasant).

* Or, perhaps the Social Security Act as you observe.

[Orangedog]

Liar.

[rollo tomasi]

What strategy? Implications were sorely forgotten and traditions defecated on (Although the divorce rate is really the main perversion of marriage), I can’t help that, the Court spoke (Oh crap, make that the Federal Court).

[rollo tomasi]

How so?

Why do homosexuals couples have the same benefits as heterosexual active duty married couples have now? Again, short-sighted ignoramus.

[JCBreckenridge]

arguing to ‘leave marriage to the states’.

It’s hard enough fighting their side without being hamstrung by your own team.

The argument is a failure, and we shall see that soon enough.

[rollo tomasi]

Did not say that. I agreed the Feds supported/recognized that institution intrinsically, just a lot of people miss the implication (Libertarians).

[OneWingedShark]

The Feds fully understood marriage, the institutions responsibility and importance. Also, the people spoke to the Feds and the Fed politicians aligned with the people.

Yes, and if they were aligned wouldn't availing themselves of the 7th have the effect of ensuring that things were properly distributed?

Where was your firewall that prevented expansion? In the Supreme Court, lol. Originality/Constitution is long gone, the feds are just functioning based on biases and disingenuous arguments.

This is the true curse of precedence *spit* -- By elevating what judges say to above the Constitution the Judiciary becomes nothing less than a group of people playing the children's game telephone with your legal rights. If I give up on Constitutionalism, then I have no other choice but killing people — that may indeed be justified, given that the IRS, NSA and Fast & Furious all indicate that the FedGov has declared, and is waging, war against me.

Hell, you are supporting Ginsburg, Kennedy (Libertarian fluky), the two lesbos, and Breyer. Pretty glorious company you have there.

Please elaborate on this assertion. How am I supporting them, please be specific.

[rollo tomasi]

The Social Security Act was explicit about marriage. That was 60 years before DOMA.

[rollo tomasi]

DOMA was a firewall against the redefinition of marriage. If benefits were driven away fine, but the reality of the situation dictated that some sort of defense be established in the face of the sexual revolution. This was needed or the tax payer will be really on the hook for medical/psychological care of active duty “spouses” of the same sex.

Also, by getting rid of DOMA, Churches will be targeted. We are way beyond originality. DOMA should of been through a proper Amendment process, but dems like always see 4 moves ahead and knew some court would strike it down via equal protection NOT the originality concept you promote. Wife is getting pissed at my computer pecking, got to go.

[Orangedog]

Liar.

[TArcher]

“because of this, God gave them over”— Romans 1:25+

[TArcher]

>>lose their tax exempt status.

So? Render unto Caesar what is his and toss the FALLIBLE and UNINSPIRING wolves out of the pulpit / off the temple steps.