Posted on 07/01/2012 8:16:45 AM PDT by scottjewell
WASHINGTON — The US Supreme Court could decide later this year whether to take up the issue of gay marriage, after a group of lawmakers asked it be deemed unconstitutional, a court source said Saturday.
The subject is a hot-button issue that soared to the forefront of the political debate in May when Barack Obama became the first US president to say publicly that he was in favor of same-sex marriage. On Friday, the Republican-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group filed a petition with the US high court, asking it to say that a law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman is consistent with the fifth amendment of the US Constitution, which calls for equal protection under the law. The lawmakers also asked the nine Supreme Court justices to review an appellate court ruling which said that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act law is unconstitutional, according to the petition, a copy of which was seen by AFP. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) consists of three leading Republican lawmakers and two key Democrats, but one of those Democrats, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, said she did not support the move. In a statement, Pelosi said House Speaker John Boehner and House Republicans "decided to waste more taxpayer funds to advance a position rejected by four different courts and to defend discrimination and inequality before the highest court in the land."
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Let me guess? Barney frank wants to marry John Roberts?
They were made for each other
This also relates as the GOP is quickly losing any pretense of being on the side of social conservatism:
“Hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer is one of the GOP’s most sought-after donors, and has also been a driving force in New York State’s push for gay marriage.
Along with Michael Bloomberg, Singer has used his financial resources to nudge Republican legislators in the direction of supporting same-sex unions, giving an incentive for them to buck the party line where the political down side might otherwise be too great.”
Sure is looking that way...
Buck the party line or #uck the party and the country. Damn GOP can go to hell.
In the majority opinion Roberts will decide that we can all be taxed for not being in a gay marriage.
Agreed wholly.
It will be interesting to see what kind of law Roberts will create on this subject. How about mandatory marriage between straights and gays, or pay a tax?
The article is very poorly written, but the GOP case is attempting to show the Defense of Marriage Act to be constitutional.
Yes, Roberts is nothing if not cunning and shrewd about having things both ways.
Yes, the GOP is intending to see the upholding of DOMA but n is being fought not only by Democrats but by SuperPACS such as Singer’s within the GOP itself, and intending to tip the party that way (as mentioned in one of my comments).
I have no doubt the court will come down on the side of perversion.
Equal rights means, equal abilities. Perverted homosexuals cannot reproduce. Nature did that fora reason!
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.