Posted on 06/25/2013 9:54:04 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
At 10:00 AM Wednesday, the Supreme Court will deliver its final decisions of this term. We can expect decisions on both same-sex marriage cases.
California Proposition 8: Hollingsworth v. Perry
In November 2008, 52.3 percent of California voters approved Proposition 8, which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In May 2009, a California District Court ruled that Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and temporarily prohibited its enforcement, and the Ninth Circuit agreed, affirming the District Court’s ruling. The United States Supreme Court will now consider whether a state can define marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman, in addition to considering whether the proponents of Proposition 8 have standing to bring suit in federal court. The Court’s ruling will implicate the rights of gay men and lesbians, the role of the government in structuring family and society, and the relationship between the institution of marriage and religion and morality.
Defense of Marriage Act: United States v. Windsor
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer married in Toronto in 2007 where same-sex marriages were legal. At the time of Spyer’s death, the state of New York recognized the couple’s marriage. However, the IRS denied Windsor use of a spousal estate tax exception on the ground that, under the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), the federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages for the purpose of federal benefits. The Supreme Court is now being asked to decide DOMA’s Constitutionality. The Obama Administration is not defending DOMA, so a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (“BLAG”) from the House of Representatives is doing so, arguing that DOMA is rationally related to the legitimate government objective of providing a uniform definition of marriage for federal benefits purposes. The Obama administration counters that the use of sexual orientation to decide who gets benefits is a suspect classification that deserves higher scrutiny. Under that level of higher scrutiny, the Obama administration argues that DOMA is impermissible. This case can affect what role the federal government can play in defining marriage and who in the federal government can defend the government’s laws. Not only could this case provide large tax savings to Ms. Windsor herself, but it can also make federal benefits available to other same-sex couples who are legally married under the laws of their state.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
The entire issue that there can be same sex marriage is a red herring to break church doctrine.
They can legislate civil unions all day long, but marriage is a sacrament of the Church.
Agreed.
These two are not going to turn out well.
Hope I’m wrong.
Maybe. Maybe not. The 5-4 decision today for Voting rights was a bone thrown to conservatives. Tomorrow might be in favor of libtards, or whatever Odumbo commands Roberts.
That's what people don't seem to understand — I've been accused of supporting the homosexual agenda
because I assert that marriage is not properly within the authority of the State (certainly not the FedGov). Indeed, putting that authority into the State's hands is the best way for it to play into the homosexual agenda
, because once you establish that it's a legal )State) issue, they'll throw out all religious-argument and use their authority to define it [marriage] as they see fit.
I think SCOTUS will “86” DOMA within states that allow gay marriage - and take a pass on the Prop 8 case at this time.
That is, SCOTUS will rule that federal benefits will be given to gay couples in states that allow gay marriage. And, SCOTUS will overturn lower federal court rulings on Prop 8 and leave it intact - since it was PROPERLY voted on by the residents of CA.
The upshot will be a ruling that “marriage” is an institution controlled by the states - and in states that allow it, federal benefits have to be conferred to gay couples.
However, in states that allow gay marriage, religious institutions WILL NOT be required to perform gay wedding services [if they object].
Who benefits?
Divorce lawyers. And I'm not kidding.
I have been screaming it for ages.
It is about infiltrating the Church via the Gov.
Just exchange a few words to confuse the rubes.
There is some truth in this but it is a separate phenomena to what is happening.
Shakespeare was right, all those years ago ...
I agree.
All I will say is that if I were a polygamist or a zoophile, I would have an airtight case for recognition, that is if our court rules homosexual ‘marriage’ a right. There is no justification not to expand it further. Kennedy is with the rats this time, and Roberts may jump.
Ah, our founding fathers expected and stated that 'we the people' are government, not a bunch of overpaid lawyers dressing up in black robes, claiming supremacy. This bunch is messing in God's territory if they think they can decide perverts have rights to 'marry'.
This issue has nothing to do with "gay rights" or anything that amorphous. This has to do with a gigantic new gold mine for lawyers. Period.
*nod* -- On a somewhat tangential note: I was reading this thread and thought to myself, we may see, in our lifetimes, Christian missionaries from Africa preaching in America.
Well, you do have a point.
On the eve of the Supreme Court decision I say: Only one Judge can define marriage. The one who created heaven and earth and sent his Son to redeem us. So decide what they may, the truth remains: “A man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” God have mercy,
I’ve already seen South Korean missionaries on college campuses, it’s happening! (And just in time, because OUR culture is so anti-Christian, and Biblically ignorant at the moment)..
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.