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.
Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia believed there was no jurisidiction in DOMA.
Amy Howe:
The Alito dissent: “Whether the [BLAG] has standing to address the petition is a much more difficult question.”
There is language suggesting that the Court will dismiss Prop 8 on standing.
10:11
Amy Howe:
Page 4 of the Roberts dissent, talking about Prop 8: “We hold today that we lack jurisdiction to consider it in the particular context of Hollingsworth v. Perry.”
I just posted the PDF of the DOMA decision on I believe post number 112.
And that is why I am not a Libertarian. Thank you for your honesty in displaying your moral cowardice.
Go to 121, my mistake.
Doma struck down....only applies in 11 states who allow same sex marriages....(could be a problem for states that allow same sex unions.)
.... So this forces people to accept ‘gay marriages’ in states that allow same sex marriage....thru this decision ...that now gives them benefits.
Do I have it right?
Its time to start a new country. It was a good run, but this one is finished. Conservative States of America anyone?
Individuals can do whatever fantasy relationship they want, as long as they keep it secret, but it isn’t recognized legally, for instance we all know that America has secret polygamists, but they don’t have the law to back their marriage rights when the private/secret relationship ends, in fact they would be trying to prove that they are criminals.
Probably. Even if the state has in its constitution the protection of the Right to Religious freedom it is very likely. (See this post I just made explaining why it's a bad idea to have the State define marriage.)
The state recognizes marriage to protect children. It's not about adults at all. Things like SS confused the issue.
That's the big thing that people bring up: tax, SS/insurance benefits, all the other stuff.... but hey, can't that be argued in civil court to a jury (I'll assume the amount in controversy is more than $20) — again, not everything needs to be decided by [codified] criminal law.
“And that is why I am not a Libertarian. Thank you for your honesty in displaying your moral cowardice.”
Apparently you are just a jack booted conservative. This site is called FREE Republic, not Tyrannical Republic.. Thanks for playing.
"DOMA is struck down."
I think they’re referring to restrictions on state decisions by the federal government.
You are foolish. They are already attempting to sue bakers and florists out of business in states that have legalized it. Next are the churches. Wake up!
You have no moral backbone. Enjoy the fruits of your labors.
Not yet. They’re reading dissents. Language in them that Prop 8 will be dismissed on standing. Stand by.
What does THAT statement by Roberts mean? Does prop 8 stand, or does the lower court ruling win? I am confused.
This is not about what free people do to each other. They are free to do whatever they want to each other. They have had civil unions in many states.
This is about federal benefits. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Their problem was with government.
Ok, who is the RINO that put Kennedy on the court.
unconstitutional constitutional amendmentmy ass.)
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.