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.
“I can stand before God. You can stand before Satan. Enjoy the trip, you’ve earned it.”
Good, let me know how he rules on the case of Man forcing other men on what to believe.
There it is, Scalia sees the free-for-all coming. When I said Equal Protection above it should have been the Full Faith and Credit clause
LOL, your argument in favor of gay marriage is one for the Christian faith and God? I don’t think so.
Your second argument is that laws protecting marriage may be ignored anyway so please don’t pass any, don’t even amend the constitution to protect marriage?
Cute. In the end, you have one result that you fight to obtain, the end of marriage.
I’ll quote Abraham Lincoln:
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”
Justice Scalia, in a rare move, is fired up and reading from his dissent on the bench. He’s giving it to the liberal majority!
But by giving gays marriage benefits, doesn’t this then force them to accept that gay marriage is equal to the acceptable definition of marriage...so it changes the definition of marriage’ by default?
For now. This was the case before them, but this now opens up equal protection to anyone who moves states. I was legally married in Michigan, have lived in CA, NC and TX all those states recognized my marriage in MI.
I’m sure the suits are already being written to force states to recognize gay marriages performed legally in other states. This is the first of the clear two punch combo that will give us national gay marriage. The only solution now is a constitutional amendment.
Outraged At FLA, I’m with you on this...too many times, we conservatives become hypocritical on such matters. We appear to champion states rights when it suits us, but then, other time expect the Feds to save us.
But unlike you, I am fine with individual states recognizing SSM or not.
Only in those states which allows it. Remember the only part of the law that was struck down was the provision denying federal benefits.
It does not require other states to recognize the union.
Yup, sometimes, we "doth protest too much, methinks"
The gay thing isn't a federal issue so a federal law is unconstitutional.
Waiting for the other shoe to fall. SCOTUS should remand the issue back to the state and let the state hash it out. It's none of the Feds'/Scotus' business.
Except, given the Judiciary's love of [abusing] precedent (to push their own agenda), it may be easier to change the hearts of the people than established law
.
You seem to be forgetting one teeny, tiny thing.
Via our tax laws we “condone” certain behaviors, behaviors that we, as a society have deemed beneficial to us all.
Owing a home is a good example. Homeowners are generally law abiding and have an interest in keeping their community clean and safe.
We give homeowners breaks on mortgage interest, home taxes....all federal tax breaks to ENCOURAGE people to become homeowners.
Same with marriage. Married folks tend to raise their children better, they are more stable, well hell, they don’t generally go spreading diseases all over the place.
So married people get tax breaks! Just like homeowners!
We’ve been doing this forever, quit acting so surprised.
If you want to take away tax breaks for married people than take away TAX BREAKS FOR HOMEOWNERS and any other such federal tax breaks we give out.
“The only solution now is a constitutional amendment.”
Or just not passing laws/policy about marriage. That is the only REAL solution.
But it changes the definition by default because those states must accept gay marriages (state) and give them benefits (federal) which indirectly changes the definition of marriage...actually by default.
No. That’s not it at all. It’s just that they have to make laws that accord with reality. And the reality is that two homosexuals committing perverted sex acts still is not marriage.
Now, the court can rule that up is down, and down is up, but that doesn’t change nature one iota.
All they’re doing is destroying the legitimacy of the court, and helping to destroy those who are willing to go along with their immoral, unconstitution, anti-republican, insane, opinion.
However, if one state was required to recognize another state’s law - That would violate federalism since those individuals would not have a say in those who make the laws.
Are you saying John Adams thought it moral to force his ideas on everyone? Wow, now that’s a new interpretation lol!
You do realize that John Adams wanted to use Tax money to build churches.. The Constitution is for everyone..
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.