Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS: same-sex marriage decisions - Live Thread (Decisions at 97, 194, & 217)
Free Republic | 06/26/2013 | BuckeyeTexan

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.



TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: doma; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; moralabsolutes; notbreakingnews; obamanation; prop8; ruling; samesexmarriage; scotus; ursulathevk; vanity; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 441-459 next last
To: Marathoner

Sent back to be dealt with... It is an archaic legal term.


201 posted on 06/26/2013 7:32:16 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: musicman

Prop 8: (I voted on this one)

Vacated - trial court decision stands.

Another 5-4

JMJ


202 posted on 06/26/2013 7:32:24 AM PDT by onyx (Please Support Free Republic - Donate Monthly! If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, Let Me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Romans 1

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.


203 posted on 06/26/2013 7:32:41 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

May God forgive us. I oppose same-sex marriage.


204 posted on 06/26/2013 7:33:33 AM PDT by FredHammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dbehsman

“You’re the satanic Libertarian, so you tell me. Why would you object to bestiality?”

Does it make you feel like you’re winning when you call someone satanic? lol.

Anyway, to answer your question: A beast cannot make that decision, so it would be force would it not? But force is what you are championing, so maybe it is you who wants to legalize bestiality now you mention it?


205 posted on 06/26/2013 7:33:43 AM PDT by Outraged At FLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Perdogg, you maybe right, but you do realize now that gays married in states that recognize their marriage will sue in Federal court in states that don’t...and it seems to me that these same 5 justices will then deem those laws in states like texas to be unconstitutional. no?


206 posted on 06/26/2013 7:34:00 AM PDT by JerseyRepub (I voted for John Kerry before I voted against him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Our nation is doomed.


207 posted on 06/26/2013 7:34:10 AM PDT by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio; The Sons of Liberty
Like The Sons of Liberty posted on another thread:

"Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect
that God is just,
that his justice cannot sleep forever."


208 posted on 06/26/2013 7:34:34 AM PDT by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Thanks.

So currently Prop 8 still stands?

209 posted on 06/26/2013 7:34:48 AM PDT by Marathoner (Sarah Palin is our Esther, for such a time as this)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: mware

You’re right.
It’s forsaken God.


210 posted on 06/26/2013 7:35:08 AM PDT by onyx (Please Support Free Republic - Donate Monthly! If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, Let Me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Marathoner

Yes.


211 posted on 06/26/2013 7:35:12 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sen Ted Cruz, Sen Mike Lee, and Sen Rand Paul are my adoptive Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Outraged At FLA

You are truly ignorant of this subject.


212 posted on 06/26/2013 7:36:06 AM PDT by OafOfOffice (W.C:Socialism:Philosophy of failure,creed of ignorance,gospel of envy,the equal sharing of misery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
LOL, your argument in favor of gay marriage is one for the Christian faith and God? I don’t think so.

Look, I'm not arguing for homosexual marriage — I am arguing that giving more power to the Feral Government is a mistake because it will be abused, get that through you skull.

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.

No, I'm arguing that any 'laws' on the subject will either (A) be ignored [as the case with the photographer shows], or (B) be twisted to support the judge's political position — that is why I'd much rather see this handles as civil cases rather than criminal. But you, and folk like you, wish to make everything into a law — Obamacare is a result of that mentality.

Why should I go down a road like that when I find the worship of the State as god to be repugnant?
Go worship at your tin god's feet, I'm sure he'll have laws that allow you to prostrate before his ever-benevolent gaze. [/sarc]

213 posted on 06/26/2013 7:36:27 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: OafOfOffice

“You are truly ignorant of this subject.”

Thanks, I guess you are the authority on ignorance.


214 posted on 06/26/2013 7:36:36 AM PDT by Outraged At FLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: JerseyRepub

exactly ... the Full Faith and Credit clause now moves front and center as the next battleground. The cases have probably already been prepped.


215 posted on 06/26/2013 7:37:19 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Unindicted Co-conspirators: The Mainstream Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Outraged At FLA

A beast does not condone being slaughtered and used for food. Why should a beasts consent be necessary for sexual acts?

This is the argument that will be used by perverts and pervert defenders (like yourself) in the future.

By the way, I’m glad to hear that you like the word satanic being used in conjunction with Libertarian.


216 posted on 06/26/2013 7:37:47 AM PDT by dbehsman (NRA Life Member, and loving every minute of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ..

LL please correct me if I am wrong:

Prop 8 is struck down by the decision of the U.S. District Court even though the CA Supreme Court upheld DOMA. This is because the State of CA was still defending Prop 8 when it was appealed to the U.S. District Court (Judge Walker.) SCOTUS ruled that when CA refused to further defend Prop 8 and the petitioners appealed to the 9th Circuit on behalf of the voters of CA, they did not have standing to do so. So Judge Walker’s decision overturning Prop 8 stands. Same-sex marriage is legal in CA.


217 posted on 06/26/2013 7:38:25 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Marathoner

Prop 8 is removed... the ‘unconstitutional’ ruling by the lower court stands because the plaintiffs lacked standing.


218 posted on 06/26/2013 7:39:09 AM PDT by alancarp (Obama will grab your guns and ship them to Mexican drug mobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

This cannot be correct. They remanded the 9th decision. The lower court already found Prop 8th unconstitutional. So gay marriages in CA are now legal.


219 posted on 06/26/2013 7:39:50 AM PDT by JerseyRepub (I voted for John Kerry before I voted against him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
We don't need nor want some big lunk-headed federal government deciding our issues for us or else we're not free at all but under a totalitarian regime.

We are under a totalitarian regime.

When the voters of a state have their will overturned by their state supreme court, there is no freedom.

When the laws are bent and twisted, or ignored as they have been by other state supreme courts, there is no freedom.

And the supreme court of the us has become less than the dirt under the boots of the thugs they work for.
220 posted on 06/26/2013 7:39:58 AM PDT by novemberslady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 441-459 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson