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.
the State in America has been overstepping its authority on the Church since dewey.
How shocking that only 5 years ago Prop 8 was passed in California. It would probably get under 40% of the vote today. It was like the last moral fiber in the state snapped after passage in 2008...
You may be right. It’s a logical prediction.
Amen and amen! There is but one Judge.
The supreme court is about as useful as a washboard in a muddy river full of sludge.
As the Church goes , so goes the Nation.
This is sad that it has come to this. Marriage is between a man and woman. We wouldn’t have the two sexes if it wasn’t. It should be that simple.
Ted Cruz is a Lawyer too.
Generally Lawyers are best at interpreting law.
It’s a damn shame most of them are crooks.
Being overrun by greedy lawyer-types in government is just another symptom. The root cause of our problems goes much deeper than that I believe.
It is that simple, but the libtards make it complex by re-defining words.
32 posts at one o’clock in the morning. Lord help us when the decisions come down in nine hours.
You may be right, but I predict that if that's the case, the issue will be back in front of California voters again very soon and will pass. It was close last time and polling shows support only growing.
I hate to be a one-trick pony with regard to my other posts, but that's exactly what lawyers are trained to do.
Get to bed!
No, you’re correct.
And, historically, who are the customers most responsible for enriching the legal profession, one might ask.
Might I suggest corporations on the one hand. And criminals -- in particular, drug cartels -- on the other.
Ima goin’
Redefining words is exactly how this progressed.
They are doing it now with guns.
I saw some article the other day that said we should ban “Military style magazines”.
WTF does that mean?
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.