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.
PapaNew is either a libertarian or regular liberal. I have seen his comments over time. Anyone supporting the homosexual agenda is an enemy of the Constitution and all our rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and against natural law.
I am so disgusted and angered today.
CA actually has such a law. We need one at the federal level.
Amazing how some pass for so long with the mindset they have....I’m quite surprised I must say.
P.S. Am so glad we have freepers as yourself here Ansell...you take it to the root and then expose it.
As disappointing as the decision is, this aspect of it makes sense. The choice was that everybody in a state could have standing or that standing is narrow. They choose standing is narrow and overall it makes sense.
The second outcome is a limit on democracy and a victory for representative government. As BT said, “elections have consequences”.
I think this will be litigated again in state court and the outcome may be very different. That’s why the SSM lobby is working overtime in government schools and the media to groom the public.
A couple and a family, and an estate, have to be able to take their marriage with them as they move from state to state, and join the military, and work for the feds, and travel to, and live in foreign nations, and as foreigners immigrate to the United States.
Since they are saying fag marriage is a state issue, then the next step is for states to say (a,b,c and d) are also state issues and the fedgov can go jump off the cliff.
They want states’ rights? Let’s give them STATES RIGHTS!
It's NOT fixed by going to the lunk-headed federal government who will take away EVERY freedom you thought you had in a heartbeat.
sky pixie? I regret defending you. What happened to your support of free will. Don’t Christians have the right to worship their God?
That was not the choice. The choice presented to them is that the sponsors of the proposition have legal standing and they decided they don’t.
This happened in California before. The state officials refuse to support the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box.
We passed prop187 to restrict benefits for illegal aliens.
Gay Davis refused to defend it in court. That is the biggest contribution to the mess we have been in in Cal even before OB, the hero of benghazi came along.
Another issue. We have the right to an honest election do we not? If the answer is yes, then any citizen with a claim and evidence should have standing to proclaim that right has been violated or to put it more directly, the qualifications were not met by a candidate and that means the election was not legal.
Now they have to get a divorce when they split up. That should be fun to watch.
When the voters of a state have their will overturned by their state supreme court, there is no freedom.
Replace SSM with abortion and then see what you think. We are actually watching a victory for state's rights and the undoing of Roe.
The Supreme Court strikes down DOMA on the basis that it interferes with the state’s ability to define marriage. So my question is, can we take back abortion based on this reasoning? I think it is worth considering.
Before WWI [IIRC] they didn't.
One can argue these things all they want but it is pissing in the wind. Marriage status affects taxes and thus it IS a fed and state issue whether we like it or not.
That's a load.
A perfectly good taxation system could work completely independent of marriage: flat-tax rate, no exemptions, no withholding, no credit, no write-offs.
Or a national sales-tax (this is a bad idea though; imagine what would happen if it were a progressive system, tied to you personally... perhaps enforced/managed by a chip in the right hand or forehead).
What’s maddening is that CA has a law that says the people who are responsible for a ballot initiative, such as Prop 8, may defend it in court when the State refuses to do so. The people had standing in CA to defend it but not in federal court.
“The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.”
— George Washington, 1789
Amen!
Thanks Eternal V.
Correct and in politics only winning counts. Staying home, voting third party, etc. is simply acquiescing to the will of the majority of voters.
Again, my fight isn't against marriage.
You say that my arguments are fantasy or sci-fi world
, yet all you've done is assert that I am wrong, that I am fighting against marriage. Prove it.
Thwarting the ‘will of the people’ is a good thing and the purpose of the US Constitution.
Keep in mind that our current federal government doesn’t in anyway reflect the Constitutional mandate.
The problem with people like you is you is as long as the judicial activism or unconstitutional decision go your way, you're all for it. That sword cuts both ways and eventually will cut out every freedom and liberty you thought you had.
You fight for what you support, in this case you fight in the world of voting and politics to persuade people to support gay marriage in America.
Why not join us, rather than them?
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.