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.
Dream on.
That’s fine, there’s a lot of things we take from state to state and the Constitution ensures full faith and credit between the states. Not sure I see an issue here.
<....”I am also against government interfering with people’s private lives when they are not interfering with another’s freedom”.....>
Then they need to keep it private....
the homosexual agenda is NOT to keep it private...but to force recognition of their sexual preferences on society...in our schools, churches and homes.
This has never been a private matter for them...it’s a push straight from the pits of hell!
I’m just showing the jerks a mirror. That’s all. They won’t listen to reason, they refuse to listen to logic, and they reject God.
I cannot help it, but I have absolutely given up on them.
People like this, serve as a reminder of why hell exists.
Why do I owe people like Outraged any respect? People like Outraged and other like minded Libertarians only exist to stab us in the back.
I’ve said it for years, and I will continue to say it. Homosexuals are not necessarily the enemy. The vast majority of them are victims of abuse, and while it does not absolve them of responsibility for their actions, it does call for our support and spiritual assistance.
The people who I despise are their enablers. Those who condone and/or praise homosexuality are beneath contempt.
I can’t make any sense out your strange posts, for one thing they are irrelevant and about fantasies and personal theories and often contradict themselves from the beginning to the end.
Today, in the real world, in politics and in voting, your activism is against marriage.
Going to the federal government is like drinking Kool-Aid laced with strychnine.
I absolutely DO NOT support gay marriage. Traditional marriage is the foundation of society. I am currently writing an editorial on the writings of Will & Ariel Durant about marriage. What I support is free will. I cannot force homosexuals to love the Lord God and follow his law. I can only show them the error of their ways and pray that they repent.
As I said in a later post, I regret defending that person who belittles Christianity. I thought he believed in free will. He clearly doesn’t.
There has never been a time when the American government did not have to have a working definition of marriage.
If gay marriage and polygamy become legal, then the feds will be forced to recognize them.
I totally understand. I thought he supported free will. He doesn’t. I regret defending him. Please accept my sincere apology for publicly calling you out.
I saw that parade....in some respects wish I hadn’t...but truth sometimes is difficult to actually see as it really is....it was a sexual free for all among gays, the immoral and depraved of society.
It IS about legalizing sexual acts....just as abortion isn’t about a womans right, it’s about having the freedom to engage in a sexual act (which is their right to choose or not) but then to dispose of the natural result from that act....which is a child. It’s the right to murder the unborn...which is insanity!
I think you are merely not trying to understand what someone else is saying; is it because I disagree with you?
Today, in the real world, in politics and in voting, your activism is against marriage.
Really? Did you even look at those links? How do you know how I voted?
Moreover, how is my actual activism, which is constitutionalist in nature, against marriage
? [But then you'd know that if you'd bothered to read the info at those links.]
Also, the state law wasn't struck down if I understand the ruling. The supporters of a proposition still have standing in CA courts and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Prop. 8 correct?
Won't this just end up at the CA SC again, eventually?
As to your second point you're essentially calling for democracy, but just in a court of law. Democracy is bad and in and of itself unConstitutional.
No sweat. I saw your subsequent post and laughed. That was so eloquent.
On the lack of standing decision, effectively allowing the Ninth Circuit decision to stand, which overturned California’s Proposition 8:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf
HOLLINGSWORTH ET AL. v. PERRY ET AL.
On the overturn of the federal DOMA Defense of Marriage Act, via the case of a female couple in New York state, legally married under New York law.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf
UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF SPYER, ET AL.
Again, not to be too repetitive, but marriage is outside the legitimate constitutional scope of the federal government. Nevertheless, the fed tax code, etc., deals with it. Another reason to nuke the crazy tax code and go to a simple flat tax. Otherwise government finds all kinds of excuses for intruding into your life where it doesn’t belong.
It is not democracy per se for a person whose rights have been violated to bring a court case either collectively or individually.
The court has the power to reject cases if the matter has already been heard or to combine similar cases.
Don’t know what the state defense law is.
IIRC in 187 it was the state supreme decision which the government would not defend. So it got to the state supreme court somehow.
I blame the Democrats. They and their followers are the demonic force behind all this.
Scalia didn’t vote against DOMA. He and Roberts believed that there was no jurisdiction in DOMA. The DOMA decision was 5-4 along ideological lines with Kennedy giving the liberals a majority.
Where Scalia and Thomas disagreed was on Prop 8, which was also a 5-4 decision but certainly not along ideological lines. That one was Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan in the majority and Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor in the minority. Very strange bedfellows, IMHO. It’s been like that a few times recently.
<.....” We are actually watching a victory for state’s rights and the undoing of Roe.”.....>
How so? I understand that the Supremes appear to be giving the states right...but how does this affect Roe?....could you enlarge on that please?
Thank you.
You are fighting on the side of the creation of homosexual marriage in American law and doing it in the name of “free will” and God?
You want to march into Sodom and Gomorrah and tell them that you will pray for them to see the error of their ways and for them to repent, but in the meantime, you want to issue them the right to “marry” so that they can have a new area to practice “free will”?
Are you a little insane?
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.