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.
Hmmm. I distinctly remember seeing the Bible described in those words by someone at the now nearly-defunct and deserted True Blue site.
5.56mm
No, the 9th Circuit’s decision was overturned and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of standing. The decision that stands is Judge Walker’s from the U.S. District Court, which is the court immediately below the 9th Circuit.
The feds have been defining marriage for themselves since at least 1780.
I thought the purpose of the Constitution was to reign in any infringements of the federal government. I’ve never heard your interpretation before.
No, your posts really don’t make sense, you clearly don’t support protecting marriage, I get that part, and I recognize that gay marriage and polygamy will happen as long as there is enough momentum on your side.
If, as appears to be the case, the SCOTUS is saying that SSM is a state issue and not a federal one, then abortion is also a state issue and not a federal one. Roe ruled abortion a right, but abortion is a state regulated activity.
Under this reasoning couldn’t a state restrict abortion?
I’m still waiting a better analysis of this decision. For instance, it isn’t clear to me that the litigants standing issue is occuring only at the federal or the state level. CA has a law permitting proponents leading a proposition to defend it in court.
Did this ruling undo that law in CA or not? That’s my question.
(Gee, we took the leash off the fox yesterday and it left the hen house alone. Wonder why it ravaged the hens today? Answer: the fox was being a fox. Same with unleashed government.)
I do NOT believe there is a right to gay marriage ... in Sodom and Gomorrah or elsewhere. You are twisting my words. Please stop.
What I believe is that God gave individuals the free will to make their own choices. I don’t have to agree with or support those choices because I ALSO have free will.
Homosexuality is an abomination to God. Nevertheless, homosexuals are free to choose it.
They are energized now to take the rest of the states down this road."
You're exactly right. It's already begun:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3035869/posts
5.56mm
We always lose by bad USSC decisions from Republican-appointed Justices. (Roberts- Bush, Souter- Bush41, Kennedy- Reagan).
No, it did not. See post 217 for the explanation. Standing was denied at the federal level.
“Nobody has yet forced a Catholic Church to marry divorcees. And that’s far more commonplace.”
Civil divorce and remarriage wasn’t framed as a civil right. ‘Gay marriage’ is. I don’t think it is beyond the pale today, in my opinion. And it would be punishing them for not doing it, not forcing them to, because they wouldn’t no matter what the state said about it.
In any case, what about renting halls to gay couples who declare themselves married? Or businesses who don’t buy into whatever impossibility the state is calling marriage at the time? I mean I think that’s what this is all about, punishing those who they know aren’t going to buy into it.
Freegards
Yes and they are doing so. Late last night Texas passed a law restricting abortion to less than 20 weeks of pregnancy. The bill included restrictions on who can perform abortions and where. Those restrictions will close 37 out of 42 abortion clinics in Texas.
That would be Ronald Reagan.
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.