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.
LOL, this is insane, we are having a political fight to allow, or to continue to forbid gay marriage and polygamy, and your argument is against the fight to preserve marriage, and for the gay marriage side.
Yet you want to pretend that you are doing it for some higher, religious reason. Gay marriage to save marriage.
You have a side, and it is the side fighting against conservatism and marriage.
Yeah, my best friend and I have talked about it, and I usually preface it with “when we are old men”...I’m 38 now (so I’m only an old man to my daughter).
The result was that Prop 8 was upheld, legally speaking by the CA Supreme Court.
Do what you want, but that has nothing to do with Christians and conservatives voting and legislating against your goal of gay marriage.
Jesus didn't tell me that in democratic America to lend my political activism and voting to fighting for gay marriage in the political arena, evidently you want to claim that, that is what he is telling you.
No, my argument — if you had the respect to actually listen — is that this should not be a political/legal fight at all.
Yet you want to pretend that you are doing it for some higher, religious reason. Gay marriage to save marriage.
No, I haven't put any pretense up: I flatly stated that I don't believe this should be a matter of the State, in general*, much less the Federal government.
* I do admit that the 9th and 10th Amendments allow the States to make this a legal issue, though I do not believe that would be a wise course of action at this point; moreover, such definition should be illegitimate on the federal front (and should be instead the people's via jury): there's a reason that the 7th Amendment exists.
You have a side, and it is the side fighting against conservatism and marriage.
I didn't say I wasn't taking a side; but you very much mistakenly confuse my refusal to join your side (which is legalism, which even Jesus observed can be abused**) as being against marriage.
** Matt 15:1-9
Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.”
He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:
“‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”
Those were Paul’s words not mine.
Are you being intentionally obtuse? I have stated very clearly and without equivocation that I am against same-sex marriage. I do not advocate or vote for it in word or deed.
I did not imply, intimate, stipulate, or claim - in any shape, form, or fashion - that Jesus suggested any such thing.
It’s pointless to engage in any further discussion with him because he refuses to acknowledge what has been very clearly stated by both of us. I’m done.
I’ll tell what I see.
I see you guys posting over and over “I don’t support gay marriage” BUT! blah, blah blah, Jesus, blah blah God, blah blah, free will, blah blah, liberty, blah blah, so in conclusion freerepublic and Christians and conservatives, end all this opposition to gay marriage and allow it to become the law of the land.
To quote Ted Kennedy, “I am personally opposed to abortion, BUT”.
On that one specific point. They didn’t declare 8 to be constitutional in itself, they ruled on a single technical issue. They never got to the heart of the matter.
And that you can marry your Dad. Or Granddad. Or Son.
In 2010 there was “funny business” in the AG election in CA. The Republican barely lost, and that made the difference in this case.
No, it has everything to do with it.
Do you think homosexual marriage
would be anything other than the punchline to a bad joke if the people that called themselves Christian acted like marriage meant something? Do you think that if churches were bold in standing up for moral value-judgements, instead of cowing for the government's proclamations*?
Do you think homosexuality would even be an issue if people who claimed to be Christian loved them? I have met a total of one homosexual who wasn't intuitively obviously hurting, starving really, for love — and even then I'd bet that he was merely good at hiding it. And I don't mean this ooy-gooy buddy-Jesus
crap, or the warped all-love-is-sexual crap society has bought into but real, actual love:
James 1:27In this sense, aren't most homosexuals spiritual orphans? And didn't Jesus come to rescue captives from the chains of sin? — Seriously, this entire issue is an indictment against the Church's [lack of] activity in the community/society. Why? Because they bought into that lie that
Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
James 2:14-17
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
seperation of church and statemeant that the church needed to stay in its little cubical.
So; in conclusion: No, I do not believe that the solution is in the realm of government. I believe that it is in the realm of the church, though more specifically the individuals within the church, if churches would quit kowtowing to the government they might actually address them.
* I believe the stupid tax-exemption is nothing more than extortion by the government on churches.
I never said BUT, I clearly gave you where I stand: that this shouldn't be a legal-matter on the federal front — there are other ways to handle things [disputes] than make a law
— why else would the 7th Amendment mention values in controversy exceeding $20, and preserve jury trials thereunto?
So even your assertions that this ought to be a federal issue [because of tax, pensions, survivor benefits, etc] fall flat: the Constitution clearly provides for resolution of such controversies without the need to codify more law... and it does so by involving society (via juries) to judge the matter!
I agree.
I would think the state could restrict abortion as a result of this...but as you say it's not really clear... what's at a state level now and still federal law playing into the equation...or the fallout issues that will come from this.
I am still astounded how many major issues in our courts are directly associated with sexual intercourse....but they're masked as something else, even though they all have to do with the sexual act itself. From abortion to homosexuality and all the rest.....everything has a sexual component.
When government goes outside its legitimate bounds, I have no idea what they "should" do becasue you're asking, "How should the government do the wrong thing the right way?" (the quintessential question in federal agency administration law.)
I would think you would see the problem with this stuff in the feds hands or don't you think the constitution matters?
Stipulated.
The decision FORCES gay “marriage” upon America! It’s gonna be a Homo Hoedown in San Francisco tonight!
What the Bible actually says is that we’re not to judge a person’s heart or motives.
.....”But he that is spiritual judgeth ‘all’ things,...yet he himself is judged of no man. ......For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?... But we have the mind of Christ” (1Cor 2:15-16).
Christians have the authority to judge people’s words and actions....or how do you know if someone is a false teacher?
2 Timothy 3:16-17 Paul says:.... “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
“To judge” means “to make a distinction” or “to separate.” We judge every day, in every aspect of life...........If you don’t exercise righteous judgment, how will you know who or what to be a partner with?
What God wants is not for us to avoid judging, but instead to judge rightly.....Luke 7:40-43.
Christians have the authority to judge people’s words and actions....or how do you know if someone is a false teacher?
The only way you can detect a metaphorical “dog” or “pig” is to judge other people’s actions...
New Testament that exhort believers to judge other people (e.g., Matt. 7:15-16; John 7:24; 1 Cor. 5:9; 2 Cor. 11:13-15; Phil. 3:2; 1 John 4:1; 1 Thess. 5:21).
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.