Posted on 06/26/2013 7:12:46 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty
Edited on 06/26/2013 7:25:51 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Headline only
Text of decision here.
And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
[Romans 1:28-32]
Turning America over to the reprobate minds. Pray for the Lord’s mercy on His people.
“Spousal visas aren’t my problem.”
“Am I my brother’s keeper?”
Actually the pro-pedophilia crowd are gathering their lawyers as we speak. Think Gohmerica would never go for that? Give hollywood 10 or 20 years...think again.
Yep, and imagine that - King O telling the Catholic church *submit* or be crushed.
States still get to decide what constitutes a marriage, and a queer “marriage” in California will not be recognized in states that do not allow queer “marriage”. This is not a great victory for the sodomites. Something else might come out today. Maybe there is more to the decision, but so far states states decide who can get married, not Washington, DC.
Face it. Marriage was lost when government was allowed in.
Then get rid of the benefits.
Natl sales tax or flat tax. NO IRS.
Yes but California decided they didnt want gay marriage and a court over turned it and SCOTUS allowed that court decision to stand, and to me that isn’t the people of the state getting to decide.
Well, as much as I oppose the notion of same sex “marriage,” I have to agree that the Court probably made the correct decision re: DOMA; after all the people of the State of New York approved this change in the law. And, the Court went to great pains to recognize the obvious: the States have always had virtually unlimited control over the definition of marriage (I say virtually because States may not violate the Constitution or incorporated Amendments thereto in defining marriage, e.g., the federal ruling that States may not prohibit Blacks and Whites from marrying one another). Otherwise, the rules are, and always have been, up to the States to determine.
That is the good part of the “gay marriage” decision today; it recognizes States’ rights in this domain.
I am confused, however, about the decision to avoid ruling on Prop 8 on the basis that citizens of California lacked standing to bring the appeal. I may be mistaken, but I thought it was, in the first instance, a federal court that struck down that portion of California’s amendment to its Constitution, which, as with New York, was voted on by the people. Under the rationale of the DOMA decision, how can the Supreme Court permit a FEDERAL judge to rule on an issue not within federal discretion? I need to find a copy of the decision.
As to homosexuals who are legally married in one State moving to another State that does not recognize such a relationship and retaining their status, that is a good question. Generally, States grant comity between and among the fifty States. However, it is also well-established that States do not have to grant comity if the other State’s law is violative of the other States’ public policy. Where would that leave us? I suppose the “gay” couple could receive federal, but not State benefits. Any ideas?
Don’t forget: Military housing, TriCare, retirement benefits for same sex spouses, SGLI, relocation allowance, etc.
None that I know of, but it would not be out of the realm of possibility.......
Can’t say as I’m disappointed that DOMA is partially struck down as it’s bad law...it’s a Federal interference in a state issue. The problem is that there are so many Federal benefits IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Now that doesn’t mean I support gay marriage (I don’t) or I can’t weep for my country’s descent into the abyss. But I’m not opposed to this being a state issue.
The Prop 8 ruling is also interesting. SCOTUS basically just allowed the lower court in CA to pee all over the state referendum process. Judicial tyranny at its dubious finest.
}:-)4
NEVER!”
Dittoes! To do so would be taking part in the Big Lie and deception satan has cast forth on this nation today. He is the 'father of lies' and this is his victory today.
Then why would Scalia be against state rights? IdK but when Thomas and Scalia are against something I don’t think it’s a win for our side.
That should be good for about a dozen F10 tornadoes, a coupla Katrinas, some 10.0 earthquakes, with a few tsunamis and a Yellowstone cauldron explosion!
“Face it. Marriage was lost when government was allowed in.”
Yes. A “license to mate”. Once you accept government control then don’t be surprised at what happens.
Marriage has a meaning that can not be altered, one man one woman. And you don’t need permission or a license.
DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others.
In my opinion, that is the heart of the ruling, and not that some particular state does it differently and is ignored.
Not is their marriage less worthy. Their marriage is NOT marriage.
This is a social engineering decision and not a states rights decision.
Scalia nails it:
However, even setting aside traditional moral disapproval of same-sex marriage (or indeed same-sex sex),there are many perfectly valid—indeed, downright boring—justifying rationales for this legislation. Their existence ought to be the end of this case. For they give the lie to the Court’s conclusion that only those with hateful hearts could have voted “aye” on this Act. And more importantly, they serve to make the contents of the legislators’ hearts quite irrelevant: “It is a familiar principle of constitutional law that this Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.” United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 383 (1968). Or at least it was a familiar principle. By holding to the contrary, the majority has declaredopen season on any law that (in the opinion of the law’s opponents and any panel of like-minded federal judges) can be characterized as mean-spirited. The majority concludes that the only motive for this Actwas the “bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.” Ante, at 20. Bear in mind that the object ofthis condemnation is not the legislature of some once-Confederate Southern state (familiar objects of the Court’s scorn, see, e.g., Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578 (1987)), but our respected coordinate branches, the Congress and Presidency of the United States. Laying such acharge against them should require the most extraordinary evidence, and I would have thought that every attempt would be made to indulge a more anodyne explanation for the statute. The majority does the opposite—affirmatively concealing from the reader the arguments that exist in justification. It makes only a passing mention of the “arguments put forward” by the Act’s defenders, and does not even trouble to paraphrase or describe them. See ante, at 21. I imagine that this is because it is harder to maintain the illusion of the Act’s supporters as unhinged members of a wild-eyed lynch mob whenlators’ hearts quite irrelevant: “It is a familiar principle ofconstitutional law that this Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an allegedillicit legislative motive.” United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 383 (1968). Or at least it was a familiar principle. By holding to the contrary, the majority has declaredopen season on any law that (in the opinion of the law’s opponents and any panel of like-minded federal judges) can be characterized as mean-spirited.
What is your brilliant plan with spousal visas?
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.