Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: commish

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?


170 posted on 06/26/2013 8:06:57 AM PDT by BIV (typical white person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]


To: BIV

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.


175 posted on 06/26/2013 8:09:33 AM PDT by snarkytart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies ]

To: BIV

The next law suit. Kennedy in his opinion used equal protection. The next lawsuit will recognize the right and force the states.


206 posted on 06/26/2013 8:25:14 AM PDT by chopperjc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies ]

To: BIV

NY sodomite “marriage” was not voted in by the people. It was strong-armed in by monkey-face Cuomo. He signed legislation making it law after the liberal NY legislature passed it. NY voters had nothing to do with it.


259 posted on 06/26/2013 9:33:36 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson