Posted on 06/26/2013 7:41:40 AM PDT by Deo volente
The U.S. Supreme Court today paved the way for same-sex couples to marry soon in California, effectively leaving intact a lower-court ruling that struck down the state's voter-approved ban on gay marriage.
In a ruling that assures further legal battles, the high court found that backers of Proposition 8 did not have the legal right to defend the voter-approved gay marriage ban in place of the governor and attorney general, who have refused to press appeals of a federal judge's 2010 ruling finding the law unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court ruling, which found it had no legal authority to decide the merits of a challenge to Proposition 8, sends the case back to that original decision -- and the only question now is how quickly same-sex couples can marry and whether that ruling will have immediate statewide effect.
The 5-4 ruling was written by Chief Justice John Roberts.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
While the net effect of the opinion was aligned with anti-Prop 8 supporters, please keep in mind the bigger picture. Decision was essentially procedural, not really reaching the question of constitutionality of the substance of Prop 8. Scalia and Roberts may have seen the full court finding Prop 8 unconstitutional, which would have much far wider implications to all states. So they narrowed the victory to a battle by limiting the damage - procedurally no standing to defend Prop 8 so whatever the lower court decided stands. The war will go on, hopefully long enough for the wakeup call at the voters box to get defenders of traditional marriage in the positions to defend instead of ignore the voters decisions.
Why vote anymore? It doesn’t matter, doesn’t count, doesn’t do diddly.. thugs in black robes are free to toss voters totes to the curb, they answer to no one.
That’s correct. So I don’t think the gov’t has any business telling the majority of people that they have to reject what has been common to them for centuries, especially since it is against many’s religious beliefs. That leads to forcing schools to teach kids about things that shouls be left to the parents to teach.
Read Reynolds vs the United States. Your argument is incorrect. Marriage has been federal since there’s been a US. The definition of marriage as one man and one woman was never left up to the states and Reynolds argues this is why the federal government could ban polygamy.
Arguing that ‘it’s not federal’ has opened the door for gay marriage in all 50 states. Congratulations.
“Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void (2 Kent, Com. 79), and from the earliest history of England, polygamy has been treated as an offence against society.”
Reynolds vs the US.
Reynolds goes on to state:
“the legislature of that State substantially enacted the statute of James I., death penalty included, because, as recited in the preamble, “it hath been doubted whether bigamy or poligamy be punishable by the laws of this Commonwealth.” 12 Hening’s Stat. 691. From that day to this, we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity.”
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/98/145/case.html
Reynolds again:
“In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties with which government is necessarily required to deal.”
No what’s crystal clear is that you’ve been getting lots of benefits at my expense and now you’re mad because them homersexuals will be getting them, too. I don’t think either one of you should be getting those perks. You’re good with government graft just as long as people you don’t like getting it along with you. Welfare queens, all of you.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
A very dark day. Words cannot express the depth of my disgust and loathing for Roberts. I can only hope now for something (whatever it/they might be) that will bring this monstrous evil to an end.
If anyone wants on/off any of my pinglists, freepmail ME, not wagglebee; he hasn't been around for a while.
I know for sure Scalia’s position on this so I have to wonder if he voted to deny standing because Kennedy was ready to join the four lefties in declaring gay marriage a fundamental right.
Running interference seems like a plausible explanation.
But that would mean that one of the four lefties was uncomfortable with such a sweeping decision.
We will likely never know.
I don’t believe in polygamy as most people don’t. But taking it to court didn’t really accomplish anything in my opinion. Some of the FDLDS still do it. They even have a reality TV show! It is morally wrong in my opinion but I don’t think it should be punishable by the gov’t, leave it to God.
Go find the comment you think I made on this thread where I favor the government sanctioning, let alone expanding marriage. You can't because you're just making shit up. You welfare queens are just mad that the homosexuals are going to be nosing in on all the graft you've been getting at the expense of single people.
So I guess we’ll see you saying that Sharia is a-ok too.
How many abortions have you paid for, stud?
Just the one your old lady had, Skippy.
So you support abortion then? Not surprising.
Are you defending socialism?
No, I just support slapping around trolls.
I am confident beyond any doubt that Scalia would NEVER find gay marriage to be a Constitutional right.
It is possible that he was worried that Kennedy was ready to straight up affirm the 9th Circuit, so he found enough votes to derail an even worse outcome than we got.
It’s not like we would have necessarily had a better outcome if the court has decided the case on the merits.
Now, I do have a theory.
Captain Zero told Roberts and Kennedy “I expect a favorable outcome in zerocare and DOMA or else... I don’t care if you draw straws or flip a coin but you get me the votes!”
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.