Posted on 06/27/2013 11:20:40 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Under the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages even in states that have legalized it. This week, the Supreme Court ruled DOMA unconstitutional.
There are two possible grounds, distinct and in some ways contradictory, for doing so. The curious thing about the court’s DOMA decision is that it contains both rationales.
The first is federalism. Marriage is the province of the states. Each state decides who is married and who is not. The federal government may not intrude. It must therefore recognize gay marriage where it has been legalized.
If that were the essence of the argument, the court’s 5-4 decision would have been constitutionally conservative, neither nationalizing nor delegitimizing gay marriage. It would allow the issue to evolve over time as the people decide state by state.
It would thus be the antithesis of Roe v. Wade. That judicial fiat swept away every state abortion law that did not conform to the court’s idea of what abortion law should be. Even many liberal supporters of abortion rights have admitted that Roe was an unfortunate way to change the law.....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Yes it is.
There are certainly a lot of powerful men who have accepted man on man as a marriage versus a civil union.
Disgusting though, my view. States rights should be respected not having a court overreach into making this behavior legitimate or to have this group validated. What is people like Charles and party going to do about those who do not accept this behavior as a legal marriage. He seems that he has the answer already.
Hmmm. Meteorite showers anyone? Hey, the tribulation seals and trumpets, judgments for particular abominations? I’ll have to check. It’ll take time, but God is Justice.
Obama, maybe the 2nd or third gay president but the first in our life time.
Homosexuals will always be sick creeps.
Nothing will ever change that.
America, RIP
1776-2008
One of the next line ups to destroy DOMA was to effectively challenge state laws that permit same sex unions who don't happen to call it marriage, and to force federal benefits for those unions as well. Since the cow already left the barn, might as well sweep up too, rather than simply attract flies.
That language effectively shields DOMA from further challenges down the road over the non-marriage unions. If the state generally considers them to be equal, so must the federal government do the same.
All in all though, there are a whole lot of tangles involved in all of this, so many of which would have remained untangled had Mitt Romney had the guts to actually stand up to the Massachusetts Supreme Court and say ‘Well, we'll have to see what the state supreme court says in 90 days; did it just conduct the world's largest divorce decision and wipe out all marriages in the state? I'll be sitting in my chair with a bucket of popcorn watching, as marriage means one thing in this state: the union of a man and a woman, and if the state no longer wishes to recognize that union, that's just fine.’
Alas, he's a government junkie who thinks that mandates are just fine, loves them. And thus homosexuals calling themselves married was born. To think, not long after, he's running for the Republican presidential nomination....
What is “gay marriage” without sodomy?
What about the Bush-Putin wedding. Putin’s getting divorced and George is getting giddy.
Almost sounds like the Confederate States of America.
A ring, and a man-made excuse to violate God.
The GOP traitors who supported gay marriage ...Cheneys...or said it was no big deal...Beck
Did more damage perception wise than the progressives could ever dream of
By invoking an Equal Protection argument, the majority has signaled that a State which denies gay "marriage" is denying a "right" to its citizens that are enjoyed by other citizens of the state. All homosexuals now need to do is bring suit in a state with a DOMA-like Constitutional Amendment or statue, and it will fall once challenged in Federal Court. The State's Rights arguments advanced by Kennedy were simply a means by which the liberals -- none of whom give one crap about State's Rights -- used to bring his vote into their camp.
Scalia saw this clearly, which is the reason for his savage deprecation of the majority's opinion.
Indeed
Our eroding faith in the institution killed it
of course there will be gold diggers....trying to get on their "husbands" or "wives" pensions, etc....but pensions can't be split infinitely..
“DOMA essentially no longer exists, so there is nothing to shield. What Krauthammer is correctly saying is because Kennedy also invoked equal protection, that all that has to happen is someone gets federal benefits in a homosexual marriage state, moves to one that does not have it, then sues under equal protection, forcing all states to recognize homosexual marriage.”
They did leave to door wide open for an equal protection case.
The path to an equal protection claim would be through the 9th Circuit.
The best strategy to prevent such a case moving from the 9th Circuit to the Supreme Court would be to have gay marriage in all the states within the 9th Circuit.
With such a fire wall petitioners would have to go to another court instead of the 9th Circuit which will make it much more difficult for them to win and take much longer to enact on a national basis.
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.