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 courts 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 courts 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 courts 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 ...
By the way, the very first, non-marriage related federal benefits, pensions, were enacted on August 26, 1776.
SS, Medicaid, Medicare, AFDC, PPACA, etc etc etc are not the same as military or other pensions.
I didn’t even know that some of those were federal employee benefits.
Government and corporate paternalism in all its forms is the problem. Suggest you re-read post 38.
You seem to be morphing your posts to me into something that I wasn’t responding to.
I just wanted to give you some history to go with your unfocused generalities and complaints.
It’s over your head.
Good bye
The 9th is the most leftist court and will be the easiest path for the activists.
LOL, no, you haven’t posted anything to go over someones head, just some general complaints.
I just wanted to give you some history to go with your unfocused generalities and complaints.
Principles are too abstract for you.
Fine but how does having all states heard in the 9th compel the Left to seek another court?
I can see how the history information hurt you personally and made you lash out in personal attack.
Do you realize that I haven’t disagreed with your posts, just corrected facts?
You posts imagining some sort of disagreement over politics, or principles in our exchange, is just made up out of thin air, your posts are not making sense because they aren’t referring to anything that is actually going on.
What a joke. “hurt”? “lash out”? Get real.
If you prevent them for going to the 9th, they would have to go to another Circuit Court, one that will be more conservative.
How are they prevented from going to the 9th? I am curious?
The impetus really all began with Lawrence v. Texas where sodomy was decriminalized, i.e. legitimized by another profligate Supreme Court. All else sprung from this decision, even seeping over our border to the north. Courts in Canada shortly after imposed this concoction, followed quickly by Massachusetts. Sodomites were emboldened beyond telling by now deeming their behavior not only "legitimate," but "equal in every way" to natural sexual relationships.
Scalia warned at the time (2003) that such a decision should be used to legitimize ANY lifestyle that someone deemed essential to their personal meaning of life. And it was.
How far off is pedophilia?
FReepmail me or Perdogg to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Seems pretty obvious. The question is whether any state has the guts to nullify what is certain to be a federal government push to prohibit state traditional marriage laws.
So you’re basically saying ‘resistance is futile ‘ yeah?
Spoken like a true troll for the Homo lobby.
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.