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

Skip to comments.

Argument recap: DOMA is in trouble
SCOTUSBlog ^ | March 27, 2013 | Lyle Denniston

Posted on 03/27/2013 10:31:59 AM PDT by C19fan

If the Supreme Court can find its way through a dense procedural thicket, and confront the constitutionality of the federal law that defined marriage as limited to a man and a woman, that law may be gone, after a seventeen-year existence. That was the overriding impression after just under two hours of argument Wednesday on the fate of the Defense of Marriage Act.

(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: doma; gay; homosexualagenda; marriage; scotus; scotusmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last
To: txhurl

Exactly my point.


21 posted on 03/27/2013 11:05:07 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

IMO, the issue of “gay marriage” should be left to the states. It’s NOT a federal issue and the bloated government of zero needs to get the heck out of it altogether.

Based on previous predictions of how the court would rule after oral arguments, we won’t know anything until CJ Roberts declares that Congress can allow anyone to get married as long as they are taxed accordingly!


22 posted on 03/27/2013 11:06:41 AM PDT by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for anti-American criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
with a will, it would take less than six months and NOT require der leaders signature.

No way would you get 2/3 of the House and Senate.

23 posted on 03/27/2013 11:07:38 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

24 posted on 03/27/2013 11:11:41 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

Justice Ginsburg might go for that option, She’s often expressed concern that Roe was badly decided and created more problems than it solved while agreeing personally with the outcome.


25 posted on 03/27/2013 11:12:49 AM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: henkster

>>I think the best case is ruling DOMA unconstitutional, and clearly stating that the Federal Government has no business defining marriage at all. Leave the matter to the states.

I think that this is the correct result as well, and it will piss off the gaysters.

There is always the surprise that the court may rule Stare Decisis over previous 19th century definitions of marriage as woman and man only (in reaction to Mormon polygamy), but very doubtful.


26 posted on 03/27/2013 11:13:31 AM PDT by struggle (http://killthegovernment.wordpress.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

I’m looking at this from a different angle...

Homosexuals have no right to be sheltered from the kind of screwing that I and millions of others have suffered from the “family courts.”

Seriously, you want to punish these people...? Demand they be exposed to the divorce industry. Alimony, community property, custody fights, child support, ruined credit rating...let them have it if they want it so damned bad. Trust me, it won’t be doing them any favors.


27 posted on 03/27/2013 11:18:20 AM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

ps, the 26th amendment regarding voting age was passed under five months.

Proposed submitted on March 23, 1971

passed July 1, 1971


28 posted on 03/27/2013 11:20:18 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Sure, but that was FAR less controversial than this mess will bring.


29 posted on 03/27/2013 11:21:51 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Gun control: Steady firm grip, target within sights, squeeze the trigger slowly...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

the 26th amendment regarding voting age was passed under five months.

Proposed submitted on March 23, 1971

passed July 1, 1971

It also has a Article V convention which could be called for the specific purpose. 2/3 of the states would pass it. and 2/3 present would have to approve it.

It was called once to approve an amendment in 1933.

The real issue is the homosexual staffers in DC and mccain country clubbers want to be off screwing their staffers and mistresses and whatnots.


30 posted on 03/27/2013 11:23:46 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
Alimony, community property, custody fights, child support, ruined credit rating...let them have it if they want it so damned bad. Trust me, it won’t be doing them any favors.

Ah... the "be careful what you wish for... you may just get it" argument. Actually, you may have something there... when homo divorces start, watch the lawyers try to turn the whole thing on its head, arguing the "marriages" weren't valid in the first place.

31 posted on 03/27/2013 11:24:52 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Gun control: Steady firm grip, target within sights, squeeze the trigger slowly...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

You think there are 67 Senators who would vote for this?

I tell you there are not 15.


32 posted on 03/27/2013 11:27:06 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
Exactly. Roberts can just resurrect his one-liner from his vomit-inducing decision last year ....

“It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices” . This is BJ Clinton's law and it stands until Congress passes a law to change it.

33 posted on 03/27/2013 11:27:09 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

The conundrum for the divorce court judge in a lesbian divorce would be deciding who is butch enough to be considered the male (i.e., the one who is automatically designated as the second class citizen)?


34 posted on 03/27/2013 11:31:03 AM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".

Statement by Slick Willie Clinton when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

35 posted on 03/27/2013 11:33:11 AM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation Continues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

you need 2/3 vote of the states that have already passed it. Only 6 states (8?) allow some kind of homosexualfetish “marriage”.

How many busnesses have died on the altar of pro-homosexual causes?

jc penny?
how many actors/actresses?
anne hech? (may not count since she switched teams back to men)

it is the abnormal that is controversial.


36 posted on 03/27/2013 11:33:18 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Only 6 states (8?) allow some kind of homosexualfetish “marriage”.

Nine so far (plus D.C.), with currently pending legislation in 3 more. Plus quite a few more states permitting gay "civil unions." So no, I don't see you getting the required 38 states to ratify a constitutional amendment.

37 posted on 03/27/2013 11:43:20 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
IMO, the issue of “gay marriage” should be left to the states. It’s NOT a federal issue and the bloated government of zero needs to get the heck out of it altogether.

So how does the federal government handle the case of allocating benefits for SS and Medicare including spousal and survivor benefits? Or federal pension benefits? Or joint tax returns?

I can see this opening up widespread fraud. There is a lot of money involved in all of this.

Government does have a role to play in defining marriage. We already have laws on what age you should be, polygamy, incest, etc. So where do you draw the line on how much government should "get the heck out of marriage altogether? When a 50 year old man marries a 9 year old boy? Or three people get married? How do we revise our tax and divorce laws to reflect no government involvement?

38 posted on 03/27/2013 11:50:17 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
The Justices should ask the gay marriage proponents to describe how their 'marriage' is consummated.

"Within the Roman Catholic Church, a marriage that has not yet been consummated, regardless of the reason for non-consummation, can be dissolved by the Pope. Additionally, an inability or an intentional refusal to consummate the marriage is probable grounds for an annulment. Catholic canon law defines a marriage as consummated when the "spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh." Thus some theologians, such as Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., state that intercourse with contraception does not consummate a marriage." [Wikipedia]

Perhaps those of other religions could state their standards.

39 posted on 03/27/2013 11:55:38 AM PDT by ex-snook (God is Love)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

The problem is there are some states that only passed their amendments in the 50-60% ranges 5-10 years ago. If the guys in black robes don’t cut out the middlemen, we are going to start seeing amendments being repaled by popular vote, in my opinion. CA and SD both passes theirs by 52%, CA in 2008 and SD in 2006, they are probably repealable by poular vote now. On the other hand, you have WVa that could probably pass one easily but hasn’t yet.

Freegards


40 posted on 03/27/2013 11:57:19 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last

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.

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