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 ...
Exactly my point.
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!
No way would you get 2/3 of the House and Senate.
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.
>>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.
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.
ps, the 26th amendment regarding voting age was passed under five months.
Proposed submitted on March 23, 1971
passed July 1, 1971
Sure, but that was FAR less controversial than this mess will bring.
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.
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.
You think there are 67 Senators who would vote for this?
I tell you there are not 15.
“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.
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)?
Statement by Slick Willie Clinton when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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
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.