Posted on 06/25/2013 9:54:04 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
At 10:00 AM Wednesday, the Supreme Court will deliver its final decisions of this term. We can expect decisions on both same-sex marriage cases.
California Proposition 8: Hollingsworth v. Perry
In November 2008, 52.3 percent of California voters approved Proposition 8, which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In May 2009, a California District Court ruled that Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and temporarily prohibited its enforcement, and the Ninth Circuit agreed, affirming the District Court’s ruling. The United States Supreme Court will now consider whether a state can define marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman, in addition to considering whether the proponents of Proposition 8 have standing to bring suit in federal court. The Court’s ruling will implicate the rights of gay men and lesbians, the role of the government in structuring family and society, and the relationship between the institution of marriage and religion and morality.
Defense of Marriage Act: United States v. Windsor
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer married in Toronto in 2007 where same-sex marriages were legal. At the time of Spyer’s death, the state of New York recognized the couple’s marriage. However, the IRS denied Windsor use of a spousal estate tax exception on the ground that, under the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), the federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages for the purpose of federal benefits. The Supreme Court is now being asked to decide DOMA’s Constitutionality. The Obama Administration is not defending DOMA, so a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (“BLAG”) from the House of Representatives is doing so, arguing that DOMA is rationally related to the legitimate government objective of providing a uniform definition of marriage for federal benefits purposes. The Obama administration counters that the use of sexual orientation to decide who gets benefits is a suspect classification that deserves higher scrutiny. Under that level of higher scrutiny, the Obama administration argues that DOMA is impermissible. This case can affect what role the federal government can play in defining marriage and who in the federal government can defend the government’s laws. Not only could this case provide large tax savings to Ms. Windsor herself, but it can also make federal benefits available to other same-sex couples who are legally married under the laws of their state.
DOMA should have been struck down, it is a stupid law anyway. No laws should be passed concerning marriage; not in a free society anyway.
Alright, well what about me? I’m gay but I like vaccuum cleaners sexually and I want to marry a llama. What about me? Where’s MY equal protection?
Interesting clue here, possibly pertaining to Prop 8: “Amy Howe:
It relies in part on federalism principles.”
Sounds to me like they’re removing the restrictions placed on states....
Agreed, it was a bad law.
Correct, I think most expected DOMA to be unconstitutional. This give me hope that the justices with leave marriages to the states.
It’s in the vacuum cleaner’s warranty. As for the llama, watch the teeth.
I've searched the Constitution diligently, and nowhere do I find judicial power to "repeal" or veto laws.
There you have it. Sodomy is a-ok...in fact, should (and must) be celebrated, so says the Almighty Federal Government.
Marriage doesn’t belong to states either.. How about we not regulate what free adult people do with each other?
Yeah, but Equal Protection will become a grand mess.
So what are you going to say when two brothers want to get married? Or a father and his adult son? Are you in favor of that being legal too?
For crying out loud.
DOMA is struck down.
Kennedy wrote the decision.
The Voting Rights Act was largely “repealed” via judicial action this week. I didn’t see anyone on this site complaining.
I’m encouraged re: Prop 8 by this...
“Amy Howe:
Bottom of 25-26: The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others.”
The court said if “deemed legal by a State”.
“So what are you going to say when two brothers want to get married? Or a father and his adult son? Are you in favor of that being legal too?”
Who cares what I am in favor of? Personally I am not in favor of it, but who am I to tell other adults what they define marriage as? I believe in freedom. Now if they try to force me to accept that as marriage, then they are then just as wrong.
In which case the radical left wins.
Marriage is what marriage is. Our laws can either conform to that reality, or we can legislate, and adjudicate, and execute, our own destruction.
What restrictions?
Or we can leave marriage to people and not laws..
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.