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.
LOL.
Excellent.
I haven't read the opinion yet but I'd be astonished if they did not touch upon the fallout in the dissent. After all, DOMA was passed with the specific intent of curing the Equal Protection issue.
See 136 above.
“You have no moral backbone. Enjoy the fruits of your labors.”
Enjoy setting the example of how well it works pushing your definition of morality on everyone else. I believe that is what Obamacare is too..
My morality says it is immoral to use force. Yours apparently does not. Enjoy your moral depravity.
Marriage is a spiritual bond, but it is also a civil bond, one that provides the mortar that holds the foundations of civil society together, and provides the possibility of fulfilling the ultimate stated purpose of our Constitution: “To secure the Blessings of Liberty to our Posterity.”
The whole “leave it up to the states” or “keep government out of it” position is thoughtless and ignorant, to be perfectly frank about it. It just doesn’t comport with reality.
In a box of condoms.
;)
Morning Laz.
I think you are correct, as I understand it.
Can you show me George and Martha Washington’s marriage license please?
I can stand before God. You can stand before Satan. Enjoy the trip, you’ve earned it.
It sounds like all the court said was that in States that recognized gay marriage, those federal benefits must apply to those individuals. Apparently it did not say that other states were required to recognize the union.
I just messaged to Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog for an explanation.
CORRECT.
Thank you PD.
I just listened to Andrew Napalatano on Fox and he says essentially what you say.
The ONLY differences between married and single Americans are minor tax variations, a handful of probate rules, insurance regulations, and DNR decisions. Allow Americans the FREEDOM to choose who to put on their insurance, and allow insurers the FREEDOM to charge rates as appropriate by actuarial tables... tax us ALL the same, whether single or wedded... allow changes to DNR and probate defaults so that a lifetime loving partner can be chosen over a disapproving parent who hasn't talked to their child in decades... and the debate ENDS IN A DAY! But again, our government will never allow for more Freedom and slightly less control for themselves... so here we are.
This country will break up along red states/blue states.
“The whole “leave it up to the states” or “keep government out of it” position is thoughtless and ignorant, to be perfectly frank about it. It just doesn’t comport with reality.”
Really? So the government isn’t qualified to run Obamacare, the IRS, the DMV, etc., but it is okay for them to dictate how marriages work. Got it. I apologize for my ignorance.
Those who support homosexuals are against our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ.
You know, I made that same point to the Romney-pushers who said that he'd repeal Obamacare...
But then the IRS, NSA, and Fast & Furious all indicate that the Constitution is meaningless for one reason: there are no consequences for violating it.
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.