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.
You haven’t given me a straight answer. The reason why you haven’t, is because you have no answer. That’s why I called you a moral coward.
I agree. I would have thought that tinfoil hat talk a few years back, but I dont see any way around it now, unless the red states just crumble. But I dont think about 40% of the population is prepared to do that.
Not exactly. They ruled that the People of California (or a subset thereof) cannot jump in and act when their elected leaders choose not to act. California did not rise to the defense of Prop 8 when it was ruled unconstitutional so a group of people chose to file an appeal. SCOTUS said they didn't have the right (standing) to do so. Their solution would be at the ballot box. In other words, SCOTUS reaffirmed that elections have consequences.
It will be interesting to watch as your rage and buckets of insults and personal attacks grow as you pretend to not be passionately dedicated to fighting the conservative protection of marriage, already you are laying it on heavily.
You’re ignorant of the characteristics of marriage. Not only is it a spiritual union in the eyes of God, it is the fundamental contract that forms the first building blocks of human civilization, civil government, civil law, and economy.
Citing the mythical separation of church and state in this context is even sillier than the usual use of that myth.
“You haven’t given me a straight answer. The reason why you haven’t, is because you have no answer. That’s why I called you a moral coward.”
I have answered all of your questions. Name one I haven’t? You are the coward that is too afraid to let consenting adults live their lives the way they want to and not they way your little book written by sheep herders says to.
More...
Kevin Russell:
There will be much further discussion and analysis about how the decision in Perry affects other couples in California. For the time being, we will say this: the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal challenging a final order from the trial court. It would appear, then, that the order will go into effect. And it appears that this final order purports to prohibit the Attorney General and the Governor from enforcing Prop. 8.
There could well be new challenges to the scope of that order. But for the time being, the order appears to be in effect and to prevent enforcement of Proposition 8 statewide.
No, the SCOTUS held that when the State of CA refused to defend a law enacted by the voters that no one else had standing to appeal the U.S. District Court ruling that declared Prop 8 unconstitutional. If the State of CA would defend the law in court, we would likely have a different decision.
Next is Prop 8, voted in by the people constitutionally, struck down by judge unconstutionally.
Homos are the primo protected class, perversion and corruption (the voting system) are “the new normal”
The SCOTUS needs to all be sent copies of the constitution.
But it’s pretty hard to understand with a left leaning brain.
Yeah, that seems to me to be something that should be subject to Constitutional challenge; the notion that a state’s current administration can thwart the will of the people by not supporting the people’s decision. Sounds like a law needs to be drafted that specifically allows the authors of legislation to defend it in court if the State refuses to.
better yet, “By a 7-2 decision, SCOTUS announces that John McCain and Lindsey Graham may now formalize their relationship in a marriage ceremony.”
I am angry about what the Prop 8 decision does to our California sate initiative process. The people of the state voted for an issue and if the governor personally doesn’t like the issue or belongs to the party on the other side of the issue, all he has to do is refuse to defend it in court and his side wins.
Same thing happened to Prop 187, didn’t it?. If i recall correctly, by the time that went to court, a governor that was on the other side of the issue was in office. A court ruled against 187, the governor refused to appeal the issue and it stopped right there.
Why bother voting or even creating an initiative in this state if the issue is one with which the left disagrees?
That's exactly right. God created the first man and woman for each other and united them as one flesh. Man....and woman.
It will not be today or tommorow, but down the road. I see it happening in my lifetime.
“You’re ignorant of the characteristics of marriage. Not only is it a spiritual union in the eyes of God, it is the fundamental contract that forms the first building blocks of human civilization, civil government, civil law, and economy.
Citing the mythical separation of church and state in this context is even sillier than the usual use of that myth.”
Well let’s see, saying this decision is bad because of what some sky pixie will think is somehow the opposite of ignorance? Oh, that is rich. Keep your deities to yourself please. You are trying to EXERCISE your religion on everyone else, which is explicitly forbidden in the Constitution.
I have been married to my wife for quite some time. I think I understand marriage pretty well thank you.
States are creating homosexual marriage, conservatives must fight to protect marriage, period. Marriage is an absolute, not just another political difference between left/libertarians, and conservatives/traditional Americans.
I foresee ozone in your near future.
I don’t often post here so I had no idea you were the new troll.
That's pretty much what I'm getting out of it today, yeah. IMHO, if the SCOTUS wanted to truly say "states rights" issue here, they would have invalidated all federal court levels and remanded the issue to the highest STATE court that had reviewed the issue (if any).
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.