Posted on 06/26/2013 8:10:28 AM PDT by haffast
The United States Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Proposition 8 on Wednesday, in two significant wins for supporters of same-sex marriages.
Neither ruling established a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but they invalidated one federal law that defined marriage as only a union between a man and a woman, and a California referendum that barred same-sex marriages in that state.
Justice Anthony Kennedy said in a 5-4 decision in United States v. Windsor that the federal law known as DOMA deprived the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Constitution.
“DOMA’s principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of state-sanctioned marriages. It contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State,” said Kennedy.
“It also forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect,” he added.
In a dissenting decision on DOMA, the Court indicated that it would also strike down California’s Proposition 8 law, due to a lack of standing.
Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed that decision about 15 minutes later, saying in a 5-4 decision that the petitioners who sought the reaffirm California’s Proposition 8 didn’t have the legal ability to appeal a lower court decision. Justice Antonin Scalia joined Roberts in the majority.
snip
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Constitution.”
No one even reads it anymore apparently.
Utah was, at the time, a territory. It entered the Union as a state on condition of recognizing only monogamy (presumed at the time to be heterosexual). But, being a state, it has a Constitutional right to do whatever it now chooses, subject to the restrictions only to the restrictions on states imposed by the Constitution.
ok-so now they have embedded themselves in every aspect of our once great American society- schools, scouts, military, marriage, raising children etc....will they please just GO AWAY???
I am sooooo sick and tired of them and their “what about me” crap; they are NOT special people just because they like to screw their own sex. Having a different (and perverse according to nature) kind of sex only makes you weird not brave...
“get government out of marriage altogether”
Exactly!!
[[Then, can we apologize to Utah for being so bigoted in making them invalidate plural marriages to be admitted as a state, Justice Kennedy? How about now? Why only couples?]]
and we can apologizxe to all thsoe folks who wanted to marry their farm animals, marry their brothers, theiur sisters, their mothers, marry multiple wives or husbands, marry farm equptment, declared their cats as dependants, on and on it goes-
When did marriage becoem a ‘right’? when did it becoem a person’s ‘liberty’ to marry? IF marriage is nothign more than a ‘liberty’ granted to everyone, then peopel can mRRY whomever or whatever they damn well please accordign to the idiots on the supreme court who don’t have backbone enough to Admit that marriage is NOT a fundamental right, and that it is a financial issue meant for couopels to produce and rasie healthy individuals to becoem the next generation s of taxpayers
As expected, this case represented the ultimate temptation for the justices: their hubris led them to believe they could redefine one of the building blocks of civilization as set forth and nurtured by God, nature, and (in distant last place) man.
It’s revealing, but not surprising, that the tiresome militant left gay boilerplate found its way verbatim into the justices’ opinion(s). The fix has been in since intellectual lightweight and sock puppet Kagan was appointed. She may as well confirm the blindingly obvious now: she is a lesbian and as such should have recused herself long ago.
The entitlement mentality continues to run amok; gays had nothing to do with the tradition of weddings, marriage and the resulting family stability that provided the safe and productive society in which all could obtain education and employment but, rather than express any form of respect or gratitude, they are happy to jump on the coattails and claim a share of that to which they never contributed.
The next time psychology moves the goalposts and declares pathology to now be healthy and vice versa it shouldn’t be ignored; sooner or later another outlier group with an axe to grind will arrive on the Court’s doorstep to demand their own handout.
I don’t think anyone on this forum is the least bit surprised by this ruling, given that two of the “justices” are lesbians and one may be a homosexual.
> No worries within a year the push for polygamy will be made
> publicly. IE Come out of the shadows.
It’s already out of the shadows, and the push for it is ON RIGHT NOW.
The push is actually for polyamory, which is marriage among several people of various genders, including “transgendered”.
In parallel to the above, they are coming for your children, too.
Legalization of paedophilia will be hard on the heels of this SCOTUS ruling.
Sex between anyone and any animate or inanimate object is likely to be considered grounds for “marriage”.
It’s over.
Supreme Court motto: "Constitution? What's that?"
But only for Muslim polygamists, it's their culture you know, you have no right to judge them. But does not apply to Mormons, because we all know their culture can be judged because they believe in....(wait for it)...Jesus.
Two are lesbians and 1 may be a homosexual?
Somebody help me with the math.
The left would never go for it, they need the state involved in order punish those who will never buy into whatever impossibility the state is calling marriage at the time. The only reason nobody was punished for not accepting civil divorce and remarriage was because it wasn’t framed as a civil right, as it was a saner time when it came up, in my opinion.
Freegards
I think the push for polygamy is already underway. Polygamy will be even easier to sell and move along quite quickly.
Then it may be animals.... my dog looks nervous, but I know he loves me. LOL
[[“the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Constitution.”]]
so perhaps peopel that love and want to marry their cars can sue the govenrment for havign deprived them of their ‘equal liberty of persons that is protected under the constitution’ and the federal govnerment now owes everyoen who wishes to marry mud puddles in their driveways an apology for havign violated the constitution all these years- and they owe nudists an apology for stepping on their ‘’equal liberty of persons that is protected under the constitution’, and rapists, and murderers and pedophiles, and necrophiliacs, and bestaility perverts, and so on and so forht
But of course they will argue “Oh no, you can’t just allow everyone to freely excersize their desires, soem thigns are agaisnt hte law” Hello- Homosexuality was agaisnt hte law too, and it was NEVER a right or liberty- Ever-
“...get government out of marriage altogether...”
Absolutely. Homosexual (psuedo) “marriage” belongs to Ceaser, and proper monogomous heterosexual marriage belongs to God; i.e., render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser’s and unto God what is God’s. Let the atheists pass whatever laws they want - the state’s anti- marriage laws are just a parallel parady of and therefore can’t actually defile the true sacrament of holy matrimony as God intends it.
They are saying people ae deprived of equal protection under the law as a result of DOMA.
The Court has been more than willing to react towards social issues in the past in a far less restrictive manner and in the face of widespread lack of public support, e.g. Roe versus Wade.
Once again, Scalia demonstrates he is a libertarian and a not a conservative and Robertgs demonstrated he is a liberal.
\
At least we got SOMETHING in the past from Scalia, but Roberts - like so much crap generated by the Bush II Administration, has been a TOTAL disappointment.
That's the one good thing. The rulings appear to be technical in nature.
It doesn't apply anymore. You haven't heard of affirmative action?
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.