"Get government out of marriage."
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 ...
"Get government out of marriage."
actually, I think individual income taxes are ipso facto immoral. They are essentially a tax on being a person. If we can't figure out a way to fund the operations of government that doesn't require a tax on breathing, then we ought to give freedom up as a bad idea. Frankly if gov't has to fund itself at the point of gun it's going to feel empowered to keep digging around for change in your pockets and other dark cavities...
Before the obamaCare ruling the adoption of his children was being investigated by the feds, after the ruling the investigation stopped.
I always wonder if they were implying the adoption was not legal, and could be revoked.
When a person caves to blackmail there is no end to the blackmail, it is a sad sad day.
They are ALL homosexual, but two are female and one is male. Lesbians don’t get a category of their own.
As long as our Gov is in the business why not remove the moral aspect. That is what Supreme Court has decided not only the DOMA but the civil rights act and the obamacare law.
> Two are lesbians and 1 may be a homosexual?
>
> Somebody help me with the math.
Lesbians and male homosexuals are generally counted separately, I believe.
Perhaps I should’ve used Sapphites and Sodomites.
A trailblazing ruling against common sense. We’re toast. Coming soon: affirmative action.
I think that’s my point.
Thanx.
Thought so... :) This DOMA defeat is just one more burden to add to the mess that is Zero. The states should be determining this not the Supreme Court. What's the point of voting anymore?
[[At which point the original plaintiffs could go back and sue again. And with no standing for anybody to defend the case, a default judgement would be entered. And that would continue for each person who sued, but it would only apply to each person who sued. So you would have the law, the law would be valid, but everybody who sued would get released from the law, until someone with standing decided to defend one of the cases.]]
Again- let’s see if I udnerstand htis right- it’s a bit onfusing to me-
Basically you’re sayign that the district court ruled agaisnt prop 8, the peopel wanted to appeal the case, but hte stater wouldn’t provide a defense and so the peopel couldn’t bring an appeal legally, but htey did brign an appeal, and then brought it to the supreem court despite the state not supplying someone to defend the state knowign that higher courts can’t hear cases where there is noone to defend one side?
Further, sicne hte state itnentionally didn’t provide a defense, they can’t now provuide one hwen the people bring a lawsuit agaisnt htem and therefore the state will lose BUT it will only lose in regards to those who bring the suit?
My question then woudl be, how can the people brign hte lawsuit IF the state refuses to provide defe4nse? And how can the state refuse to provide a defense and thsu escape beign ruled agaisnt by higher courts? IF a criminal refuses to show up to defend themselves, they are not exempt from rulings- Why woudl a court not be bound by the same ruels that apply to individuals?
Maybe I’m grossly misunderstandign what you’re trying to say- but soemthign just doesn’t soudn right to me regardign the issues you mentioned- not sayign you’re wrong, but sayign that if you’re right, then it seems the courts themselves are above the laws they require of everyoen else?
I am 66 and ready to check out on politics, but I am addicted and coming here feeds the addiction. But not ready to kick.
I think we are just becoming being a liberal paradise.
I think Shill will be the next president and in 11 years the court will be doing this all the time.
I always thought that the man looked haggard and worn as he gave the opinion that day. He looked like he had been through hell...and he probably had been.
But, there are some things, for the sake of the country, and liberty, and the future generations...even your own, not to mention for the sake of your eternal soul, that are worth standing up for, whatever the cost.
As it is, these rulings are just edging us further and further down a path that will ultimately lead to the patriotic, Constitutional, God-fearing, and loyal American citizenry taking the same path our founders took, and being supported in that effort by the Hand of the same Almighty Creator who supported those founders through their travail.
God grant we are up to the task, and that (as it states in II Chrom 7:14) we will turn to Him, repent, and humble ourselves so that He can heal our land.
Now gays will rage against states that reject gay marriage. We are back to square one, at the point where homosexuals demanded their perversion be a civil right. They are well on the way to getting their pretend marriages to flaunt during flagrant fag parades. Traditional marriage will be thrown upon the trash heap of Jim Crow laws.
yes! Hope we can save what’s left of this great Country for there to be ANY marriages/families for our kids and the future generations. If we can’t get the commies/socialists/marxists out of Government/Schools were a doomed Country anyway.
We are at a negative state now, there is not turning back......amazing as many people opposed to homosexuality in the US (the polls are bogus, just watch peoples behavior) there are not demonstrations in the street.
A small country like France had over 4,000,000 people on the streets.....and there have been continued upheaval since they changed their laws.
Why wont we?
[[Now gays will rage against states that reject gay marriage.]]
Precisely, any state that denys gay marriage will be portrayed as hateful, civil rightsd violators-
[[We are back to square one, at the point where homosexuals demanded their perversion be a civil right.]]
We’ve actuallyt taken steps backwards- the supreme court just said that states have a right to violate the will of the people because the peopel are ‘not proper entities when deciding law”
This was a major step forward for the destruction of this coutnry by immorality- This wans’t just a ‘the S just refused ot hear the case’ issue- thsi was a major blow to morality and to the will of the people and rights of the people
Megan Kelly explained it a it better or clearer I think- but is still getting it mixed up statign the reason it wasn’t heard in SC was because gove and state ‘wouldn’t defend prop 8” however, the gov and state NEVER supported prop 8 to my knowledge- it wass the PEOPLER bringing the case tro supreme court, not the state?
She said basically, 1: the peopel voted to ban gay marriage, 2: their vote was challenged at the trial court level, and the peopel lost- prop 8 was overturned, but then 3: the gov and state refused to defend prop 8 so 4: the surpeme court refused to hear the case statign the proper people aren’t here to continue hearign hte case
Meaning- the peopel ghave no right to represent themselves, and that ONLY the ‘proper entities’ (meanign state officials) can brign the case/defend the case
Basically the SC said the state is the only ones who can make rules/laws- the peopel can not- Basically the SC indicated it is agaisnt hte law for the peopel to bring propositions to a vote fro mwhat I understand
It’s that, but it’s also about the money. The paintiff brought suit to recover $383,000 in estate taxes paid on the estate of her late “wife.” If there were $50 at stake, would the suit have been brought at all? Many similar state-level suits have been based on a quest for financial benefits—housing, insurance, etc.
We’re going to start to see a big drain on the federal budget as people in the twelve states with gay “marriage” start to claim all kinds of deductions and benefits they couldn’t before.
You're wrong. Mormons aren't pushing for polygamy, polygamists are. Maybe we should ask Abraham, Jacob, and Moses how they feel about 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.