Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court mulls review of federal gay marriage laws
Newsday / The Associated Press ^ | November 25, 2012

Posted on 11/25/2012 10:50:44 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

A San Francisco couple is waiting to find out if the U.S. Supreme Court will take their case challenging the 1996 law that prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

Karen Golinski and Amy Cunninghis got married during the brief window in 2008 when gay and lesbian couples could tie the knot in California. Golinski immediately tried to add her wife to her employer-sponsored health care plan. But because she is married to another woman and works for the U.S. government, her otherwise routine request was denied...

(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: activistcourts; activistjudges; bhoscotus; culturewar; docket; doma; downourthroats; federalism; gaymarriage; homonaziagenda; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; inourfaces; judicialactivism; judicialfiat; marriagelaws; samesexmarriage; scotus; scotusgaymarriage; slipperyslope; supremecourt

1 posted on 11/25/2012 10:50:49 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
There is no such thing as gay marriage. You can't change the definition to fit the circumstance.

And by the way....a fetus is a living human being.

2 posted on 11/25/2012 10:55:07 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Goodbye DOMA.


3 posted on 11/25/2012 10:56:20 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

So all this talk about how homosexuals just want to get married because they love one another just like a normal man and woman is bunk. What it really comes down do is “Benifits”. Typical parasite leaches. It’s always about what can goverment do for me.


4 posted on 11/25/2012 10:57:22 AM PST by Flavious_Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; wagglebee

The will of the people be dammed and so will this nation.


5 posted on 11/25/2012 10:57:29 AM PST by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“Cunninghis”

you can’t make this stuff up


6 posted on 11/25/2012 11:01:40 AM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

A lesbian named “Cunninghus”??


7 posted on 11/25/2012 11:02:00 AM PST by canuck_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
It's just a matter of time. Equal protection jurisprudence is such that we will have gay marriage (via the SCOTUS), sooner or later. If nothing else changes, it is only a question of precisely when.

The only way to prevent that from happening is a Federal Constitutional amendment prohibiting same sex marriage and excepting it from the equal protection clause. Individual state statutes, state constitutional provisions, or even federal statutes (such as DOMA) will all fall in time, absent a Federal Constitutional amendment.

Since no one is willing to get underway with such a constitutional amendment, sit back and enjoy, cause here it comes!

8 posted on 11/25/2012 11:02:48 AM PST by Wally_Kalbacken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; Revolting cat!; wagglebee
Karen Golinski and Amy Cunninghis got married during the brief window in 2008 when gay and lesbian couples could tie the knot in California. Golinski immediately tried to add her wife to her employer-sponsored health care plan. But because she is married to another woman and works for the U.S. government, her otherwise routine request was denied

Is this pink journalista for AssPress trying to make the case for polygamy?

Or the expansion of divorce/remarriage laws or WHUT?!!!

9 posted on 11/25/2012 11:03:15 AM PST by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken

Sadly, you are 100% correct on this one.


10 posted on 11/25/2012 11:04:14 AM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

no worries, the supreme court hasn’t found an act of congress unconstitutional in decades.


11 posted on 11/25/2012 11:11:34 AM PST by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama lied .. the economy died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Maybe now, maybe not, but Obama will likely get to name 2 more justices before his reign of destruction has ended, then we’re in big trouble.


12 posted on 11/25/2012 11:16:36 AM PST by umgud (No Rats, No Rino's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Once again the will of the people means nothing. Our morality will be dictated to us by black robes and we have NO way to change it.

Tell me again why secession is a bad idea?


13 posted on 11/25/2012 11:22:59 AM PST by DwFry (Baby Boomers Killed Western Civilization!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud

then?


14 posted on 11/25/2012 11:23:51 AM PST by DwFry (Baby Boomers Killed Western Civilization!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Doubtless, CJ Roberts will go through more perverted twists and turns to determine that DOMA equates to a discriminatory “tax” directed at gays and lesbians and the law will be struck down.

Remember, with zero, the rule of law is dead and the Constitution has been shredded. He will do as Morsi has done to make himself Supreme Ruler ewhose word IS the law and he has his crooked friend, Eric Holder, in DOJ to back him up.

And, because Americans have become so complacent and lost their passion for liberty and freedom, we won’t care what zero and the government do as lond as we don’t miss the next episode of American Idol.

Hello new pop star, goodbye, America!


15 posted on 11/25/2012 11:30:42 AM PST by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for white collar criminals!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
"Karen Golinski and Amy Cunninghis"?
16 posted on 11/25/2012 11:34:48 AM PST by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias... "Barack": Allah's current ally...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

The will of the people be dammed and so will this nation.

I can’t believe that the will of the people voted for gay marriage in Maryland, Washington, and Colorado....very surprising. I hope the will of the people don’t become and epidemic.


17 posted on 11/25/2012 11:36:57 AM PST by napscoordinator (GOP Candidate 2020 - "Bloomberg 2020 - We vote for whatever crap the GOP puts in front of us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: canuck_conservative

I’ve got a $100 that says that is NOT her parents name.

I would also bet that Fluke is NOT her parents name either.


18 posted on 11/25/2012 11:39:01 AM PST by CMailBag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

So lets get ready to put our polygamists and house pets on our family policy.


19 posted on 11/25/2012 11:39:43 AM PST by Steamburg (The contents of your wallet is the only language Politicians understand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Let’s hope that the current SCOTUS looks at the earlier courts decision against polygamy in the 1800s. Those courts pretty much decided marriage was defined as one man/one woman.


20 posted on 11/25/2012 12:02:45 PM PST by sigzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReepers; Patriots

FR really needs your help!

Please Contribute Today.

FReepathon Day 56!

21 posted on 11/25/2012 1:13:03 PM PST by onyx (FREE REPUBLIC IS HERE TO STAY! DONATE MONTHLY! IF YOU WANT ON SARAH PALIN''S PING LIST, LET ME KNOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The federal appeals courts send an average of some 8,000 cases on appeal to the SCOTUS every year, though even with consolidation of cases, the SCOTUS can only hear a few dozen.

This bottleneck means that the vast majority of those cases will revert to the decisions made by the appeals courts, resulting in a whole bunch of bad law. But it will be years of bad law, in most cases, until the issue gets a chance to be heard again.


22 posted on 11/25/2012 1:50:56 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (DIY Bumper Sticker: "THREE TIMES,/ DEMOCRATS/ REJECTED GOD")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
Goodbye DOMA

And rightly so. There is nothing in the Constitution that could be construed as giving the Federal government any say over marriage. Not that it matters anymore.

23 posted on 11/25/2012 1:54:33 PM PST by BfloGuy (Workers and consumers are, of course, identical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy

It CAN say whether or not it will recognize such an entity, or if so then how.


24 posted on 11/25/2012 2:39:04 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (How long before all this "fairness" kills everybody, even the poor it was supposed to help???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
You can't change the definition to fit the circumstance.

The left changes the definitions of things all the time. Why would they stop at marriage? Now, I'm with you in believing that words have meaning; and two guys indulging in "gay" sex, is not a marriage; no matter how hard they want to believe that it is.

But, the reality is that the Left is allowed to change the definition of any circumstances that they want and if you complain, they will have a handy name to call you which will be quite nasty.

25 posted on 11/25/2012 2:47:58 PM PST by LibertarianLiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
“Cunninghis” you can’t make this stuff up

LOL! I had exactly the same thought when I saw that name. Not quite; but, boy, is it close.

26 posted on 11/25/2012 2:49:08 PM PST by LibertarianLiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau; All

As evidenced by the absence of language such as marriage, parenting, children’s rights, the environment, and many other domestic and local government issues in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, and other parts of the Constitution as well, the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about such issues are automatically and uniquely state power issues.

In fact, I will reluctantly side with majority activist justices who decide that the federal DOMA act was based on constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers. And I’m sure that the act helped to win some votes for Section 8-ignoring DC politicians from many Section 8-ignorant voters.


27 posted on 11/25/2012 3:39:01 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz

I would hate to see the definition of marriage change. However the state of marriage has already deteriorated to the point that gay marriage can’t mean much. Afterall think of how the practice of living together his become commonplace, and the number of divorces has grown by leaps and bounds. The married state is not the respected or permanent institution used to be.

And if Gallup is right and only 3.4 percent of the population is gay then it tells me that mother nature has decreed that heterosexual sex will always be vastly preferred as a biological imperative. So if the definition of marriage is changed I
Will take comfort in the fact that gay marriages will always be a tiny minority of the population. And it would something of a blessing take the subject off the table so the gays will finally SHUT UP.


28 posted on 11/25/2012 3:45:29 PM PST by Hound of the Baskervilles ("Nonsense in the intellect draws evil after it." C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Hound of the Baskervilles
And it would something of a blessing take the subject off the table so the gays will finally SHUT UP.

Activists don't ever SHUT UP. Once they win, they simply formulate a new demand.

29 posted on 11/25/2012 3:52:52 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA; Ignorance on parade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy
There is nothing in the Constitution that could be construed as giving the Federal government any say over marriage.

Long ago, the Supreme Ct ruled on polygamy, so it would be no surprise to see them address the issue again.

30 posted on 11/25/2012 4:25:52 PM PST by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hound of the Baskervilles
so the gays will finally SHUT UP.

Oh, gays will never shut up, they will simply find something else to replace the "gay marrige" thing. They are part of the Left; and, as part of the Left, they are never satisfied. There is always something or someone who is "oppressing" them.

31 posted on 11/25/2012 6:36:59 PM PST by LibertarianLiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Marriage is a license granted by states. The feds shouldn’t have anything to do with it, one way or another.


32 posted on 11/25/2012 6:45:54 PM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud

The only saving hope is that the 2 justices Obama will likely appoint will replace two already-raving leftist lunatics, so the balance won’t necessarily be upset.

And if he can rightfully be impeached and removed, along with his complicit co-conspirator VP, there might be even more reason to hope.


33 posted on 11/26/2012 4:49:54 AM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

34 posted on 11/26/2012 9:06:24 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Golinski immediately tried to add her wife to her employer-sponsored health care plan.

Here is most of the impetus for "gay marriage" -- being able to add your gay partner on your employer health plan.

35 posted on 11/26/2012 9:09:58 AM PST by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk; 2ndDivisionVet

Actually, with names like “Golinski” and “Cunninghis,” you may be sure that their names are made up.

Two commie lesbos doing their bit to destroy our culture.

Hang ‘em high. Or sober, doesn’t matter.


36 posted on 11/26/2012 12:12:18 PM PST by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Thank you for the pings, Tex! And it’s nice to see you.


37 posted on 11/26/2012 12:22:39 PM PST by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
Long ago, the Supreme Ct ruled on polygamy, so it would be no surprise to see them address the issue again.

That ruling was when Utah was a federal territory, so there was no 10th Amendment issue involved.

38 posted on 11/26/2012 1:08:09 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
Long ago, the Supreme Ct ruled on polygamy, so it would be no surprise to see them address the issue again.

No, it wouldn't be a surprise at all. In my non-legal opinion, though, the Feds shouldn't be involved with marriage any more than they should have stuck their nose into abortion.

39 posted on 11/26/2012 2:58:56 PM PST by BfloGuy (Workers and consumers are, of course, identical.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson