Skip to comments.Supreme Court mulls review of federal gay marriage laws
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 ...
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.
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.
It CAN say whether or not it will recognize such an entity, or if so then how.
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.
LOL! I had exactly the same thought when I saw that name. Not quite; but, boy, is it close.
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.
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.
Activists don't ever SHUT UP. Once they win, they simply formulate a new demand.
Long ago, the Supreme Ct ruled on polygamy, so it would be no surprise to see them address the issue again.
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.
Marriage is a license granted by states. The feds shouldn’t have anything to do with it, one way or another.
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.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Here is most of the impetus for "gay marriage" -- being able to add your gay partner on your employer health plan.
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.
Thank you for the pings, Tex! And it’s nice to see you.
That ruling was when Utah was a federal territory, so there was no 10th Amendment issue involved.
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.