Skip to comments.Supreme Court Does Not Act on Gay-Marriage Cases
Posted on 11/30/2012 7:49:02 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The Supreme Court took no action on any of the 10 gay-marriage petitions before it Friday, despite expectations that the justices would finally announce their plans regarding challenges to three separate laws denying recognition to same-sex couples.
The court could add any of those cases to its docket as soon as Monday, but more likely the justices will continue discussing the matter at their next private conference, scheduled for Dec. 7.
Most attention has focused on challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 statute denying federal benefits to lawfully married same-sex spouses. Federal appeals courts in Boston and New York have found the measure unconstitutional, finding that the government had insufficient justification to penalize gays and lesbians.
Separately, the Supreme Court has been weighing whether to review Californias Proposition 8, a 2008 voter initiative limiting marriage to a man and a woman. A federal appeals court in San Francisco found the measure unconstitutionally withdrew marriage rights from gays after the California Supreme Court ruled in May 2008 that those rights were protected by the state constitution.
Additionally, the court has before it an Arizona measure known as Section O that withdrew state employee benefits from domestic partners. Heterosexual couples could maintain such benefits by getting married, an option unavailable to gay couples who may not wed in Arizona.
A federal appeals court in Phoenix found Section O violated the Constitutions equal-protection guarantee.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
The Supreme Court got obamacare wrong.
Therefore, the Supreme Court is, we’ll, moot.
I don’t care how these constitutionally challenged idiots rule on anything. (With apology to the minority who understands the constitution)
>> three separate laws denying recognition to same-sex couples.
Homosexual couples benefiting from govt policy is no more legit than straight friends doing the same thing. Whatever law is passed to benefit homosexuals should also benefit any party of two or more citizens regardless of the genital configuration.
The govt decided to get in bed with the family. What right does it have to manipulate it?
Heterosexuals may not marry someone of the same sex either. Therefore, the law is not homophobic. It is the same for all.
Unfortunately, I think the odds are against conservatives and sane Constitutional jurisprudence. Before the last Sup Court term it was thought that Anthony Kennedy would decide whether or not the Sup Court imposes recognition of gay unions on the entire nation. But after the Obamacare and Arizona immigration cases, now we have to worry about John Roberts too.
Since there is no chance at all of one of the four liberals getting this one right, then it means we’d have to get both Roberts and Kennedy, and I just don’t think that is likely.
I predict either Roberts or Kennedy will side with the liberals, and then the other will too in order to lend the decision more (phony) credibility. So I say it will be a 6-3 decision striking down every traditional marriage law and amendment in the nation, and imposing in their place state recognition of same-sex unions.
Scalia will write a brilliant, devastating dissent, but it won’t matter. Like Roe, the decision will never be overturned. Pathetic attempts to pass a Constitutional Amendment will fail miserably. Congress and the President (obviously if it’s Obama or another Democrat) will do nothing but meekly or gleefully obey and enforce the decision. Every state will also meekly obey and enforce the decision. And the Left will have achieved yet another gigantic Culture War victory in the court room.
I believe that Aetius is exactly right in his prediction; even if they personally oppose this, the American people have placed themselves on board for all kinds of perversion based on a generation of liberal voting patterns.
That being said, if we fight for God’s law, even under reasonable consideration of man’s law, and yet still lose. Our burden is relived and placed upon the shoulders of evil doers.
Where gay marriage has taken root is no concern of ours beyond prayers for lost souls.
That reasoning hasn’t been persuasive to courts. That kind of thinking would mean that laws prohibiting interracial marriage are constitutional and nondiscriminatory, because both white and black people can’t marry people of the other race.
The more coherent and persuasive argument is that insofar as there’s a fundamental constitutional right to marry that would be violated by anti-ssm laws, the right is limited to how the right would have been understood at either the founding or at the time of the 14th amendment - i.e. to opposite-sex couples only.
I appreciate your legal expertise! I offered my opinion and that is all it was. But here is my bottom line.
I don’t care who marries who. If the states or Feds say gays can marry, no skin off of my nose unless they unconstitutionally force religious organizations to perform those marriages.
God alone is capable of sorting that stuff out. If gay marriage interferes with the free expression of religion, I am opposed to that alone.
But if all of the states must recognize gay marriage, what do I care? It is a legal thing, not a religious thing.
But to force a pastor, priest or rabbi to perform such marriage, I believe violates the religious freedom clause.
the supreme court hasn’t ruled an act of congress unconstitutional in decades.
I am not worried about DOMA
Also NO State demands you prove you are a heterosexual or in Love to get married. There are only three simple rules. 1. No close family members. 2. No one too young. 3. Not the same sex. How are any of these things discriminator? They are just common sense on how to maintain a stable family.
And even simpler than that — there is no “right” to marry at all. Legally, marriage is nothing more than a contract.
I have always maintained this is the argument and one does not even have to bring up the bible proscription of the perversion.
Here's how I always put it:
A fag has just as much right to marry a woman as does the next guy.
The mischief does not stop there, little feline. There are boatloads of things that people are required to do to all married couples if they do them for some married couples. Bye bye either businesses or consciences.
There is a minimum age.
There must be sufficient mental capacity.
One and/or the other partner can not already be married to someone else.
One can not marry a non-human animal or plant.
There can be no third party in addition to the man and woman.
The list can go on. But the point is marriage was established by God. He makes the rules. Anyone who changes the rules is making a mockery of His institution.
You dance around the main argument.
There should be no civil marriages. The laws pertaining to civil marriage were enacted to prevent miscengenation - marriage between races.
Same with gun control laws. Those were enacted to keep guns away from “those people”.
Racism resulted in some of stupidest laws on the books. It is time we repealed them - and that includes putting one’s race down on census records. Enough!
“laws pertaining to civil marriage were enacted to prevent miscegenation”
They were not.
Stopped reading right there.
Action was taken on the cases on Friday. Announcements about all the cases considered on Friday will be made on Monday.
I feel sorry for Scalia and Thomas - it must hurt to be surrounded by so many inferior minds.
My greatgrandmother hid the fact she was colored. It destroyed her marriage, and she had good reason to fear being labeled as a “negro”.
She looked white. Born in Memphis, TN, in 1874, she worked as a waitress for an Italian-Swiss family of emigrants from Switzerland. Later she would claim their surname and heritage to protect herself.
She married a man from Massachusetts, a pony soldier, but in Ohio someone outed her. Her son, my grandfather, with light sandy hair and pale gray eyes, was taken from her and stashed in a New England boarding house among strangers while his Dad was fighting the Indians.
If you choose not to know about laws forbidding marriage between whites with other races, then I feel pity for you.
That is untrue.
Anyone in Arizona who is of age may marry.
the supreme court hasnt ruled an act of congress unconstitutional in decades.
In NY v. United States, 505 US 144, the court ruled that certain provisions relating to a Congressional act regarding handling of nuclear waste were unconstitutional.
In the Lopez decision, the court ruled that trying to justify handgun/firearm control near schools was not part of interstate commerce, and therefore invalid.
There have been a couple others, I would have to check the latest annotated Constitution to see the list.
I just checked.
According to the latest version of The United States Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation, AKA the annotated Constitution, a reference authorized by Congress and prepared by the Congressional Research Service, between Nov 1992 and late 2002, there were 16 Acts of Congress held unconstitutional.
I am very anxious to see the latest version of AC, I think it is prepared once a decade, so we should be seeing a new one soon.
It's interesting the WSJ chooses to use this phrasing since Prop 8 was a state constitutional amendment in response to the the state court ruling about a prior lesser initiative, Prop 22. They distort the facts and timeline in a way that favors "gay marriage" advocates.
I have a fresh thought that gov't recognized "marriage" is not a right but a privilege akin to a driver's license. It's all about inheritance and co-mingling of property. If it were a true right the rules and eligibility would not be so varied and arbitrary. There would not be some community property states and some not nor would there be such disparity in age requirements, blood tests and so forth. The very lack of uniformity speaks to the power each state asserts in this area on who and what rights and responsibilities "marriage" confers.
I see very little discussion about divorce laws which seem to me to be inseparable from marriage laws, especially insofar as women have protections and financial advantages in many divorce laws.
The caring comes because the terms “husband” and “wife” will be taken out of documents and gay couples will be afforded all the same rights to adoption, leading to the necessity to take out terms “mother” and “father”. Schools’ curricula will become involved, etc. This is how they do things. Nothing is JUST about the issue at hand. We let it go and they push for the NEXT and the NEXT thing. Up next is normalization of what is now called Pedophilia, but will be changed, first in terms, then in the Diagnostic manual and in time we’ll be where we are now with gay marriage. If you doubt it, I will point out that an episode of Private Practice recently had a pretty sympathetic piece about a pedophile who suffered from his compulsions, etc. but was a good person. From those standpoints I do feel that I care. Otherwise, I agree with you.
People can’t marry their parents or siblings either. Now we have male on male butt lickers replacing the old white trash with the completely mentally deranged homos.
Exactly. Why can’t two normal buds declare for the same rights? Will the homos be required to perform a rimming act to prove they are queers or will they just declare it in order to seemly claim normalcy?
So if Washington State someday bans straight marriage and allows only gay marriage, that will be constitutional?
“So if Washington State someday bans straight marriage and allows only gay marriage, that will be constitutional?”
Seems to me that’s a possibility, seeing as how ‘gay marriage’ wasn’t even an issue 30 years ago. It was always a danger with the state involved, at least in the modern era. The state determines the definition it uses to recognize the institution by whatever judges, pols, or the majority think it is at any one time. That’s it, that’s all it will ever be.
Of course there are many religions that don’t think anyone is more or less married because they have little pieces of paper from the state that says they are.
They've effectively spun this using emotionalism, while at the same time assaulting basic science and muzzling the opposition through a complicit media. Homosexuality is most likely a treatable mental illness, but because it's been “normalized” you won't get the genie back in the bottle that way. They're too entrenched for a frontal assault.
While the schools and media have been able to mask the sinister, unstable and unhealthy side of homosexuality there is an opportunity to turn their flank (no pun intended). Homosexuals have since the 40s planned on being the vanguard for all sexual deviants. They were able to do so through emotional appeals and both real and imagined grievances.
That said it is patently obvious just how mentally deranged transvestites, transsexuals and a whole host of sexual deviants are. This is the weak underbelly of the homosexual movement. They're going for absolute sexual liberty which will tear at the fabric of society and rend it. That's their goal.
Let's go after these clearly mentally ill people with Christian compassion and an eye to regaining social normalcy. What types of laws could you pass to protect women and children that would be palatable?
1. Strengthen laws against bestiality to protect animals used in a sexual manner.
2. Block the mentally ill trannies from adopting children.
3. Block them from using their aparent sex to use the locker, rest room or toilet facilities of the opposite sex. Focus on the mental illness and the fundamental nature of sex - men are always male and women are always female.
4. Focus on the fact that children need a mother and a father.
5. Allow civil unions to fulfill the contractual basis homosexual couples seek to manage their lives and affairs.
6. End and eliminate pro-family government programs. They're Trojan Horses and the lever by which the homosexual movement bends reality.
7. Block government funds being used to promote normalizing transvestitism and don't allow government funds to be used in any operations to "change" their sex. 8. Increase government funding for psychological treatment of this mental disease. Go after the most extreme and work your way back. Homosexuality is especially politically sensitive to children. Children need two parents. It's that simple.
Leftists and many Libertarians fail to acknowledge that the Constitution is not the Supreme law of the land but rather it comes under God's law. Our inalienable rights are not granted by the Constitution but rather some of the many are recognized as rights that government is chartered to protect. The Constitution LIMITS government NOT the people.
Homosexual marriage is no more Constitutional than murder is AND heterosexual marriage can no more be banned than murder can be legalized.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Abstain as well they should - Gay-Marriage is not a federal government issue as with abortion (except abortion could be construed as a due process issue which SCOTUS did not use in their reasoning as far as I know).
As with abortion, so the Gay-Marriage thing is a STATES issue, not a Constitutional issue for SCOTUS. Unfortunately, SCOTUS, along with the rest of the federal government, meddles with lots of things that are none of its business.
Good ideas all. Especially like the protection of animals because it plays on their field.
You sparked another thought when you wrote:
massive advantage in that they and their allies control the government education system and thus have access to indoctrinating ignorant children.
I am thinking that an all out campaign to return school to the job of education might be in order. Use their weapon of “separation of church and state” against them.All sex education should be relegated to outside the school day and on an opt-in basis rather than an opt-out basis. ONE biology lesson in sixth or seventh grade, along with options links or a couple of pamphlets about birth control should be all that is allowed. Everythign else falls into the category of morality, ethics, personal choices...all of these fall under the bigger category of “religion”....that is to say “belief systems.” Belief systems could become a whole course in which each belief system is presented as to what is believed and no judgment is included. This way these are presented as “belief systems”... some people believe THIS and some people believe THAT.
Just some off the top of my head thoughts on this, which obviously are not fully developed at all. Point is to get hold of the curriculum and use their own arguments to do it.
Not really. I merely stated some facts related to marriage established by law. There are restrictions with heterosexuals engaging in marriage and I was pointing out a few.
On the other hand, by allowing homosexuals to marry, the institution of marriage as we know it, loses its sacredness. Just what the anti-God types want.
I don't know where you got racism out of my comments. Please re-read what I wrote.
Very good analysis. Please go to the head of the class.
Oh, I did not derive racisim out of anything you wrote. I am merely pointing out that civil marriage and gun control resulted from the attempts by individual states to prevent certain outcomes - marriage between whites and other races, and people other than whites possessing guns.
Marriage is never mentioned in the U.S.Constitution. It is, I believe, not a civil matter but a religous one, covered by the First Amendment to the U.S.Constitution. Eliminate civil marriage, and return marriage to its rightful and holy place in one’s religion. That would make liberal heads explode and judicial activists weep. Trying to attack the First Amendment is dicey for liberals.
Gun control shouldn’t even exist, and neither should the BATFE. If our society is concerned about the dissemination of explosives then the responsibility to deal with that lies with the FBI. Alcolhol, tobacco, and firearms are all legal, last I looked. The only reason gun control popped up was to keep “those people” from having guns.
So, yes, racism was at the core of these civil laws quite some time ago but they should be off the books now. There no longer exists reasons for those laws to exist.
So I am advocating the First and Second Amendments as they ought to be practised in the U.S.A. No civil marriage and guns for everyone!
What do you think?
You’ve said something very important here: abortion and homosexual marraige have become issues, IMO, due to judicial activism.
Same-sex marriage is simply not a SCOTUS issue because it is not a Constitutional issue (same with abortion and many other things SCOTUS had had no business meddling with). It is a STATE’S issue.
Who decides what is God's law? The Southern Baptist Conference? The Pope? The Chief Rabbi of Israel? The United Methodist Church? The Grand Mufti? The Dali Lama?
Homosexual marriage is no more Constitutional than murder is AND heterosexual marriage can no more be banned than murder can be legalized.
Different states define "murder" in very different ways. To give you just one example, if you see someone stealing your car from your driveway and you shoot him dead, that is completely legal in some states, manslaughter in others, and first-degree murder in still others. Which of those states are following the Constitution and which are not?
>> “Who decides what is God’s law?” <<
The Word of God.
Where can I find the Word of God? In the King James Bible? The New International Bible? The Talmud? The Book of Mormon? The Koran? The Bhagavad Gita?
>> “Abstain as well they should - Gay-Marriage is not a federal government issue...” <<
Unfortunately that line of reasoning is no longer available to them, since the federal courts have injected themselves into the issue in California. Prop 8 is something they have to deal with because of the lower federal courts.
The Torah is the location of God’s position on the subject. Torah is also included in all of the other Bibles that I am aware of. The Mormons also uphold it, as does the Koran. Talmud also deals with it but is of no authority.
Yes, but the way they should properly deal with it is overturn federal court jurisdiction and remand back to the state.