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.