Skip to comments.Supreme Court to Review Prop 8
Posted on 12/07/2012 12:37:02 PM PST by Alter KakerEdited on 12/07/2012 12:46:28 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will take up California's ban on same-sex marriage, a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.
The justices said Friday they will review a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the state's gay marriage ban, though on narrow grounds. The San Francisco-based appeals court said the state could not take away the same-sex marriage right that had been granted by California's Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.kqed.org ...
This is pitting the 10th amendment against the 14th amendment, it seems to me.
The court, if it rules for the 10th amendment, will say that states can make their own rules.
If the court rules for the 14th, it will say “equal protection” means that, in their opinion, the practice of sodomy has nothing to do with what constitutes a marriage and if two practictioners of sodomy want to call their relationship a “marriage”, the state is obligated to grant their wishes, since the state also grants that wish to heterosexuals.
No, they can’t make it a right. Marriage isn’t a government right to begin with, just one they make you pay a fee for and get a permit. The prop 8 ruling should be reversed as the judge who overturned it had no business ruling on it in the first place. Federal courts should not be a place for intrastate matters. Regarding DOMA, it should be allowed to stand as all it does is protect states from being forced to recognized homosexual marriages. Then again, the SCOTUS was supposed to overturn Obamacare and we saw what happened there.
Count on John Roberts to sell the country down the river again.
Well it’s more than that. States argue that the Defense of Marriage Act is an intrusion into an area normally controlled by state law — I can very easily see the Court striking down most or all of DOMA. I don’t see them buying this claptrap about the equal protection clause and the removal of “rights” w/Prop 8. But I’ve been wrong before.
I think Kennedy would be more likely on this issue. Roberts is a statist, so will generally side with the government (which would mean Prop 8 and DOMA upheld), while Kennedy has more of a libertarian bent (which meant he voted to overturn ObamaCare).
We lose again, by now we should be Teachers on how to lose.
“Count on John Roberts to sell the country down the river again.”
I think this is very likely. He did pro bono work on the Roemer case—big homosexual rights case. I think we’re looking at a federal right to homosexual marriage, imposed by a supreme court headed by a Republican appointed justice.
Perhaps its an income tax.
Marriage is a contract between a man, a woman and God. I didn’t read about ‘Adam and Steve’ in the Bible! ‘Marriage’ is a club. If there are no limits, ‘marriage’ is meaningless.
Kennedy has always voted for equal protection. Gay marriage will be the law of the land by end of June. 5-4 or 6-3. No way of stopping it.
My GAYDAR goes off when I see pictures of Roberts. He’s a closet gay just like 0bama.
Just around the corner.....laws forcing pastors to marry same sex couples. Assuming the Court rules in favor of gays.
I really hate to see anything of importance going to the Supreme Court these days now that the court has three distinct factions: 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 moron.
This is a big case with a huge risk.
If the Court rules against Prop 8 they could strike down all Pro Family-Anti Gay Marriage laws in the nation.
We would have been better off with the Justices refusing to hear the Prop 8 case and let the lower court ruling stand.
Excuse me, but how is this a “lose” at this point? The USSC MUST hear this case or the current position concocted by the 9th Circus, striking it down, prevails.
We really have no choice.
“Count on John Roberts to sell the country down the river again.”
Bingo! He’s probably making reservations for a long stay in his impregnable fortress as we speak.
I can remember a time when people who wanted to marry close cousins of the opposite sex were called white trash—we called them sick and made fun of them. Now, a lower class of white trash wants to marry other same-sex perverts, and we call them gay and are expected to honor them. Ask yourself, which is the sicker, trashier, and lower. I am reminded of the homosexual hillbillys in the movie Deliverance. The two homos would have had less than a full set of teeth between them. The marketing of deviance by homowood is most responsible.
Incorrect. They have always had the seme right to marry as heterosexuals. They can marry any member of the oppisite sex they choose, just like heteros.
Two huge problems that worry me big time:
1. Kennedy. If he doesn’t rule for gay marriage I will be stunned.
2. These two cases ruled on VERY narrow issues. Quite frankly I expect the Court to uphold them on those very narrow issues and not reach the bigger question(s).
True, but the 9th Cir case would only apply to the 9th Cir states.
Apparently the STATES have NO rights anymore. None. Zip. Nada! Obama and his people have effectively scrapped the Constitution.
Even if they make marriage a right, where do they get the right to redefine what marriage is?
I can’t believe it’s come to this. We really are doomed.
Yep. It’s a fee, or a tax the government charges us when we get married, so it’s up to us to vote in people who won’t screw us over. Doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong. That’s all there is to it. /sarcasm
And are you just going to deem the conservatives living in those states chopped liver?
But even that won't contain the infection.
It's a fight worth fighting - for everyone.
They will rule in favor of gay marriage on 14th amendment grounds so that battle is lost. What we must now turn to is making sure that Christians are not forced to violate their religious liberties and accommodate gays.
Prop. 8 only passed by 52% in 2008. If our black robed masters don’t declare it unconstitutional, the homosexualists will simply try to repeal it with another popular vote. I doubt it would pass in Ca now.
Reynolds v. United States, 1878...
It defined marriage as one man and one woman.
Reynolds v. United States in 1878 defined marriage as one man and one woman.
Nothing biased about that statement is there. Queers already have the same constitutional right to marry as Heterosexuals do, they can marry any person of the opposite sex that will have them. Actually there is nothing in the constitution about marriage either way, it is just accepted as common sense that a normal person wouldn't want a person of the same sex as a mate.
Like that will stop them. Sorry I am just not optimistic about this at all.
I believe the government should change the name of the services and legal relationship they record to a civil union. that's what it is really.
Now churches could perform marriages in the traditional sense.
Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's.
That is not necessarily going to solve the issue but it would help to use correct definitions going forward.
I didn't realize that any right to marriage was in the Constitution.
I am not optimistic because my conservative friends can only argue about their Biblical principles and NOT the case law...
I have been saying this for years about Reynolds v. United States.
I would have to look at that case. I don’t think marriage should only be argued on Biblical principle. I often argue as to why the State should give special status to the union of one man to one woman which is supposed to be for life and for the rearing of children. That this status came after the natural inclination to form such unions. That marriage is a natural right not a civil right and the place of government is to not create unions that define marriage but to protect marriage as it has been known throughout history and most cultures.
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.