Posted on 03/27/2013 1:06:43 PM PDT by South40
(Reuters) - A majority of Supreme Court justices on Wednesday indicated they could be inclined to strike down a law that denies federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples, a move that would reflect the evolving nationwide sea change in attitudes to gay marriage.
As a packed courtroom listened attentively on a second day of arguments on gay marriage, Justice Anthony Kennedy, a potential swing vote, warned of a "real risk" that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) infringes on the traditional role of the states in defining marriage.
A conservative, Kennedy is viewed as a key vote on this issue in part because he has twice authored decisions in the past that were viewed as favorable to gay rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
This isn’t about homos who want to get married, it is about State’s rights and our constutitional Republic.
It is just another step toward communism.
Yeah right, heard that before with Obamacare. I am not holding my breath that we will not, on this holy of holy week, slip into the moral abyss of decay...............
Gee, what a surprise. /s
exactly.
Marxists want the state to raise children so that there will be equality of opportunity and all children raised by the state will be raised equally. In order to reach this utopia, traditional marriage and family will first have to be destroyed. Homo marriage is just another step on that pathway.
so then ANYTHING legal in one state is legal in all states?
ie ccw?
pot?
polygamy?
sex with animals?
He is libertarian leaning and I suspect he will not rule in favor of the federal gov't on either issue.
If they strike DOMA down on states’ rights basis, it would be difficult to strike down Prop 8, or so I would think.
I would rather have DOMA fail than Prop 8.
Uh, Adam and Eve. NOT adam and steve. Hello? My attitude hasn’t changed. Keep the doors closed. I don’t want to see it.
True of all the social problems IMO.
I went to inquire about a family membership for using the swim center at a Catholic University yesterday. The clerk felt the need to clarify and expound on what a “traditional family” meant, to which I replied that they didn’t have to break out the various scenarios. I fit the best possible description; 1 man, married (only once) to a woman with 2 children, whom we created together.
so then ANYTHING legal in one state is legal in all states?
ie ccw?
pot?
polygamy?
sex with animals?
If federal benefits are the sticking point, the Court could conceivably leave standing the part of DOMA that says no state is required to recognize a same-sex "marriage" performed in another state.
Why don’t we wait and see what happens in JUNE. I remember daily it was back and forth for months on Obamacare. Some were so convinced that it was going to be tossed out that it made us all comfortable here. And then the shock waves went through the entire Free Republic Site. I am not getting myself excited about a ruling that may go our way again. I will wait for the ruling from the Supremes themselves.
“Supreme Court indicates it may strike down marriage law”
It did nothing of the sort! More psy-ops from the Left.
Every part of DOMA is essential to make it protect what it was intended to: marriage. Only one part falling will collapse the rest of it.
If Part 3, the federal recognition clause, is struck down, then counterfeit marriage will be exportable into every state. Technically, states which have their own marriage amendments don't have to recognize them for state purposes, but with the federal strings attached to all that a state does, how long will that last?
It is impossible to discern from the oral arguments which way the court will go. It is foolish to even speculate before the opinions come out.
“Uh, Adam and Eve. NOT adam and steve...”
If they open this door it might also be Adam and Fido (woof woof)...........
ok so now husbands will want an ADDITIONAL wife for christmas?
(so nagging in stereo? two modern women who can’t cook? TWO MOTHER IN LAWS!)
>> This isn’t about homos who want to get married,
It’s about many things. It’s also about forcing the citizens to support and service homosexual behavior.
>> that would reflect the evolving nationwide sea change in attitudes to gay marriage
Two scumbags qualifying the nature of homosexual “marriage” as “evolving”. Anal sex is not “evolving”.
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.