Posted on 06/25/2013 9:54:04 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
At 10:00 AM Wednesday, the Supreme Court will deliver its final decisions of this term. We can expect decisions on both same-sex marriage cases.
California Proposition 8: Hollingsworth v. Perry
In November 2008, 52.3 percent of California voters approved Proposition 8, which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In May 2009, a California District Court ruled that Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and temporarily prohibited its enforcement, and the Ninth Circuit agreed, affirming the District Court’s ruling. The United States Supreme Court will now consider whether a state can define marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman, in addition to considering whether the proponents of Proposition 8 have standing to bring suit in federal court. The Court’s ruling will implicate the rights of gay men and lesbians, the role of the government in structuring family and society, and the relationship between the institution of marriage and religion and morality.
Defense of Marriage Act: United States v. Windsor
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer married in Toronto in 2007 where same-sex marriages were legal. At the time of Spyer’s death, the state of New York recognized the couple’s marriage. However, the IRS denied Windsor use of a spousal estate tax exception on the ground that, under the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), the federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages for the purpose of federal benefits. The Supreme Court is now being asked to decide DOMA’s Constitutionality. The Obama Administration is not defending DOMA, so a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (“BLAG”) from the House of Representatives is doing so, arguing that DOMA is rationally related to the legitimate government objective of providing a uniform definition of marriage for federal benefits purposes. The Obama administration counters that the use of sexual orientation to decide who gets benefits is a suspect classification that deserves higher scrutiny. Under that level of higher scrutiny, the Obama administration argues that DOMA is impermissible. This case can affect what role the federal government can play in defining marriage and who in the federal government can defend the government’s laws. Not only could this case provide large tax savings to Ms. Windsor herself, but it can also make federal benefits available to other same-sex couples who are legally married under the laws of their state.
Sent back to be dealt with... It is an archaic legal term.
Prop 8: (I voted on this one)
Vacated - trial court decision stands.
Another 5-4
JMJ
Romans 1
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
May God forgive us. I oppose same-sex marriage.
“You’re the satanic Libertarian, so you tell me. Why would you object to bestiality?”
Does it make you feel like you’re winning when you call someone satanic? lol.
Anyway, to answer your question: A beast cannot make that decision, so it would be force would it not? But force is what you are championing, so maybe it is you who wants to legalize bestiality now you mention it?
Perdogg, you maybe right, but you do realize now that gays married in states that recognize their marriage will sue in Federal court in states that don’t...and it seems to me that these same 5 justices will then deem those laws in states like texas to be unconstitutional. no?
Our nation is doomed.
So currently Prop 8 still stands?
You’re right.
It’s forsaken God.
Yes.
You are truly ignorant of this subject.
Look, I'm not arguing for homosexual marriage
— I am arguing that giving more power to the Feral Government is a mistake because it will be abused, get that through you skull.
Your second argument is that laws protecting marriage may be ignored anyway so please don’t pass any, don’t even amend the constitution to protect marriage?
Cute. In the end, you have one result that you fight to obtain, the end of marriage.
No, I'm arguing that any 'laws' on the subject will either (A) be ignored [as the case with the photographer shows], or (B) be twisted to support the judge's political position — that is why I'd much rather see this handles as civil cases rather than criminal. But you, and folk like you, wish to make everything into a law — Obamacare is a result of that mentality.
Why should I go down a road like that when I find the worship of the State as god to be repugnant?
Go worship at your tin god's feet, I'm sure he'll have laws that allow you to prostrate before his ever-benevolent gaze. [/sarc]
“You are truly ignorant of this subject.”
Thanks, I guess you are the authority on ignorance.
exactly ... the Full Faith and Credit clause now moves front and center as the next battleground. The cases have probably already been prepped.
A beast does not condone being slaughtered and used for food. Why should a beasts consent be necessary for sexual acts?
This is the argument that will be used by perverts and pervert defenders (like yourself) in the future.
By the way, I’m glad to hear that you like the word satanic being used in conjunction with Libertarian.
LL please correct me if I am wrong:
Prop 8 is struck down by the decision of the U.S. District Court even though the CA Supreme Court upheld DOMA. This is because the State of CA was still defending Prop 8 when it was appealed to the U.S. District Court (Judge Walker.) SCOTUS ruled that when CA refused to further defend Prop 8 and the petitioners appealed to the 9th Circuit on behalf of the voters of CA, they did not have standing to do so. So Judge Walker’s decision overturning Prop 8 stands. Same-sex marriage is legal in CA.
Prop 8 is removed... the ‘unconstitutional’ ruling by the lower court stands because the plaintiffs lacked standing.
This cannot be correct. They remanded the 9th decision. The lower court already found Prop 8th unconstitutional. So gay marriages in CA are now legal.
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.