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.
Thank you, darlin’. I appreciate you!
No, you obviously don't: I view ceding the ability to define 'marriage' to the Federal Government as a loss, not as a protection.
Given the the PRISM project's blatant and flagrant disregard for the 4th Amendment, the 6th Amendment (FISA court), and arguably the 1st & 5th Amendment (incriminating yourself via any communications [read associations] you have), do you really think giving the ability to define marriage to the government via law is a good idea?
and I recognize that gay marriage and polygamy will happen as long as there is enough momentum on your side.
See, there's your problem: I recognize the proper place to spend effort protecting marriage as in the people's hearts. If you want marriage to mean something, then you have to act like it means something: lead by example, not yelling at others to do what you say.
What a coincidence!
Isn’t it.
Man, this is baffling, what are we arguing about?
I thought that you were supporting allowing the government to accept gay marriage in the name of “free will” and liberty or something.
And please don’t play that silly game of claiming to believe that government and society has no place in defining marriage, and that poof, law related to marriages will just disappear or is not the focus of this political/cultural issue.
Civil divorce and remarriage wasn’t framed as a civil right. ‘Gay marriage’ is. I don’t think it is beyond the pale today, in my opinion. And it would be punishing them for not doing it, not forcing them to, because they wouldn’t no matter what the state said about it.Still don't see it. There's no precedent for it, and plenty of churches will be willing to marry them. I understand the concern, but don't see that coming at all.
In any case, what about renting halls to gay couples who declare themselves married? Or businesses who don’t buy into whatever impossibility the state is calling marriage at the time?Ah, that's a horse of a different color. That's a very real concern, that anyone who sells directly to, or contracts directly with, the public will have to accommodate gay couples.
No it wasn't, it had to be done, the Continental Congress, and America had to deal with marriage in 1780, and 1794, and 1798, and 1802, and so on.
Government has always had to deal with marriage, whether Roman, Greek, or Apache Indian, or whatever.
If the decision is based (incorrectly) on equal protection grounds, this open civil marriage contracts up to parties of hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands entering into civil marriage contracts for business and financial purposes.
If I could get my family members to go along with me, I would readily marry my children so that they would receive the advantages coming under law by marriage. If businesses (such as insurance companies) are required by law to provide goods and services to married partnerships, I’d exploit the court decision to pull these from these private third parties (who would not be a party to my contract if it were not the special exception of civil marriage).
If we received some tax advantage, or other benefits of marriage provided by state and local government, I’d easily marry my children.
But this of course extends outside the family. Civic marriage is now a business opportunity. I’ll buy health insurance coverage, and this coverage will now extend to the 20 million persons who have paid me a small fee to join my marriage contract, and thereby receive coverage.
...
Some here say that the state has no interest in marriage. They say it is exclusively a religious matter. I disagree. Both the church and state have strong interests in marriage, even if their motivations are varied. The state and civic society have a STRONG need of the civic marriage institution, but this institution makes sense ONLY if marriage is restricted to adult male and female couples, of dissimilar genetics, with the concomitant demand that sexual activity be confined to marriage, that divorce be allowed only under exceptional circumstances, that the man protect and nurture and provide for the woman, that the property rights of the woman be protected by law, that the woman nurture the man and raise children as provided by God and Providence, and that the couple love and nurture and provide for the children as provided by God and Providence.
I reckon we’ll see, hope you are right. But 30 years ago folks would have called you nuts if you would have told them that in 2013 13 states would recognize something called ‘gay marriage.’
Freegards
HuH? Give America gay marriage and polygamy today, and win the people’s hearts tomorrow?
If conservatives win, we preserve marriage in America, if you win, then marriage is whatever any individual or religion, or atheist gay church, or Muslim Mosque wants to make of it.
Regardless, the subject of marriage is outside the scope of the constitutional powers of the federal government (and rightly so - I don't see why marriage should have been or should be added as an amendment to the Constitution. The rogue federal government doesn't need more power - it already has assumed way too much power illegitimately already.)
You're doing the arguing. I'm trying to convince you to stop.
I thought that you were supporting allowing the government to accept gay marriage in the name of “free will” and liberty or something.
You would be incorrect in that belief.
And please don’t play that silly game of claiming to believe that government and society has no place in defining marriage, and that poof, law related to marriages will just disappear or is not the focus of this political/cultural issue.
I support the States' Right to define marriage because that is consistent with the 10th Amendment. NY and MA voted to allow same-sex marriage. So be it. I disagree with them politically and culturally. CA voted to ban same-sex marriage. I agree with them politically and culturally.
In the end, God will judge us all. In this world, I am not to judge unbelievers only other believers.
1 Corinthians 5:9-13 NIV
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked person from among you."
Today is the day that America died..apparently my vote in 2008 for Prop 8 meant absolutely NOTHING..the fags won today..Obama’s “Transformation of America” is practically complete..seeing the homos celebrate makes me sick but I had a feeling this would happen..America is weeping today
The feds didn’t have to perform marriages, just deal with defining marriage for the issues that it must deal with.
Now you are promoting the position that the feds will have to recognize gay marriage and polygamy, because the federal government has plenty of issues dealing with marriage, and as we see, always has, in fact legislating on it since at least 1780.
The CA Supreme Court held that Prop 8 was an amendment to the state Constitution, not a revision. Their ruling didn’t touch on the constitutionality of 8 itself.
I disagree. Lawyers are best at shaping a story that others interpret to be within the purview of the law.
Are you broken? Seriously, I haven't said anything about giving people homosexual marriage
or polygamy. I've said that giving the [federal] government authority over the definition would be a bad thing. I then told you the best place to start addressing the real issues: the heart. Those are two distinct lines of thought, interwoven because they are both concerning the subject-matter of marriage, but utterly discrete.
If conservatives win, we preserve marriage in America, if you win, then marriage is whatever any individual or religion, or atheist gay church, or Muslim Mosque wants to make of it.
Bollocks! Preserve marriage
my ass! How many conservatives
are divorced? — Again, if you want marriage to mean something, you act like it means something. Throwing it to the FedGov is treating it like shit, asking for it to be abused, because that is what our out-of-control Federal Government does: abuse the law.
We were right.
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.