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.
Libertarians are still trying to make a position on a CONSERVATIVE site... go figure ... :p
Rather than argue with you about legalizing homosexual marriage, why don’t you just join we Christians and conservatives fighting it, rather than fighting us?
Sorry I missed that one....it was well deserved.
Maybe because I don't feel any real passion for homosexuals, one way or the other; Jesus doesn't want lukewarm because I have to…
-Christians — the most I feel for them is a sad sorrow.
I have much, much more passion in Law and Justice (I'd be tempted to go into Law if there was a chance reason and constitutionalism would be respected) — hence my arguments against tyranny , which is nothing more than injustice.
There is zero question that you have passion on gay marriage, and interestingly, you seemed to have moved from libertarian arguments, to using Christ and God to promote your agenda.
You are not libertarian on homosexual issues, but instead use the bible and Christ to guide you on political issues related to it?
Thanks for the heads up. Good riddance.
You sir, are lying about everything I said. You may continue to post to me, but I will not address you further.
(yer post was at the top when I refreshed the comments page)
What happened is that I confused you with another ‘buckeye’ and your arguments were a little similar, gay marriage for states, which means of course the nation and the federal government, and making religious arguments in defense of gay marriage and free will, libertarians have started using religious arguments in strange ways to defend opposition to Christians fighting gay marriage.
Fake 'marriage', fake divorce. No sympathy.
Absolutely. Marriage is what it is, and while the state can recognize it, the state can’t redefine it.
I realize this is from yesterday but am reading headlines today of DOMA was struck down. Saw one just before I logged in today at nohoo. Heard homos last night saying another step forward (there is that word again) for them on the evening news. Pardon me, I may have to go be sick.
Huge Victory for Gay Marriage
Le Sigh.......
Dear God, help us.
Stay safe, dearest KC_Lion.
I’m praying for you.
Watch out for those nasty snakes. Seriously!
**************************
I'm stunned that anyone on this site would believe such a thing. Good riddance to you and your depravity.
This is the very jack booted thug tyranny you claim you are opposed to.
***************************
Well said.
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.