Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN FEDERAL PROVISION DENYING BENEFITS TO LEGALLY MARRIED SAME-SEX COUPLES
Fox News ^

Posted on 06/26/2013 7:12:46 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty

Edited on 06/26/2013 7:25:51 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

Headline only

Text of decision here.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0bamaqueer; activistcourt; culturewar; doma; fags; federalism; gaymarriage; gaypridemonth; homosexualagenda; judicialactivism; libertarian; marriagelaws; meninblackdresses; moralabsolutes; obamanation; obamaqueer; queer; queeringamerica; ruling; samesexmarriage; scotus; smashmonogamy; smashthepatriarchy; taxdollarsatwork; vikingkitties; youpayforthis; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 401-413 next last
To: Poison Pill

A lot of the problems go away once the commie systems are destroyed

Giving government power enables that power to be seized by the unscrupulous. That power can be wielded against society. That power has been given and has been wielded by the unscrupulous to bend society in ways it did not desire.

We have to take away their tools:

income tax, social security, medicaid/care, PPACA (Obama’s commiecare), govt schools/curriculum

These are used to whittle away freedom, and to train people to docilely accept it.


301 posted on 06/26/2013 11:16:22 AM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

What this ruling is “all about” is eliminating any vestige of the Peoples’ ability to govern themselves in any consequential manner.

If you cannot pass laws that “legislate morality” and you cannot pass laws that “discriminate”, you can’t pass any laws worth having.

I’m not so concerned about this specific question, since I regard marriage between two persons of the same sex to be impossible. But the larger issue - that the California constitutions initiative feature is void, for example - is part of the post-1948 movement to circumscribe and eventually to eliminate republican government - and that’s a very big deal.


302 posted on 06/26/2013 11:21:28 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

Comment #303 Removed by Moderator

To: exit82; Norm Lenhart; onyx; trisham; TheOldLady; DJ MacWoW; RedMDer; musicman; Lady Jag; ...
"If the GOP fails America on this amnesty bill, they are finished as a political party, and America is finished as a country."

They got their big government, their socialist healthcare, their taxpayer funded abortion. They're currently destroying the military and our industrial might, and Obama is making America the laughing stock of the world. From superpower to flat busted and defenseless in less than five years of Obama. If they now get "gay rights" and open-borders amnesty, our last hill is the 2nd amendment. And they're definitely ramping up to take that. I don't put much hope in the likes of McCain, Graham, Flake, Rubio, McConnell, Boehner, Ryan, and the rest of the hornless, wooly RINO herd to suddenly grow spines. Very few dependable conservatives left in the GOP. Tokyo Rove must be awfully proud of himself. The last stand will be up to we the people. Praying we're up for it. Praying the Chicoms, Russians and their ilk don't decide now is the time before we get a chance to recover.

304 posted on 06/26/2013 11:23:34 AM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: ConstantSkeptic
And which state requires consummation for a legal marriage to exist?

LMAO!!! consummation and procreation go hand in hand. Society did not come to grant privilege and respect to marriage because of LOVE. It gas everything to do with procreation and raising children -ding ding -CONSUMMATION!

Reality at a minimum requires the possibility of consummation REGARDLESS any exceptions. Exceptions to the rules do not make the rules. As to homosexual sex it is not an exception -it is a consummation IMPOSSIBILITY.

Homosexual LOVE does not benefit and is as such irrelevant to society to all but delusional leftists.

Are you a delusional leftist?

305 posted on 06/26/2013 11:24:15 AM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

You have it right, Mr. R.


306 posted on 06/26/2013 11:28:32 AM PDT by basil (basil --Second Amendment Sisters.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: kabar; a fool in paradise
"If some state recognizes polygamy, then the feds must pony up the benefits. Anything goes."

That's correct, if it's all about "equal protection." Then, all other married scenarios must be allowed and protected.

May God help us save our country from this tyranny and debauchery.

307 posted on 06/26/2013 11:28:37 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

Ping!


308 posted on 06/26/2013 11:31:21 AM PDT by basil (basil --Second Amendment Sisters.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: anyone

I’m not surprised.


309 posted on 06/26/2013 11:31:50 AM PDT by guido911 (Islamic terrorists are members http://www.freerepublic.com/foof the "ROP", the "religion of pu*&ies")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Bump that.


310 posted on 06/26/2013 11:32:15 AM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge; NYRepublican72
"“Not exactly shocked by either decision. Marriage has been something that is of state concern”

What’s your brilliant plan with spousal visas?

=================================================================

I would assume, that the feds would handle a spousal visa the same way they currently handle a spousal visa.

If a state say's someone is married, then the feds go with that.

311 posted on 06/26/2013 11:35:09 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

From the bench today or rumors? No, neither.


312 posted on 06/26/2013 11:35:09 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: stormer
What legislation was in place to prevent hetero couples from doing the same thing?

I will assume you are simply naive rather than assuming you argue for homosexual sex premised couplings benefits.

Marriage has been recognized by society and granted reward respect and privilege because of one thing -CHILDREN!

Nothing to do with love, companionship, sharing house chores, poetry, yadda yadda.

Society has never IMPOSED child bearing nor demanded proof of ability or intent. Any exceptions to the rule are for the most part ignored because they would be near impossible to glean and as such enforce.

FACT: Homosexual sex procreation is not an exception; it is an impossibility.

(WHY DO I FEEL I ARGUE WITH LEFTISTS ON FR, IS THE COUNTRY THAT FAR GONE?(

313 posted on 06/26/2013 11:35:34 AM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: zerosix; cripplecreek
"You surely don't imagine that the Feds would step in and force churches to "recognize," so-called gay marriages, if it's left up to churches to define marriage, do you?

That's next on the agenda, by the way."

That's correct. This ruling, while not fully what the gay's wanted...

is just a stepping stone to get there.

And then some.

314 posted on 06/26/2013 11:37:00 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

The decision FORCES gay “marriage” upon America! It’s gonna be a Homo Hoedown in San Francisco tonight!


315 posted on 06/26/2013 11:37:21 AM PDT by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: safeasthebanks

That’s incorrect.

Essentially, the SCOTUS decision says that the case was properly heard before the U.S. District Court of N. CA. (Judge Walker) because the State of CA was defending Prop 8 at that time. The case was not properly heard before the 9th Circuit because the voters who brought the initiative have no legal standing to defend Prop 8 in the federal court system. They can only do so in CA under CA law.


316 posted on 06/26/2013 11:38:00 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

We might as well go all in on the homo issue and start a movement to draft a Constitutional amendment defining it a monogamous and heterosexual. It would take 38 states to ratify such an amendment and there are already 34 with laws or state constitutional amendments prohibiting homos from marrying. With off-year elections coming up, I have no doubt we could get the legislatures in an additional 4 states to ratify. Then we can put an end to this abominable farce once and for all.

Otherwise, homo “marriage” will very shortly be the law of the land.


317 posted on 06/26/2013 11:40:02 AM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

So what you’re saying is that someone should be admitted to America, because of the immigration laws in one state.

Marvelous.

So how, exactly, is this different than CA passing Amnesty and giving papers to everyone who crosses the CA border that they can give them to go anywhere in America?

Immigration is a federal power, granted by the constitution.


318 posted on 06/26/2013 11:41:02 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: snarkytart; NKP_Vet
Yes but California decided they didnt want gay marriage and a state court over turned it and SCOTUS allowed that court decision to stand, and to me that isn’t the people of the state getting to decide."

Fixed it. There is a difference.

"“We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “We decline to do so for the first time here.”[1]

319 posted on 06/26/2013 11:41:14 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

I’d be 100 percent behind a crusade like this. With 38 and a constitutional amendment it would stop O from cramming anything down the hatch.

Let me know what you and JimRob devise and I’ll do what I can.


320 posted on 06/26/2013 11:42:16 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 401-413 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson