Posted on 06/26/2013 7:41:40 AM PDT by Deo volente
The U.S. Supreme Court today paved the way for same-sex couples to marry soon in California, effectively leaving intact a lower-court ruling that struck down the state's voter-approved ban on gay marriage.
In a ruling that assures further legal battles, the high court found that backers of Proposition 8 did not have the legal right to defend the voter-approved gay marriage ban in place of the governor and attorney general, who have refused to press appeals of a federal judge's 2010 ruling finding the law unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court ruling, which found it had no legal authority to decide the merits of a challenge to Proposition 8, sends the case back to that original decision -- and the only question now is how quickly same-sex couples can marry and whether that ruling will have immediate statewide effect.
The 5-4 ruling was written by Chief Justice John Roberts.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
No. It’s pretty much only the CA AG or Governor that has standing.
For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows—even without witnesses—the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
Marriage licenses were introduced in the 14th century, to allow the usual notice period under banns to be waived, on payment of a fee and accompanied by a sworn declaration, that there was no canonical impediment to the marriage. Licenses were usually granted by an archbishop, bishop or archdeacon.
In the United States, until the mid-19th century, common-law marriages were recognized as valid, but thereafter some states began to invalidate common-law marriages. Common-law marriages, if recognized, are valid, notwithstanding the absence of a marriage license. The requirement for a marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. By the 1920s, 38 states used the mechanism.
Some groups believe that the requirement to obtain a marriage license is unnecessary and/or immoral. The Libertarian Party, for instance, believes that all marriages should be civil, not requiring sanction from the state.[8][9] Libertarians argue that marriage is a right, and that by allowing the state to exercise control over marriage, it is implied that we merely have privilege, not the right, to marry. As an example, those born in the US receive a birth certificate, not a birth license.[10] Some Christian groups also argue that a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman presided over by the Christian God, so no authorization from the state is required. In some US states, the state is cited as a party in the marriage contract[11] which is seen by some as an infringement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_licence
Does this mean that the government must recognize polygamous unions that are recognized internationally?
“Perhaps we have a hint of what the NSA has learned about Roberts and how he is controlled.”
When he flipped and allowed Obozo care, a lot of us wondered what pictures and other stuff the Chicago thugs had to blackmail him.
We left out emails, phone calls and other electronic communication monitored by No Such Agency.
Response: Of course! Did any rational person actually believe that the court would support the provision?
Comment: As the great historian stated: "In declining states the leadership intuitively choses the most harmful course of action."-1888
President Obama also refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.
President Obama also refuses to uphold the Constitution, protect this nation from terrorist threats or illegal immigration.
Etc etc.
There is no accountability when those elected to serve the public DO NOT DO THE JOB THEY HAVE SWORN TO DO. "You have no standing to challenge them". BULLSTALIN.
Impeachment proceedings should begin immediately against those who refuse to do their damn job.
Yeah, well you wanted your “living, breathing document” to give power to Mordor on the Potomac that wasn’t spelled out in article 1, section 3. And you got it. You got to learn the hard way on this one.
And it shouldn’t be any of the gov’t business.
In the United States, until the mid-19th century, common-law marriages were recognized as valid, but thereafter some states began to invalidate common-law marriages. Common-law marriages, if recognized, are valid, notwithstanding the absence of a marriage license. The requirement for a marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. By the 1920s, 38 states used the mechanism.
God knows I have my own sins, but this country deserves judgement. Some even say this is it.
This happened in California before. The state officials refuse to support the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box.
We passed prop 187 to restrict benefits for illegal aliens.
Gay Davis refused to defend it in court. That is the biggest contribution to the mess we have been in in Cal even before OB, the hero of benghazi came along.
It could be that they're serving Satan*, it could be that they've forgotten their first love
, or it could be that they're merely lukewarm and Jesus will vomit you out of my mouth
.
* There are those who claim that the LDS church is this way; I'm more of the opinion that it's horribly corrupted but that the Holy Spirit is more powerful than that corruption and could save someone through/despite those corrupted teachings.
The idea that a group can get an initiative on the ballot and not defend it in court is ludicrous.*
This is the same BS about OB, the hero of benghazi’s eligibility.
We are entitled to a legal and honest election, but we have no standing to claim one in court.
The last half of that case is an excellent read... I'll have to [re]read the first though.
What else should I need? There was all that screaming and crying for drug wars and favors for married people and tax breaksbfor whelping out a litter, and telling people how to live. Now you get one another one of these extra-constitutional boondoggles blow up in your faces and you blame...me. Yeah, that works.
1) The tyranny of specific judiciary members..co-opting the will of the people which is lawfully taken according to the laws of their soveriegn state.
2) The compromising of those same judiciary by a criminal, thugish enterprise in this current administration which is, IMHO, either bribing or coersing them to vote as they direct.
I agree. But the degree of infiltration is bi-partisan, extends to Congress itself, Public Schools, and the military-industrial complex Ike warned us about.
If I may add additional aiders and abetters in facilitating this tyranny and obvious Treason:
The collusion/collaboration of the ubiquitous propaganda Organ of the Mainstream Media print, TV, and cyber-social weaponry, its tentacles: The "Entertainment Industry" and Pop Culture. Moreover, the traditional Judeo-Christian leadership has been marginalized, co-opted, and intimidated.
Eventually we must make a stand, our Alamo, our Stalingrad...or ALL -- both liberal and conservative -- WILL become slaves.
Reality is not your strong point I guess.
Your rigid interpretation concerning a document whose Spirit was destroyed long ago is of no value since the Feds have been regulating marriage for decades before DOMA. Your cherry picking/defending the hypocrisy is rather a curious one.
I don't think it's judicial over-reach. It is more like the court punting back to the states on hard cases; which has been the trend since Roberts took over. If you look at many of the rulings, even obamacare, many of the decisions, both positive and negative in the eyes of conservatives, always seem to be directed back to the state level for a fresh journey to the SC, or for the states to fix.
This whole chain of events is leading to a showdown on the 10th Amendment. I think this will come to a head sometime in 2014, as the Feds start hammering states that have passed nullification laws against obamacare. The obamacare showdown will come before one on the 2nd Amendment, simply because there is more wide spread revolt amongst the states on the matter.
As far as the case on Prop 8, as Robert's himself said, "Elections have consequences". Maybe as the queers get married in droves in CA the vast majority of Californians that continually elect hard core socialists will get a clue. THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THEM OR THEIR MORALS AND WISHES.
The extra-constitutional boondoggle was a symptom of other extra-constitutional boondoggles. Your hypocrisy is picking one extra-constitutional boondoggle and applauding the expansion. Yeah that works.
I don’t think I could ever leave America. But the country is indeed a putrid, dying shell of what it once was, and is now clearly devolving into abject evil. I’ll just bide my time until it all falls, waiting to pick up arms when some feasible self-survival/secession movement might arrive.
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.