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 wonder so many people find it a fool’s errand to take the time to vote.
Well, we tried the ballot box. And the soap box. Now the jury box, if I can stretch it. There’s only one box left, and although the price has gone up, such boxes are still scatteringly available.
Roberts is turning into another Souter disaster
The CA AG or Governor should not have veto power over the people’s vote, and that is basically what they did.
It’s exactly what they did.
. Society recognized it as a marriage, and the gov’t didn’t have any business in it.
“Society”??? That also includes legal recognition. IOW “governemnt” of some sort or another. You liberaltarians make me want to puke. You are essentially promoting fag “marriage” in the guise of mincing weasel words.
Why? Because he voted to keep DOMA intact? Curious logic.
In the one case, supposedly they are all about the states getting to decide for themselves. California decided. But, now they’re saying that California can’t decide for itself if it’s power elite don’t agree to defend their decision. So, it isn’t really about states rights. It’s about using whatever justification is necessary to get to the desired result.
Marlowe is right. This has become demonic.
Revolution is coming.
Xzins, I agree with you 100%.
What is crystal clear is that you are either so brain damaged that you have no ability to think rationally, or you are being disingenuous and deceitful and supporting perversion. One of the two.
Oh, I see...you just want uncle fedgov to keep handing you all those benefits at my expense and you’re just mad that the homosexuals are in on your gravy train now.
That's cause John Roberts is a reprobate faggot. He's just standing up for, AND defending "his" people. Just like 0dumb0 & Holder defend "their" people.
John Roberts will roast for eternity in Hell, in agony & torment, with his own demonic court rulings ringing is his ears.
God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man (or woman, or homo / lesbian faggot) sows, that shall they also reap.
Good advice. Lately I've felt distant from God, and I haven't been praying as much as usual. I believe it's because I haven't dealt with the anger (and yes, hate) that's in my heart for the destroyers of this nation. I need to take care of that, and get back on my knees.
You do realize that, in the 5-4 ruling you cite, Scalia joined him. I guess Scalia is becoming one of those reprobate faggots, too. Imagine that.
I argue that marriage is a religious institution and the gov’t doesn’t have any business telling everyone that they have to accept it because most religions don’t believe in it.
Like it or not society formed common law. What was commonly accepted for most of history was that marriage was a private contract between a man and a woman and usually (in most cultures including ours)God.
So, no, I don’t think the gov’t has any business forcing christians or anyone else to recognize something that we don’t believe in. A legal recognition opens doors for demanding it be taught in schools, etc.
I’m not promoting anything except that the gov’t should stay out of private lives. Pick your fights more wisely.
The argument that Scalia ‘caved’ is a terrible argument. Scalia had a scathing dissent which proves this not to be the case.
I never stated Scalia caved. There are many on here who seem to think Roberts caved. I simply stated the fact that Roberts voted the same as Scalia. So how did Roberts cave on this issue?
Never said he did, It’s not me you’re arguing with...
Part of the Common Law (otherwise know as the English Common Law), states that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Along with habeaus corpus, trial by jury, etc are all components of English Common Law.
Marriage is one of the three pillars of the common law. Removing a pillar isn’t going to get you where you want to go.
If you want smaller government, then the government needs to assert their authority in the areas in which they are permitted.
As is, the government will simply do whatever they feel like, which is a formula for unmitigated expansion. Hobbling the state from exercising their legitimate duties simply opens things right up for them to exercise illegitimate duties.
Arguing the state should not be involved in marriage really is no difference in arguing that the state should not be involved in immigration, etc.
I’m going for Perversion. They know damn well they are cutting us off at the knees.
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.