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 ...
So, the Supreme Court has handed us a dog s#!t sandwich and told us it was ham on rye.
Well, we still know what it is and we won’t bite.
I blame the court. With this opinion they gave every governor the power to thwart popular will with a simple executive decision not to defend a law passed, or at least a referendum approved, regardless of how overwhelming its popular support.
There is no certainly in the law. With this decision the states are ruled by men and not by law.
Why do we waste so much money on salaries for members of Congress and the state legislatures, and their staffs? Just let the courts write all the laws. Same end result and it would save a lot of money.
Absolutely! I really don’t know who is on our side anymore...
Absolutely evil, the people did not have the right to defend their own vote in court.
We are done.
Agree, but then how do you allow the Sierra Club to have standing in environmental cases as a ‘stakeholders’? Would seem to be the same in theory.
I'm almost too sickened to be angry.
And keep in mind the federal judge’s ruling was an evil anti Christian rant.
That beats out the vote of the people.
What did GEORGE WASHINGTON say about sodomites?
“..abhorrent and detestation of such Infamous Crimes...”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28gw110081%29%29
I understand the other Founding Fathers had worse punishments in mind for Sodomites.
No one.
One consolation! Perhaps all of the sodomites will leave my state (CO) and migrate to California.
hoorah!
” Absolutely! I really don’t know who is on our side anymore...”
***
No one in Washington, that’s for sure.
Trust no one.
Polygamy will be legal in the US in 5 years and child marriage not long after.
Well, maybe we can take some enjoyment in watching them hit the reality wall of unintended consequences with all the divorce suits that will follow thanks to the well-documented infidelity that’s part and parcel of most of their relationships.
Is there another Supreme court ruling coming on Gay Marriage? Or was this it? They ruled that states can ban laws against gay marriage?
Seriously have been looking at other countries to move to.. Votes no longer matter, individual citizens no longer matter. The gov’t wants to control my communications, my thermostat and where exactly I stand when I say Jesus Christ aloud.
From what I read, this says that each state still has the right to decide on gay marriage. California would have to change the provision in their state constitution that rendered Prop 8 null.
It’s a dark day in America.
We’re just about done.
Lord, have mercy!
No, but he might have to stop performing "marriages" since that definition now belongs to the government and is used to describe a benefits-sharing arrangement between any two individuals who choose to sign the official papers.
Instead, the church will now need to come up with some new term for their ceremony - "covenant" or "holy union" or some such, that does not infringe upon the government's new trademark.
Am I understanding this correctly?
The people lack standing to defend a referendum that they passed? They passed the referendum because their state representatives failed to carry out their will. So the SCUTUS rules that those who failed to represent their constituents are the same ones responsible for defending it?
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.