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

Skip to comments.

U.S. Supreme Court wipes out Proposition 8's gay marriage ban
MercuryNews.com ^ | June 26, 2013 | Howard Mintz

Posted on 06/26/2013 7:41:40 AM PDT by Deo volente

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-312 next last
To: Deo volente

From the perspective of three branches of gov’t, the SC, the judicial, has sided with the executive branch over the legislative branch aka the people. The peoples check and balance on the executive branch is the ballot box, or IMPEACHMENT. The people’s check on the judicial system is only IMPEACHMENT. The Robert’s court ganging up with the executive branch is a shame. We, the people, need to take our power back.


151 posted on 06/26/2013 9:07:41 AM PDT by VRWC For Truth (Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Amen. It's an insult to virtuous Catholics that Pelosi’s proclamations are allowed to stand unchallenged, by the Vatican.
152 posted on 06/26/2013 9:10:26 AM PDT by liberalh8ter (The only difference between flash mob 'urban yutes' and U.S. politicians is the hoodies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

I agree, I most concerned with the fact that if a State’s AG and governor do not sign on to what the people wanted that it’s impossible to overturn a federal ruling on the case. That seems awfully heavy handed for the people who say they want to protect the people from oppressive governments.


153 posted on 06/26/2013 9:10:50 AM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Think of the Gold Rush for Laywers handling Gay Divorces? Next big thing Poligamy and sharia child marriages for girls as young as five.


154 posted on 06/26/2013 9:11:18 AM PDT by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog

Yes you are. What exactly did this ruling achieve? The Feds still recognizes marriage to you all short-sighted libertarians; now the homosexuals get in on the benefits/action. How is this not favoring the homosexual agenda or pushing homosexual marriage or ending Fed observance on marriage?


155 posted on 06/26/2013 9:14:52 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

Nobody’s gonna call out the liberalterians for once again screwing america.


156 posted on 06/26/2013 9:16:50 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Ibelieve a storm is coming sooner rather than later and pray we and ours are prepared for it.

Yup. The calm before The Storm.

Amen on that prep, brutha.

157 posted on 06/26/2013 9:17:59 AM PDT by USS Johnston (Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be bought at the price of chains & slavery? - Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

Hey no thinking “outside the box”! /s


158 posted on 06/26/2013 9:18:15 AM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

IOW, screw the will of the people.


159 posted on 06/26/2013 9:20:13 AM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

Has Scalia gone full blown lib, too? Scalia voted the same as roberts on both gay marriage cases.


160 posted on 06/26/2013 9:22:23 AM PDT by Rokurota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

Congratulations sodomy enthusiasts.


161 posted on 06/26/2013 9:22:40 AM PDT by Einherjar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
I used to be a Libertarian, then I turned 25, quit smoking pot, studied history, quit deifying our hypocritical Founding Fathers, understood reality, understood that the Spirit and Law of our Constitution is long gone, and bought enough marshmallows for when society starts to "burn" again.

To a libertarian, reality is hypocritical and should be shunned. BTW, the "war on drugs" is really a farce, so libertarians, you got that right.
162 posted on 06/26/2013 9:28:58 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA

I hate to say it but America is going to be punished.Sad day for our Kids.Very bad message.


163 posted on 06/26/2013 9:29:44 AM PDT by fatima (Free Hugs Today :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

So let me see if I understand:
The Supremes ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional,in part because it prohibited states from making their own marriage laws,BUT,once a state DOES make it’s own marriage laws,as with Prop 8 defining marriage as one man-one woman ONLY,then the gays can just judge-shop until they find a judge that rules in their favor,and the people of that state are told they have NO standing to challenge.

Do I have that right?


164 posted on 06/26/2013 9:32:31 AM PDT by massmike (At least no one is wearing a "Ron Paul - 2016" tee shirt........yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

Yeah, it’s really a farce when you’re fighting to keep your kiddo off drugs long enough for them to get a decent job and an education.


165 posted on 06/26/2013 9:32:58 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Rokurota

No. Scalia had a scathing dissent.


166 posted on 06/26/2013 9:33:50 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Both Roberts and Scalia dissented in the DOMA case. Then both Roberts and Scalia voted for the majority opinion in the Prop 8 case. They voted the same in both cases. If someone states that Roberts has gone full blown lib because of these two cases, then Scalia apparently has, too.


167 posted on 06/26/2013 9:39:57 AM PDT by Rokurota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Rokurota

Obama’s got the goods on them.


168 posted on 06/26/2013 9:40:42 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Maybe...but they both voted opposite of what Obama would have on DOMA.


169 posted on 06/26/2013 9:41:38 AM PDT by Rokurota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Exactly. And by the courts writing, how would anyone but them be “harmed” by same sex marriage? That lack of harm, and therefore standing before SCOTUS essentially guarantees that the Appeals Court decision will never be overturned.


170 posted on 06/26/2013 9:43:35 AM PDT by TangledUpInBlue (I have no home. I'm the wind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Rokurota

Rather than making terrible arguments, why not cite Scalia’s dissent?


171 posted on 06/26/2013 9:47:00 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: TangledUpInBlue

Children?


172 posted on 06/26/2013 9:47:29 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Since when is citing a fact (such as both Scalia and
Roberts dissented) become a terrible argument?


173 posted on 06/26/2013 9:49:36 AM PDT by Rokurota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
Scalia sided with the anti-Prop 8 supporters along with Roberts. Scalia and Roberts sided with DOMA but Kennedy switched because he did not want to look like a hypocrite in his “States” right argument (Concerning DOMA) that made no sense at all from a Constitutional standpoint (Equality concerning States that approve homosexual marriage, but ignores States that do not for some unknown reason).

Also ignores a bunch of other Fed/tax laws that defines marriage (There goes your "protect the Constitution" you closet pro-homosexual rights libertarians). Somehow those are allowed to stay, while the “goodies” are distributed.
174 posted on 06/26/2013 9:49:57 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
How do you fight the 16th Amendment and the Social Security act? By voting for Libertarians? Yeah, that is a real effective tactic.

Show me how it's any worse than voting for a Republican. Seriously.
Libertarians want government out of every nook and cranny of life; I can work with that... but the government's selectively enforced 'laws' on anything and everything, yeah, you have a good (sarcasm) chance there (video: part 1, part 2).

175 posted on 06/26/2013 9:50:03 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: massmike

I cannot undesrtand legalese, but your summary seems to be what I can glean.

In other words, the SCOTUS should be named SCROTUM (except for the few who got it right on both votes). These are my conclusions:

They want states’ rights? Let’s give them states’ rights up their okole! Everything not mandated in the Constitution for the fedgov is now up for grabs! And the judiciary is rotten to the core! Jury nullification - judge nullification - we need to spread this message all over the place! Why should our rights be perverted and stolen by homosexual judges, immoral judges, idiot judges, bought and sold, bribed and blackmailed judges, crazy judges, and so on?? Why? We need to fight against this tyranny of vile judges.

Second, we need God’s hand. I’ve already spent extra time today in prayer. This hurtling into sodom and tyranny cannot continue.


176 posted on 06/26/2013 9:53:00 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Your argument does not nullify the fact that marriage has been recongized LEGALLY for thousands of years, whoever does the official marriage ceremony.


177 posted on 06/26/2013 9:53:59 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

The homosexual trolls are out in full force on this thread. Either homo trolls or liberaltarians. Same thing practically.


178 posted on 06/26/2013 9:54:47 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

The Viking Kitties are going to be working overtime today.


179 posted on 06/26/2013 9:55:20 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon

Active prayer - for one thing, I am driven to prayer lately and today even more so.

I made a comment a few minutes ago about judge nullification - we are now in a double tyranny - of a corrupt and powermade fedgov, and corrupt and powermad judiciary.


180 posted on 06/26/2013 9:56:36 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot

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.


181 posted on 06/26/2013 9:59:18 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

Roberts is turning into another Souter disaster


182 posted on 06/26/2013 9:59:47 AM PDT by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

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.


183 posted on 06/26/2013 10:00:00 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
The point was we are screwed either way (And never said voting repubs was an answer because they are not). Only a successful violent revolution would suffice (Low odds because the Libertarians are too stoned or on an wicked acid trip in order to shoot straight).

What I don't like is expanding the recognition further, because marriage is only between a female and male (Root and natural). Libertarians just allowed the Federal government to define illogical precepts. I thought Libertarians were all for logic and reason, guess not when the feds have perverted expanding to do.
184 posted on 06/26/2013 10:00:27 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

. 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.


185 posted on 06/26/2013 10:01:41 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2

Why? Because he voted to keep DOMA intact? Curious logic.


186 posted on 06/26/2013 10:01:54 AM PDT by Rokurota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: xzins; massmike

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%.


187 posted on 06/26/2013 10:03:32 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog; rollo tomasi

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.


188 posted on 06/26/2013 10:05:08 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

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.


189 posted on 06/26/2013 10:06:26 AM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente
The 5-4 ruling was written by Chief Justice John Roberts.

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.

190 posted on 06/26/2013 10:07:52 AM PDT by rcrngroup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
"Active prayer"

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.

191 posted on 06/26/2013 10:08:37 AM PDT by CatherineofAragon ((Support Christian white males----the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: rcrngroup

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.


192 posted on 06/26/2013 10:09:55 AM PDT by Rokurota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
No, I want SS gone, Medicare/Medicaid gone, the 16th Amend gone, Welfare gone, targeted tax cuts gone, and any other Federal Entitlement gone. If that stuff is staying (Which reality dictates those programs/laws are, witness the electorate LOL), I want the feds to at least maintain a logical awareness in the face of a perverted generation saying marriage is not the natural definition when those other laws were established.

What you call for is that perverted expansion by default yet you deny that for some reason.

Reality is being debated here, not some Constitutional fantasy where originality is long passed dead.

Give me some assurances that all Federal goodies are gone before you spout on with a useless thesis on why the feds should not be in the marriage business. That is not reality, reality is that you are favoring marriage expansion by the Feds (Exact opposite of what you call for). Where was the drawback of the feds recognition of marriage in today's ruling?
193 posted on 06/26/2013 10:19:18 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

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.


194 posted on 06/26/2013 10:20:51 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Rokurota

The argument that Scalia ‘caved’ is a terrible argument. Scalia had a scathing dissent which proves this not to be the case.


195 posted on 06/26/2013 10:21:55 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

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?


196 posted on 06/26/2013 10:24:14 AM PDT by Rokurota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Rokurota

Never said he did, It’s not me you’re arguing with...


197 posted on 06/26/2013 10:26:20 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

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.


198 posted on 06/26/2013 10:27:35 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

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.


199 posted on 06/26/2013 10:30:26 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

I’m going for Perversion. They know damn well they are cutting us off at the knees.


200 posted on 06/26/2013 10:31:41 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Un Pere, Une Mere, C'est elementaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-312 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