Skip to comments.U.S. Supreme Court wipes out Proposition 8's gay marriage ban
Posted on 06/26/2013 7:41:40 AM PDT by Deo volente
click here to read article
True. Next up probably will be the Constitutionality of same-sex marriage. I'm not very hopeful with this SCOTUS.
I agree...this really should not surprise anyone on FR...
Boys and girls, we, as a Nation, are on a train pulled by a steam locomotive on a down hill track heading to destruction at full throttle. Keep in mind that a steam engine, like a turbine, has no speed limit. As long as the fuel is fed to it, it accelerates until it comes apart. And at this point in time, we have no interest in curtailing the flow of fuel to the engine. The just leaves destruction as the end.
Yes. In Perry the supreme court gave a single governor or attorney general the power to thwart a popular referendum if those two people dislike the result.
Yep, we now have a federal government that can see no difference between a husband-and-wife and two degenerate pervs.
America has truly descended into evil. I used to wonder if the country was even salvageable. Now, I question if it’s even ‘worth’ salvaging.
Or, always was, it appears.
Just be sure you return your ballot to the court rather than the polling place so they can “correct” any “mistakes” you’ve made with your votes on the propositions so we don’t have to go through this again.
Along with the communist tyrant in the White House and a rubber stamp Congress.
Amen to all you said
The “Impeach John Roberts” billboards are coming...
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...”
I understand the other Founding Fathers had worse punishments in mind for Sodomites.
One consolation! Perhaps all of the sodomites will leave my state (CO) and migrate to California.
” Absolutely! I really dont 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?
The role of government is to "secure the blessings of liberty". . .in this regard the government interest in marriage is proper when focused on protecting the rights of children, who are not yet able to protect their own rights.
Our inalienable rights are endowed to us at conception/birth, which means the first right endowed, in application, is the right for a child to be raised and cared for by the biological father and mother who conceived that child. Other than that, government is not needed because no one has a right to be married. . .gay or otherwise. . .we have a right to an attorney. . but not to a spouse. The true victims of today's ruling are children.
Only if two Constitutional Amendments are passed;
1) Eradication of the 16th Amendment.
2) Any type of chronic Entitlement programs, including Social Security are to be ended with some being "grandfathered" in. Amendment should conclude that the individual States are the only entity that has the power to enact Entitlement programs, not the Federal government. Also States are required to pay for any Entitlement programs internally. Also the Federal Government is not a source of budget overlays in cases where States are deep in debt. Only subsidies in case of natural dissaters or invasion will be allowed.
Also, ditto about spousal visas. What would be your plan?
If not, I don't mind Federal firewalls protecting natural matrimony, because the Federal government has been in the marriage business DECADES before the United States sexual revolution occurred in the 1960s.
Today's ruling just reaffirms the hypocrisy of our legal system.
Hell, if churches had some balls to address issues the tax-exempt crap would be a moot point... but no, they have to cower and lick their master's hand, hoping that their chains will continue to rest so lightly.
What does article 1, section 8 say about fedgov's power in marriage or spouse visas?
Good question! I don’t have the answer. If there’s any good news here at least the court didn’t define or REdefine marriage and so for now it’s up to states to decide.
Probably just a matter of time.
Just what I was thinking.
Can anyone point to more than a scant couple of crucial ideological Constitutional/Conservative battles won during the last 25 years? IF that?
Let's face it; The Fix has been in. Corruption, Blackmail, Extortion, and Evil in High Places rule the Day. Get yourselves right with God and prepare to defend yourselves. All America is now The Alamo.
Samuel Alito replaced Miers, not Roberts, and Alito has been a great justice.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
A very dark day. Words cannot express the depth of my disgust and loathing for Roberts. I can only hope now for something (whatever it/they might be) that will bring this monstrous evil to an end.
If anyone wants on/off any of my pinglists, freepmail ME, not wagglebee; he hasn't been around for a while.
Imagine if this was the ruling on Brown VS Topeka?
Do you have a link to that ruling?
Honestly, I was fully expecting a sweeping ruling.
That only applies to conservatives...
Following the trend of the court system.... will that change when THEY become a minority?...nope.
I guess the claim is only the state of California can defend the law.
But, if one really believes in states rights as Roberts claims he does, Prop 8 should have been upheld no matter who challenged it.
“We can’t decide this so we will let the issue go that way by default” P*ssies in back dresses.
Just as predicted earlier this year.
And just in time for Gay Pride festivities this week.
Surprise surprise surprise.
They aren’t fooling anybody.
Sounds like the feds just told the states how they shall deal with the institution of marriage. You shouldn’t have asked for all those favors from uncle fedgov.
Boy I’m glad someone sees that. DOMA was idiotic because it has Federalized the issue. It should have just been left to the States.
Just so you know, the decision was 5-4 on this one, and Roberts was joined by Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. Not exactly the normal split.
We’ve been that since Marbury v. Madison.