Skip to comments.SCOTUS DOMA Ruling A Loss For Big Government, Democrats
Posted on 06/27/2013 3:49:16 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
click here to read article
NOpe. IN divorce courts, gays will rule and heterosexualizing parties will be punished with alimonis, work, taxes and passport retractions. YOu can bet on it.
This is false. Gay marriage is shackle to government marriage sanctified by government. It is a worse sharia replacing the former one if there was any.
Mitt Romney began this, with Marg Marshall put on
the judicial throne from her home S. Africa to impose
Mitt Romney violated the Mass Constitution to impose
the S. African’s order.
Perhaps, but it seems ALSO that SCOTUS basically nullified the Constitution of the state of California with its prop 8 decision....so all will now have to bow their knee to the opinion of pro-sodomy judges.
They championed it to fend off the more enduring prospect of a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and “clever” Republican leadership went along.
Bad spin and wishful thinking by Dana.
Historically, if you go back....there’s two angles on how we got drawn into government entanglement on this issue.
In the late 1700s...the issue of joint property came up....especially when guys would pass away, and their family (not the wife and their kids, but the brothers or parents of the guy)...would get into property disputes by saying that the wife had no connection to the property. So the idea of registering the marriage at a county office grew out of that dispute.
In the early 1800s....came the issue of guys marrying a woman and then running off....to be found months later married to another woman in the next county. So marriage license discussions came up. The threat of state law would come down on a guy who did this type of immoral activity.
To me, it’d be a lot easier to just shake the federal and state government out of this business of marriage...leaving it to the church. Then just have civil union paperwork down at the county office to conform to joint property issues.
I”m getting dizzy...
You are saying the same thing as the author of the article.
Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman before god, not before government.
Before DOMA, gay marriage was barely an issue. DOMA created the precedent that the definition of marriage should be defined by the government. So if you believe in the legitimacy of DOMA, now you must also believe in the legitimacy of gay marriage. This was their plan from the beginning.
Government should have just stayed out of it. The supporters of DOMA got played by Bill Clinton.
No, she’s right.
DOMA was signed into law by Bill Clinton.
It makes no sense that conservatives are sorry to see it go.
What a mush-brained piece of SSM advocacy this is by Ms. Loesch. Just an effort at misdirection to appeal to the low-information conservatives - many of whom are attracted to Erickson’s site - and mask the devestating blow to our culture we were dealt on Wednesday by SCOTUS.
DOMA was absolutely necessary to proactively head-off the litigatioin strategy of the left, to impose SSM on all the states via the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the Constitution. Remember the Constitution? We had one once.
“devestating blow to our culture we were dealt on Wednesday”
DOMA was enacted by Bill Clinton in 1996 and was struck down yesterday.
Gay marriage wasn’t exactly the law of the land before 1996.
The article is accurate in principle.
Rand Paul: The Supreme Court’s DOMA ruling was appropriate; ‘Regrettable overreach,” says Ted Cruz
Hotair | 06/26/2013 | AllahPundit
Posted on 06/26/2013 5:41:29 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Here’s a big dose of reality from someone who knows what he’s talking about, unlike Ms. Loesch:
That article is BS. Paul was referring to DOMA and Cruz was referring to Prop 8. Two different issues.
They have the exact same position on both rulings but AllahPundit is trying to create divisions.
If California ever elects a pro heterosexual marriage governor and he or she decides to take this court case back to the SCOTUS... they can. It was ruled that an individual cannot sue on behalf of a State. CS I know but that was the decision.
I wonder if a state legally defined the word “infant” to mean anyone under the age of 18, would 20 USC 33 apply to all minors in that state?
The words “married” and “spouse” had clear, specific meanings when federal laws were enacted. Do we really want to be able to bypass the legislative process and change the meaning and import of laws by simply changing the definition of words?
“impose SSM on all the states via the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the Constitution”
Section 2 of DOMA was not struck down.
Kennedy wrote that the recognition of marriage should be left to the ‘sovereign power’ of the states.
No state can be forced to recognize gay marriages from another state.
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.