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

Skip to comments.

HERITAGE: The Supreme Courtís Gay Marriage Decisions by the Numbers
Heritage Foundation ^ | 06/27/2013 | Jennifer Marshall

Posted on 06/27/2013 8:46:46 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

The morning after two important—and troubling—Supreme Court decisions in the Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cases, here’s the lay of the land. The important takeaway: The marriage debate is every bit as live today as it was yesterday morning…and that means it’s time to redouble our efforts to stand for marriage across America. Some key numbers following the decisions:

50 The number of states whose marriage laws remain the same after the Court’s marriage decisions.

38 The number of states with laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That includes California, where the scope of today’s Prop 8 decision beyond the specific plaintiffs will be the subject of ongoing debate and, most likely, further litigation.

12 The number of states that can now force the federal government to recognize their redefinition of marriage. The Court struck Section 3 of DOMA, which means that it must recognize same-sex marriages in states that redefine marriage.

1 The number of sections of the Defense of Marriage Act struck down yesterday (Section 3). Section 2, which ensures that no state will be forced to recognize another state’s redefinition of marriage, is still law.

0 The number of states forced to recognize other states’ redefinition of marriage.

The important news you may not be hearing is that the U.S. Supreme Court did not redefine marriage across the nation. That means the debate about marriage will continue. States are free to uphold policies recognizing that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, so that children have a mother and a father.

States will lead the way even as we work to restore clear marriage policy at the federal level. And in the states, support for marriage as the union of a man and a woman remains strong.

Still, the Court should have respected the authority of California citizens and Congress.

On DOMA, the Court did not respect Congress’s authority to define marriage for the purposes of federal programs and benefits. The Court got federalism wrong.

On Proposition 8, the citizens of California who voted twice to pass Prop 8 should have been able to count on their Governor and Attorney General to defend the state’s constitution. That’s what democratic self-government is all about.

Now more than ever, we need to make it clear why marriage as the union of a man and a woman matters—for children, for civil society, and for limited government. As citizens, we all need to be prepared to make the case for marriage. That’s why we at Heritage have worked with allies to produce a booklet called “What You Need to Know about Marriage.” Download your free copy at TheMarriageFacts.com.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; scotus; supremecourt

1 posted on 06/27/2013 8:46:46 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
50 The number of states whose marriage laws remain the same after the Court’s marriage decisions.
38 The number of states with laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That includes California, where the scope of today’s Prop 8 decision beyond the specific plaintiffs will be the subject of ongoing debate and, most likely, further litigation.
12 The number of states that can now force the federal government to recognize their redefinition of marriage. The Court struck Section 3 of DOMA, which means that it must recognize same-sex marriages in states that redefine marriage.
1 The number of sections of the Defense of Marriage Act struck down yesterday (Section 3). Section 2, which ensures that no state will be forced to recognize another state’s redefinition of marriage, is still law.
0 The number of states forced to recognize other states’ redefinition of marriage.

I predict the Federal Government will not allow these last two to stand for long.

2 posted on 06/27/2013 8:50:53 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Why not propose and pass Prop 8 all over again, this time with language granting standing to proponents of the initiative, to defend it in all courts when the state of CA refuses to defend it? Federal legislation almost always grants standing explicitly to certain groups or potential plaintiffs. Why wouldn't that work in a CA constitutional amendment?
3 posted on 06/27/2013 9:04:30 PM PDT by Wally_Kalbacken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Pure Nonsense. This issue is now all but over.

See Mona Charen’s insightful article.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/352269/roe-any-other-name-mona-charen


4 posted on 06/27/2013 9:55:37 PM PDT by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Thanks for posting this article. So then, the USSC has required that federal benefits be granted to any couple considered “married” by their state. But, the rest of the DOMA remains in effect.


5 posted on 06/27/2013 10:01:19 PM PDT by Tired of Taxes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken

But would it pass a second time around? It got 52% the first time, and things have changed since then. Keep in mind that the Mormons were one of the major supporters of 8, and they appear to have pulled back from the issue since then, likely due to the flak that they’ve gotten.


6 posted on 06/27/2013 10:14:03 PM PDT by Coronal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Coronal
Would Prop 8 pass again in California? Absolutely. Could it be the lead in to re-taking much of the state government? Absolutely. Problem is, many Republican candidates in the state run away from any black and white issue as fast as their limos can drive.

California, the state with a very large ‘Hispanic’ population, or is it ‘Latino’ today? Hard to remember.. But either way, this state has voted twice to curtail benefits for illegals, for a native language education system, and I bet you that if it went up on the ballot, that English only would once again win the ballot.

There's no reason why Republicans can't load the bases and hit it out of the park in California, other than themselves. It would be easy to once again load up ballot measures - curtailment of benefits for illegal aliens, specifically excluding them from ObamaCare benefits, requiring full identification of those receiving benefits, or registering for others to receive benefits. For making English the only recognized language in California. For one more time clarifying to liberals who can't bother to read that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Load the bases, then hit it out of the park. ‘There's nothing for liberals to say; you know exactly how they'd run this state, how they ran it into the ground, and then pat themselves on the back. For ensuring that your children have little future here, and ensuring that their children have your money in their back pocket. It is time for the adults to step in, to sweep aside all the little agenda ‘wouldn't that be nice’ changes that crashed this state and turn it back into the economic powerhouse it once was.

‘We'll do it by drilling for oil, on and off shore. When people talk about California, they'll do it like they talk about oil power houses like Alaska and Texas. We'll do it with one language, where those who actually want to be part of this country will be welcome, and those who don't will no longer live high on your hog.

‘Where marriage means one thing to all people, not whatever the definition of the week is. Where religious freedom actually holds value, as people are free to worship as they please, and those who are offended can keep it to themselves.

‘We'll roll back all the laws that prevent business from thriving in this state, we'll shake off the yoke of financial mismanagement and outright looting of the public treasury. We'll no longer have public employees earning twice, three times the average income of a Californian, and we'll do that by working together to raise everyone’s income through economic prosperity. And you'll get to actually keep your money, rather than simply working longer and longer hours to fund some politician's favorite topic of the week.

‘California has long been the innovator. We stopped those who taxed people right out of their homes in their tracks, leading a national cause where property taxes were put under control. We were the manufacturing powerhouse - we built space ships that awed the world, and machines that walk on other planets. We'll do it again, not by picking everyone’s pocket to do so, but by encouraging the environment where such things can be accomplished once again.

‘And we'll take the first step today, by pronouncing the death of government run high speed rail. We'll take what scraps are left over, once all the contracts are cancelled and the property re-sold, and set a prize. Whomever first delivers a train from Bakersfield to Sacramento in under two hours gets the money left over. Rather than spend half a trillion dollars building something that no one will ever ride, we'll create the backbone for transit in the state.

‘We'll take a second step, together, and unify our language. Nothing is ever gained when communication is impossible, you should not be required to use a translator to talk to your neighbor, and there's no reason for your neighbor to be hindered by being unable to speak and understand English. We'll save millions by having ballots in one language, and unify our state by everyone speaking the same language.

‘And one of the first words we'll unify with is the word marriage, the union of one man and one woman. Detractors say this is bigoted, that this is offensive. No, it is none of those, it is simple English. Everyone knows what marriage means, it is the union of a man and a woman.

‘We will re-take our government by ending employment contracts and extended benefits in the state. We'll do that by first ending all benefit programs for state employees and handing them their full and complete salary, and tell them they can spend it however they wish. We will continue to honor all the great people of this state, not by taking the day off, but by working hard, which I'm sure we can all agree that they would have done had our places been switched. You do not honor someone with sloth, but by hard work and dedication.

‘And we'll end the never ending fountain of election funds by forbidding anyone from contributing to a cause they will personally financially benefit from. It is a long tradition in our country that people recluse themselves from self benefiting decisions, and we'll continue that tradition by forbidding any state employee from contributing to any politician or ballot measure which they will personally benefit from. The same rules will apply to state and local union funds. You can't buy any more of our money - it didn't work, we've run out of other people's money.

‘When all of this is done, and we've elected people who put California first, and not their personal political agenda; when serving in office is serving the people of California, and not a give away to ensure your re-election, our economy will roar as companies eagerly relocate here to join in with our re-birth as a state, and you can look to your neighbor, smile, stick a thumb up, and know we are once again going in the right direction.

‘And when the courts start strutting around, saying we can't do that, we can't do what's right, we will take their advice and console, then roll up our sleeves and fix those laws that need fixing, and get it back on track. The courts are there to guide us, not rule us. They work for us, at the end of the day, and we'll fix whatever technical issues there are, but we're heading one direction, the right direction, and minor bumps in the road aren't going to derail us, they'll simply straighten the path.’

7 posted on 06/27/2013 11:13:16 PM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I tend to agree. Voters who are in favor of true marriage are going to die-off, and it appears that we’ve lost younger voters. They’ve grown-up in broken homes, as latchkey kids, with moms who work while dads are emasculated and supplemental/optional, where divorce is no longer taboo.. the damage is done for that generation. They see how supposedly “fun” crap like “Wll & Grace” and “Glee” and “Modern Family” are, and they ask, “what’s the harm? They’re just looking for love, just like me!”

I suspect that as the media/Hollywood/judicial/cultural cheer leading onslaught continues, we’re going to see younger voters grow-up and vote in this pattern, but with the reliability of middle-aged and older voters.. and we’re going to lose on this issue at the ballot box more often, bleeding more and more into purple states.

It’s incredibly depressing, and I don’t see an easy way out of it. I used to smirk at the whole “government shouldn’t be involved in marriage” line of thought, but it’s looking good now.


8 posted on 06/28/2013 2:49:05 AM PDT by MarkRegal05
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

It’s not over if the states pursue a Constitutional amendment. And there are enough states now to ratify.


9 posted on 06/28/2013 4:07:59 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kingu

RE: Would Prop 8 pass again in California? Absolutely. Could it be the lead in to re-taking much of the state government? Absolutely. Problem is, many Republican candidates in the state run away from any black and white issue as fast as their limos can drive.

I’ve looked at how Californians vote in regards to gay marriage through the years and I cannot help but feel pessimistic about the state.

In 2000, there was Proposition 22.It restricts marriages to only those between opposite-sex couples.

The result — IT PASSED OVERWHELMINGLY : 62% to 38%

That was eventually overturned by by the California Supreme Court as contrary to the state constitution.

Then of course recently (2008), we had ANOTHER vote to make the definition of marriage PERMANENT via a constitutional amendment: Proposition 8.

NOTICE THE VOTE FOR IT THIS TIME : JUST 52% to 48%.

It seems that California has become more gay-marriage friendly in just 8 years !!


10 posted on 06/28/2013 6:15:06 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

RE: It’s not over if the states pursue a Constitutional amendment.

Errr... California’s Proposition 8 WAS a proposal to AMEND their state constitution to recognize ONLY heterosexual marriage.

The Voters passed it.

You know what happened next...

What makes one think that some other state won’t experience the same chain of events?

In the case of California, all it took was one judge (who eventually came out of the closet) to overrule the will of the people.

If it can happen there, it can happen elsewhere.


11 posted on 06/28/2013 6:18:25 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
That is one take on it. However, I point you to the upballot election that was on the same ballot... John McCain v Barak Obama - Obama carried California with 61% of the vote, McCain with only 37%. A large number of conservatives in California stayed home. One could easily have argued that McCain could have taken California with a strong stance supporting Proposition 8, and his distance from the measure hurt conservatives up and down the ballot.

So I disagree with the conclusion. Under the worst possible circumstances with a very energized liberal base, a full court media press to down the measure, and all of the liberal machine fully deployed to deliver presidential votes, they were still unable to defeat Prop 8. I do not think that California has become more accepting of it.

12 posted on 06/28/2013 6:29:50 AM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

No the amendment that is being prepared is an amendment to the US Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot override an amendment to the US Constitution and no other political body can override it.

Californians passed an amendment to their state constitution and it still stands but is unenforced. If a future governor of the state decides to enforce it, then homosexuals can sue the state based on what the homosexual federal judge ruled. But the state has standing and will be heard by SCOTUS.


13 posted on 06/28/2013 6:33:38 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; Perdogg; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; ...

FReepmail me or Perdogg to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

14 posted on 06/30/2013 12:13:45 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingu

Prop. 22 was struck down in 2008 to my understanding, the same year prop. 8 passed with 52%. If there was anything to energize the base you would think it would be being able to stick it to a judge that just ruled against 61% of the voting public. It lost 9% or so towards ‘gay marriage’ compared to the 2000 prop 22 vote despite the judicial activism that occurred in the same year. I doubt another amendment would pass on the issue, but I suppose stranger things have happened.

Freegards


15 posted on 06/30/2013 12:26:52 PM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

What matters is that the Court found there could be no reason for DOMA other than hatred for homosexuals. That belief will doom all future cases that reach it...


16 posted on 06/30/2013 12:29:43 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples.”

Does anyone REALLY think the court will allow state’s rights to interfere with it imposing homosexual marriage?


17 posted on 06/30/2013 12:40:33 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

From Scalia’s wonderful dissent:

“This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.”


18 posted on 06/30/2013 12:53:12 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingu
I do not think that California has become more accepting of it.

Then you have not been reading the polls. And we all saw how well that works.
19 posted on 06/30/2013 1:08:07 PM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Do any states have the guts to nullify what seems sure to be a push by the feds to prohibit state traditional marriage laws?


20 posted on 06/30/2013 1:41:06 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
I don't think DOMA is the issue. Marriage is not a constitutional issue and, therefore, not a federal government issue.

The issue is SCOTUS allowing to stand the District Court's decision to strike down CA's Constitutional Amendment's traditional definition of marriage.

Looks like we're back to whether any state has the guts to nullify what is certain to be a federal government push to prohibit state traditional marriage laws.

21 posted on 06/30/2013 1:48:27 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

The problem is the DOMA ruling. It made it clear that there are 5 people on the Supreme Court who view homosexual marriage as a fundamental right. The Constitution is no limit on their view of the Supreme Court and what it exists to do. They are fundamentally dishonest people who live to impose their view of morality on America.


22 posted on 06/30/2013 2:06:06 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Right. It's the language in these rulings that will fuel the federal-coercion fire. Will any state stand up to these rogue usurpers of the Constitution and nullify?

So far I haven't seen a state that is willing to thumb their nose at the feds "trump card" - fed funds. Government is ALWAYS and ONLY about the money when it strays from its true and only legitimate purpose: to defend and protect the liberties of its citizens.

I surmise a state that believes in and sticks to the free market over weak and futile federal socialism could successfully become independent of federal funds although it would be painful at first. If little nothing places with no natural resources like Hong Kong can become thriving metropolises of commerce and economic vitality, I think any state willing to go through the pain of economic independence from the feds could (and should) do the same.

23 posted on 06/30/2013 2:34:00 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tired of Taxes

What will happen is SSM couple A will move to one of the twelve states that outlaw SSM. Couple A will have one member who is a federal employee with the other being a beneficiary. Couple A will then establish themselves as a citizen of said state and receive federal benefits as a Same Sex Married couple. They will then sue to demand said state recognize their marriage.

The trigger will be some emotionally rending situation in which the beneficiary partner is denied some state granted right available to a married couple. This ruling is a disaster, unConstitutional in itself, and a ruling not on law, but on emotion.


24 posted on 06/30/2013 3:02:08 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MarkRegal05

They’ve been sexualized in a way that we cannot even fathom. When I was a kid if someone tried to have oral sex with a fifth grader or a teacher had sex with a student, of any age, there’d be hell to pay, it would be a major scandal and parents would recoil at the thought.

I don’t see that happening today. It’s rare to find a popular book, movie or song that doesn’t celebrate depravity. Watch the movie Princess Bride to the end. It’s a kids movie, well done and with some interesting stories to it. It ends with a vicious sword fight and the hero telling the princess not to stab herself in the heart because “the world needs perfect breasts”. The Princess Bride came out in 1987, that’s over 25 years ago. A generation has passed growing up on that.

Can you imagine the Wizard commenting on Dorothy’s breasts?


25 posted on 06/30/2013 3:09:08 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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