Skip to comments.Krauthammer: Nationalized gay marriage, now inevitable
Posted on 06/27/2013 11:20:40 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Under the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages even in states that have legalized it. This week, the Supreme Court ruled DOMA unconstitutional.
There are two possible grounds, distinct and in some ways contradictory, for doing so. The curious thing about the courts DOMA decision is that it contains both rationales.
The first is federalism. Marriage is the province of the states. Each state decides who is married and who is not. The federal government may not intrude. It must therefore recognize gay marriage where it has been legalized.
If that were the essence of the argument, the courts 5-4 decision would have been constitutionally conservative, neither nationalizing nor delegitimizing gay marriage. It would allow the issue to evolve over time as the people decide state by state.
It would thus be the antithesis of Roe v. Wade. That judicial fiat swept away every state abortion law that did not conform to the courts idea of what abortion law should be. Even many liberal supporters of abortion rights have admitted that Roe was an unfortunate way to change the law.....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Yes it is.
There are certainly a lot of powerful men who have accepted man on man as a marriage versus a civil union.
Disgusting though, my view. States rights should be respected not having a court overreach into making this behavior legitimate or to have this group validated. What is people like Charles and party going to do about those who do not accept this behavior as a legal marriage. He seems that he has the answer already.
Hmmm. Meteorite showers anyone? Hey, the tribulation seals and trumpets, judgments for particular abominations? I’ll have to check. It’ll take time, but God is Justice.
Obama, maybe the 2nd or third gay president but the first in our life time.
Homosexuals will always be sick creeps.
Nothing will ever change that.
One of the next line ups to destroy DOMA was to effectively challenge state laws that permit same sex unions who don't happen to call it marriage, and to force federal benefits for those unions as well. Since the cow already left the barn, might as well sweep up too, rather than simply attract flies.
That language effectively shields DOMA from further challenges down the road over the non-marriage unions. If the state generally considers them to be equal, so must the federal government do the same.
All in all though, there are a whole lot of tangles involved in all of this, so many of which would have remained untangled had Mitt Romney had the guts to actually stand up to the Massachusetts Supreme Court and say ‘Well, we'll have to see what the state supreme court says in 90 days; did it just conduct the world's largest divorce decision and wipe out all marriages in the state? I'll be sitting in my chair with a bucket of popcorn watching, as marriage means one thing in this state: the union of a man and a woman, and if the state no longer wishes to recognize that union, that's just fine.’
Alas, he's a government junkie who thinks that mandates are just fine, loves them. And thus homosexuals calling themselves married was born. To think, not long after, he's running for the Republican presidential nomination....
What is “gay marriage” without sodomy?
What about the Bush-Putin wedding. Putin’s getting divorced and George is getting giddy.
Almost sounds like the Confederate States of America.
A ring, and a man-made excuse to violate God.
The GOP traitors who supported gay marriage ...Cheneys...or said it was no big deal...Beck
Did more damage perception wise than the progressives could ever dream of
By invoking an Equal Protection argument, the majority has signaled that a State which denies gay "marriage" is denying a "right" to its citizens that are enjoyed by other citizens of the state. All homosexuals now need to do is bring suit in a state with a DOMA-like Constitutional Amendment or statue, and it will fall once challenged in Federal Court. The State's Rights arguments advanced by Kennedy were simply a means by which the liberals -- none of whom give one crap about State's Rights -- used to bring his vote into their camp.
Scalia saw this clearly, which is the reason for his savage deprecation of the majority's opinion.
Our eroding faith in the institution killed it
of course there will be gold diggers....trying to get on their "husbands" or "wives" pensions, etc....but pensions can't be split infinitely..
“DOMA essentially no longer exists, so there is nothing to shield. What Krauthammer is correctly saying is because Kennedy also invoked equal protection, that all that has to happen is someone gets federal benefits in a homosexual marriage state, moves to one that does not have it, then sues under equal protection, forcing all states to recognize homosexual marriage.”
They did leave to door wide open for an equal protection case.
The path to an equal protection claim would be through the 9th Circuit.
The best strategy to prevent such a case moving from the 9th Circuit to the Supreme Court would be to have gay marriage in all the states within the 9th Circuit.
With such a fire wall petitioners would have to go to another court instead of the 9th Circuit which will make it much more difficult for them to win and take much longer to enact on a national basis.
Polygamy is next.
Marriage isn’t the states’ rights issue that will lead to states getting out. But the courts are clear the DC is the center of power. And if you ask anyone they will say “yes, that was settled by Lincoln”.
Ask yourself why the ruling states that when there is a disagreement between marriage between one man and one woman why gay marriage prevails?
You are very, very, very wrong about this.
Homosexual marriage? Oh, that's different. That right is guaranteed across the land, in every state.
Chuckle K is a clueless beltway elite , A Dem, and really out of touch with the real US.
He is delusional lib pretending to be conservative to get a TV gig.
He worked for Mondale and his friends are all Dems.
I am not fathom why anytime pays attention to him.
What baffles me is the argument. 87 congress members and a president are racist because sodomizers have rights ?
The Chief Justice can set the rule of the the arguments of merit to the case before the court. Its done every day its known as the judge wont allow. Because the administration now favors gay marriage I wouldnt expect what could be called a healthy defence from them. Sodomy wasnt the issue . The issue was protecting the integrity and intention of a basic unit of society through a mechanisim known as marriage to encourage familys.
What should we expect from a political party which itself has gone through a marriage with one world socialist radicals known to many as communists who cant even use the word God. Theyve hyphenated into Demo-Coms.
This is why now a Constitutional amendment makes sense. And there are enough states to ratify.
I don’t understand why as you state petitioners would have to go to another court other than the 9th Circuit. And why is the 9th the pathway to equal protection?
Many are defending Roberts because he was in dissent in Windsor. But he allowed Windsor to be heard when it was unnecessary:
Scalia went after the jurisdictional question with his customary laser. So hungry were the five members of the majority to pontificate about the merits of same-sex marriage, he wrote, that they skipped blithely over a technicality of little interest to anyone except the people of We the People namely, that there was no case or controversy for the high court to resolve in Windsor. The United States of the cases title agreed with the result at the appeals-court and district-court levels, which were both in Windsors favor. The plaintiff had long since been made whole. So what, Scalia asked, are we doing here?
The majority was showboating its enlightenment, thats what.
Thanks for the response.
I posted that comment every time and through several cycles in FR when I saw that subject come up. Hoping it draws a discussion. The problem with FR is it’s being used like twitter with a bunch of of one and two line “Look at me !” tweetings that sadly diminishes the value of this format because it’s mostly chest pounding . Containing no additional supplemental information or talking points that can be used to advance the cause.
I assure you FR gets attention by persons with political influence and from key persons in the press.
The fact is this Supreme Court is sensitive to fashionable opinion and to fallout from Congress and the administration.
I am sure Roberts knew Kennedy would swing the court against DOMA and that he could dissent for cover.
You brought out the point that Roberts could have refused to let the court hear Windsor.
It’s important to keep the heat on Roberts because it is believed he is compromised.
“all that has to happen is someone gets federal benefits”
Federal benefits are the attack vector. If there were no federal benefits this attack could not occur.
Federal benefits exist so as to be comparable to private enterprise. Americans have become accustomed to employer paid “benefits”, aka medical insurance. It had been the case that routine medical care was generally affordable and insurance reserved for catastrophe, if at all.
Every step we take from rugged individualism towards communitarianism leads not just to diminished freedom, but also to attacks on foundations of society.
“a mechanisim known as marriage to encourage familys”
Which is what this is all about. Families are to be discouraged. Child bearing is to be discouraged. Abortion must be rampant, as must homosexuality. Management has decreed that population must be limited.
The thing is, federal benefits for marriage were first passed in 1780.
State your source.
“The first national pension legislation for widows was a Continental Congress resolution of August 24, 1780, which offered the prospect of half pay for 7 years to widows and orphans of officers who met the requirements included in the terms of the resolution of May 15, 1778.”
What I object to are “New Deal” programs. And “Great Society” programs. And “War on Poverty”, PPACA, etc ad nauseum.
Individual responsibility has been supplanted by government and corporate paternalism. The lure of compassion has led to paying able bodied adults to not work, while foreigners invade and fill those jobs at illegal wages. These things have fostered weak people and a weak country.
But the main point is that communitarianism opens avenues of attack on foundations of society. Homosexual demands for “marriage” are just one example. Demands that religious groups pay for contraception/ abortifacients are another. Communitarianism requires that every group be equal, or it is “unfair”. This allows small groups to wield the power of law to mold society.
I want to expand on post 37, for those who think that 1780 may have been some sort of aberration.
The 1780 federal legislation related to married employees, was expanded in 1794, 1798, 1802 and so on.
This is one effed up country... sad.
By the way, the very first, non-marriage related federal benefits, pensions, were enacted on August 26, 1776.
SS, Medicaid, Medicare, AFDC, PPACA, etc etc etc are not the same as military or other pensions.
I didn’t even know that some of those were federal employee benefits.
Government and corporate paternalism in all its forms is the problem. Suggest you re-read post 38.
You seem to be morphing your posts to me into something that I wasn’t responding to.
I just wanted to give you some history to go with your unfocused generalities and complaints.
It’s over your head.
The 9th is the most leftist court and will be the easiest path for the activists.
LOL, no, you haven’t posted anything to go over someones head, just some general complaints.
I just wanted to give you some history to go with your unfocused generalities and complaints.
Principles are too abstract for you.