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 court’s 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 court’s 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 court’s 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 ...
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. It’s done every day it’s known as “the judge won’t allow”. Because the administration now favors “gay marriage” I wouldn’t expect what could be called a healthy defence from them. Sodomy wasn’t 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 can’t even use the word God. They’ve hyphenated into Demo-Coms.
This is why now a Constitutional amendment makes sense. And there are enough states to ratify.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3036603/posts
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 case’s title agreed with the result at the appeals-court and district-court levels, which were both in Windsor’s favor. The plaintiff had long since been made whole. So what, Scalia asked, “are we doing here?”
The majority was showboating its enlightenment, that’s what.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/352269/roe-any-other-name-mona-charen
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.”
http://vagensearch.com/AmericanRevolution/Pensions.html
Thank you.
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.
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.