Skip to comments.83-year-old asks Supreme Court to review gay marriage ban
Posted on 07/16/2012 6:50:11 PM PDT by markomalley
An ailing 83-year-old lesbian asked the Supreme Court on Monday to hear her legal challenge against a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and woman, attempting to place her case on a fast-track to the top court.
The suit, filed by Edith Schlain Windsor in 2010, targets the Defense of Marriage Act, a law passed by the U.S. Congress in 1996 that denies federal benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples.
Windsor's petition attempts to bypass the U.S. Court of Appeals, which is slated to hear the case in September.
With Windsor's filing, there are three petitions pending before the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, an issue the high court could take up in oral arguments as early as next spring, said Windsor's lawyer Roberta Kaplan, of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.
"This case presents a question of exceptional national importance: the constitutionality of a statute, the Defense of Marriage Act ('DOMA'), that daily affects the lives of thousands of Americans," the petition said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Don’t worry Edith. You’ll have John piece-of-trash Roberts to win it for your cause. And right after, he’ll split for another 3rd world vacation island like the spineless weasel he really is.
Never fear. Mighty Myth Romney will save us from gay marriage just like he did in Massachusetts.
Sounds like the SC will get another chance to flip us the bird. :)
An ailing 83 year old Lesbian suing fo gay marriage. Man, that is a dry subject
Time for some mind bleach.
Personally, I am sick to death of the whiny homosexuals complaining about their lives. Shut the hell up.
Live together, I do not care but stop talking about it.
You can not ever be married, that is a covenant between God Almighty and man...........The Bride and the Church.
You can change tradition, you can change the legal definition you CAN NOT change the covenant between God and man.
“Man, that is a dry subject”
No it’s not, I’m in TEARs overwhelmed by sympathy for her cause...............pysch!
Even Taco Bell doesn’t serve stuff that far beyond the expired date.
Old, ailing lesbo knocking against death’s doors and she’s fussing about gay marriage? Unless she repents then her eternal destination has neither ‘gay’ nor marriage to anticipate. Trying to change what God has ordained from the beginning is foolish beyond compare. So be it.
Hey,Jim...have you ever even *set foot* in Massachusetts?
(And yes,I'm fully prepared to be zotted and banned for life for having questioned the Grand Poobah!)
Whether JimRob or anyone has set foot in Massachusetts isn’t relevant to the discussion, Mitt-Witt’s record speaks for itself.
In that same vein, does one need to engage in sodomy to know that it’s not good for you? I figure with a screen name like ‘Gay State Conservative’ you might be able to enlighten the rest of us, eh?
The thought of an 83 year-old lesbian doing anything sexual makes my skin crawl.
Yup. I’ve *set foot* in every state except Alaska. Massachusetts was once home to some mighty fine patriots. Maybe it will be again someday if we could run out some leftist/statist types from both parties.
All right then,have *you* ever set foot in Massachusetts?
In that same vein, does one need to engage in sodomy to know that its not good for you? I figure with a screen name like Gay State Conservative you might be able to enlighten the rest of us, eh?
You know,after 8 years and 25,000 posts nobody's *ever* made a comment like that to me.I congratulate you for your originality.
OK then,take a minute or two to sum up what you know about Margaret Marshall.
Right there is proof positive that you don't have the first clue about what Massachusetts politics is all about.California politics? Yah.National politics? Yah.Massachusetts politics? Zip,zilch,nada!
Who cares? Romney himself was an admitted pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-gun, big government, mandate loving, socialist healthcare pushing, stimulus package pushing leftist. And those are the historic facts. Deal with it.
But none of that was HIS fault!! Guess the fricken devil made him do it.
Romney claims it wasn’t his fault. I believe him. What more do you want of me?
Politicians are never at fault for the messes they inherit and fail to clean up.
Obama and Romney both agree on that point.
All one needs to know about Romney:
As a matter of fact, yes I *have* set foot in Massachusetts, and I’m happy to say that I left as soon as possible.
Your compliments regarding my originality is greatly appreciated.
does that asinine statement mean that you do not approve of his BRILLIANT decision on obamacare???
This “marriage” is an abomination and Rights come from God in the U.S.—not Satan or Barney Frank. The Courts need to uphold the First Principle of the Constitution. We have inalienable Rights which come from God. These Marxists who want special rights for perverted, disordered, evil behavior are trying to destroy the fundamental meaning and intent of the Constitution, so we erase our God-given Rights.
They want unequal law which rewards evil behavior. Just Laws have to always promote the Good or they are no longer Just (see tagline). (Natural Law and Judeo-Christian Ethics are virtually the same since St. Thomas Aquinas).
Marxists have been forcing God out of the public square for over 50 years...it is unconstitutional and comes right out of Stalin’s Constitution—separation of Church and State.
1. the courts will not rush this through.
2. the old lady dying is just a BS tactic to force the court to look at the case on a “evading review” concept.
3. the homosexuals are trying to beat the election.
4. Romney better man up and not try and be a friend to all and thus a friend to none.
5. Pass a NC style federal marriage amendment.
(and 6. reinstate do ask, do expell)
Sodomites lose. DOMA was passed BEFORE any counterfeit marriage states started pretending to this lunacy. So, there were no “rights” taken away. People who pretended to get “married” AFTER knowing the law already in place should have no recourse.
And he'll by supremely hypocritical for doing so. After upholding a law and claiming that the "Court is not in the business of protecting people from their own choices," he'll turn right around and do just that with this duly passed law.
That scumbag Roberts already showed what a hypocrite he is. In June he voted along with Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kennedy to (mostly) overturn the will of the people in Arizona (the immigration law). If that assclown had a shred of decency he would resign and get his epilepsy meds straightened out. Of course, he's already shown he does not have a shred of decency.