Posted on 03/27/2013 10:31:59 AM PDT by C19fan
If the Supreme Court can find its way through a dense procedural thicket, and confront the constitutionality of the federal law that defined marriage as limited to a man and a woman, that law may be gone, after a seventeen-year existence. That was the overriding impression after just under two hours of argument Wednesday on the fate of the Defense of Marriage Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
Interesting that all this Gay SCOTUS discussion talks about “oral” arguments!
I say let the voters of each state determine this issue and keep SCOTUS out of this. It should be considered a state rights issue. If Kalifornika and Ass a chutesets want queer marriage, let them. Just don't force it on the states that don't want queer marriages.
TheDaddler
Since Mar 27, 2013
If the SCOTUS would at least leave in place the provision of DOMA that makes it clear that non-gay marriage states don’t have to recognize gay marriages from elsewhere that would be a small win.
male and female. upon sexual maturity, have potential to reproduce their own kind unless by accident or on purpose otherwise rendered sterile, -duhhhhhhh unless they are born sterile, male and females of all species usually can reproduce offspring together= high school biology: 7 characteristecs of living animals duhhhhh gimme a break=
take biology class and a philosophy class please-
Join two bolts together then.
Tell me how that works out.
That section was not challenged in the case that is now before SCOTUS.
Him apparently went “boom-ded” already.
And all before explaining how two bolts can join in a union with just the bolts.
Just ZOTTED into oblivion. Zip, zero, nada left to chew on for the kitties.
Not even enough carbon left to make little paw prints with.
Just wait until Old Sarge and The Old Lady get here to not even find ashes left.
They must have used one of those new clean burn carbon removing spark plugs in the 30000 kilowatt range.
“If they rule that the Federal Government has no role in defining marriage, it is left to the States, and if so, to be consistent, than Proposition 8 should be allowed to stand.”
No, I think they’re going to toss out DOMA and the dismiss the Prop 8 case for lack of standing.
CA would get gay marriage, but the bigger question would be avoided for another five years, until another case works its way through the system.
I don't see that as a government problem, it's a state problem. For example, if the government outlaws the use of marijuana and you go ahead and use it, you can obtain every benefit your state allows. But, under federal law, if you violate that law, you can't ask the government to protect you since you knowingly are violating federal law.
I think this whole gay issue is the same. If a state says that you can legally marry your same-sex partner, that's within the authority of that state to do so. But that state authority doesn't necessarily place any burden on the federal government UNLESS the federal government is willing to allow those states to include federal benefits among the same-sex marriage.
As far as I am concerned, marriage remains a state between John and Mary, NOT John and Larry or Joan and Mary. This whole issue affects ~3% - 4% of the population and doesn't deserve all this media hand-wringing. We don't see anything like this when it concerns conservative issues or Constitutional rights (such as the Second Amendment that the left anbhors!), so why are we wasting so much oxygen to appease a clear minority or the population!?? It doesn't make sense. Tell'em to go back in the closet, I'm tired of them being in my face nd in my business.
Right but however, according to Mark Levin, DOMA has nothing to do with imposing and defining only traditional marriage on the states, but is a federal policy to only recognize man and women marriages at the federal level. It is Federalism. If that's the case, DOMA is not unconstitutional, but the attempt by pro-gay marriage people are trying to impose their laws from California upon other states. The full faith and credit under article 4 has its limits.
The Federal government may say "it recognizes" these unions in Kalifornia's borders or in other states with similar laws but nowhere else.
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.