Posted on 06/25/2013 9:54:04 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
At 10:00 AM Wednesday, the Supreme Court will deliver its final decisions of this term. We can expect decisions on both same-sex marriage cases.
California Proposition 8: Hollingsworth v. Perry
In November 2008, 52.3 percent of California voters approved Proposition 8, which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In May 2009, a California District Court ruled that Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and temporarily prohibited its enforcement, and the Ninth Circuit agreed, affirming the District Court’s ruling. The United States Supreme Court will now consider whether a state can define marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman, in addition to considering whether the proponents of Proposition 8 have standing to bring suit in federal court. The Court’s ruling will implicate the rights of gay men and lesbians, the role of the government in structuring family and society, and the relationship between the institution of marriage and religion and morality.
Defense of Marriage Act: United States v. Windsor
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer married in Toronto in 2007 where same-sex marriages were legal. At the time of Spyer’s death, the state of New York recognized the couple’s marriage. However, the IRS denied Windsor use of a spousal estate tax exception on the ground that, under the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), the federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages for the purpose of federal benefits. The Supreme Court is now being asked to decide DOMA’s Constitutionality. The Obama Administration is not defending DOMA, so a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (“BLAG”) from the House of Representatives is doing so, arguing that DOMA is rationally related to the legitimate government objective of providing a uniform definition of marriage for federal benefits purposes. The Obama administration counters that the use of sexual orientation to decide who gets benefits is a suspect classification that deserves higher scrutiny. Under that level of higher scrutiny, the Obama administration argues that DOMA is impermissible. This case can affect what role the federal government can play in defining marriage and who in the federal government can defend the government’s laws. Not only could this case provide large tax savings to Ms. Windsor herself, but it can also make federal benefits available to other same-sex couples who are legally married under the laws of their state.
T minus 10 minutes.
It feels like we are in the last moments of America.
No, then they will have to answer to the Supreme Judge, and I think their policies on marriage at that point will be mere evidence in the case against them rather than the issue at hand.
besides, government or a common authority always has to have laws dealing with marriage, it always has.
So the answer is to hand the FedGov more power? No, that's stupid.
Moreover, even if you put the definition of marriage as a Constitutional amendment they would likely ignore it (just look at the Bill of Rights) — it is actually advantageous to the homosexual agenda to have marriage defined in the Courts or in the Statutory Laws, the former because it's easy to pervert (given the religious reverence given to precedence
, along with the cherry-picking) and the latter because that can more-easily be changed (like by sneaking in an amending clause to some piece of federal legislation).
As an example of the courts ignoring the law, there is this story of a photographer successfully sued because they refused to provide services to a homosexual wedding
. Why is this an issue? Because the New Mexico State Constitution says this:
Art II, Sec. 11. [Freedom of religion.]
Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship. No person shall be required to attend any place of worship or support any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.
So, if the State can utterly ignore its own Law, and the Federal Government routinely does the same, then where is the good in making this law? There is none, there is only hurt down that road.
It sure feels like we could be.
From your lips to god’s ears!
That's right and gay divorce will be a priority after DOMA's defeat. Because that's when same-sex couples find out that Married Filing Separately is their only choice in splitsville until they are divorced or legally separated.
But, I will say this: That even if the Supreme Court rules today that up is down, up will remain up. And, if We the People will then rise up against this court that has de-legitimized itself, there is still hope.
0 Hour.
I’m going for my MRI on my knee this morning. Waiting for this ruling.
It feels like we are in the last moments of America.Yes, I think you are correct. If we on Free Republic all pray for one another, it will help... ♥
This is true, and likely one of the reasons people call the GOP and conservatives
the party of stupid
: for it is a truly stupid person who never considers how might the law I am proposing be used against me?
.
And as we all know that sword cuts both ways and eventually cuts all of us out of our God-given liberties.
Bravo! — That is the realization that is missing.
Individual and states' rights and freedoms are the cornerstone of the freest constitutional republic the world has ever seen. Hard to keep it (as Benjamin Franklin once implied) because freedom doesn't always go our way, but in the long run, a free society is the healthiest and happiest on earth. (Besides, we can always move to another state [like we are right now] that lines up closer to our values.)
Precisely! (Good luck on the move, BTW.) Much of the problem we have now is because most people believe that the FedGov is [utterly] superior to the States, just read this article; it frames things as a First Amendment issue — it is not, the First is binding on only Congress (if you claim that the 14th Amendment incorporation
causes it to apply against States, then you are asserting that it is a process which magically changes the text as it passes through) — the correct framing would be in Article II, Section 11 of the New Mexico Constitution:
Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship. No person shall be required to attend any place of worship or support any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.
10:01
Amy Howe:
Here’s Lyle with the first opinion. It’s DOMA
10:02
Amy Howe:
5-4 per Kennedy.
10:02
Amy Howe:
Roberts dissents. Scalia dissents. Equal protection.
10:02
Amy Howe:
Scalia is joined by Thomas, Chief joins in part.
10:02
Amy Howe:
Alito dissents, joined by Thomas in part.
10:03
Amy Howe:
DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.
DOMA repealed 5-4 Kenny sides with libs.
DOMA is down.
“DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.”
How soon before gay marriage is mandatory.
Next up, animals and harems - it’s all good says SCOTUS.
What about prop 8?
I expected that one... now the issue pertaining to the states will be interesting...
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.