Skip to comments.U.S. Supreme Court wipes out Proposition 8's gay marriage ban
Posted on 06/26/2013 7:41:40 AM PDT by Deo volente
The U.S. Supreme Court today paved the way for same-sex couples to marry soon in California, effectively leaving intact a lower-court ruling that struck down the state's voter-approved ban on gay marriage.
In a ruling that assures further legal battles, the high court found that backers of Proposition 8 did not have the legal right to defend the voter-approved gay marriage ban in place of the governor and attorney general, who have refused to press appeals of a federal judge's 2010 ruling finding the law unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court ruling, which found it had no legal authority to decide the merits of a challenge to Proposition 8, sends the case back to that original decision -- and the only question now is how quickly same-sex couples can marry and whether that ruling will have immediate statewide effect.
The 5-4 ruling was written by Chief Justice John Roberts.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
From the perspective of three branches of gov’t, the SC, the judicial, has sided with the executive branch over the legislative branch aka the people. The peoples check and balance on the executive branch is the ballot box, or IMPEACHMENT. The people’s check on the judicial system is only IMPEACHMENT. The Robert’s court ganging up with the executive branch is a shame. We, the people, need to take our power back.
I agree, I most concerned with the fact that if a State’s AG and governor do not sign on to what the people wanted that it’s impossible to overturn a federal ruling on the case. That seems awfully heavy handed for the people who say they want to protect the people from oppressive governments.
Think of the Gold Rush for Laywers handling Gay Divorces? Next big thing Poligamy and sharia child marriages for girls as young as five.
Yes you are. What exactly did this ruling achieve? The Feds still recognizes marriage to you all short-sighted libertarians; now the homosexuals get in on the benefits/action. How is this not favoring the homosexual agenda or pushing homosexual marriage or ending Fed observance on marriage?
Nobody’s gonna call out the liberalterians for once again screwing america.
Yup. The calm before The Storm.
Amen on that prep, brutha.
Hey no thinking “outside the box”! /s
IOW, screw the will of the people.
Has Scalia gone full blown lib, too? Scalia voted the same as roberts on both gay marriage cases.
Congratulations sodomy enthusiasts.
I hate to say it but America is going to be punished.Sad day for our Kids.Very bad message.
So let me see if I understand:
The Supremes ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional,in part because it prohibited states from making their own marriage laws,BUT,once a state DOES make it’s own marriage laws,as with Prop 8 defining marriage as one man-one woman ONLY,then the gays can just judge-shop until they find a judge that rules in their favor,and the people of that state are told they have NO standing to challenge.
Do I have that right?
Yeah, it’s really a farce when you’re fighting to keep your kiddo off drugs long enough for them to get a decent job and an education.
No. Scalia had a scathing dissent.
Both Roberts and Scalia dissented in the DOMA case. Then both Roberts and Scalia voted for the majority opinion in the Prop 8 case. They voted the same in both cases. If someone states that Roberts has gone full blown lib because of these two cases, then Scalia apparently has, too.
Obama’s got the goods on them.
Maybe...but they both voted opposite of what Obama would have on DOMA.
Exactly. And by the courts writing, how would anyone but them be “harmed” by same sex marriage? That lack of harm, and therefore standing before SCOTUS essentially guarantees that the Appeals Court decision will never be overturned.
Rather than making terrible arguments, why not cite Scalia’s dissent?
Since when is citing a fact (such as both Scalia and
Roberts dissented) become a terrible argument?
Show me how it's any worse than voting for a Republican. Seriously.
Libertarians want government out of every nook and cranny of life; I can work with that... but the government's selectively enforced 'laws' on anything and everything, yeah, you have a good (sarcasm) chance there (video: part 1, part 2).
I cannot undesrtand legalese, but your summary seems to be what I can glean.
In other words, the SCOTUS should be named SCROTUM (except for the few who got it right on both votes). These are my conclusions:
They want states’ rights? Let’s give them states’ rights up their okole! Everything not mandated in the Constitution for the fedgov is now up for grabs! And the judiciary is rotten to the core! Jury nullification - judge nullification - we need to spread this message all over the place! Why should our rights be perverted and stolen by homosexual judges, immoral judges, idiot judges, bought and sold, bribed and blackmailed judges, crazy judges, and so on?? Why? We need to fight against this tyranny of vile judges.
Second, we need God’s hand. I’ve already spent extra time today in prayer. This hurtling into sodom and tyranny cannot continue.
Your argument does not nullify the fact that marriage has been recongized LEGALLY for thousands of years, whoever does the official marriage ceremony.
The homosexual trolls are out in full force on this thread. Either homo trolls or liberaltarians. Same thing practically.
The Viking Kitties are going to be working overtime today.
Active prayer - for one thing, I am driven to prayer lately and today even more so.
I made a comment a few minutes ago about judge nullification - we are now in a double tyranny - of a corrupt and powermade fedgov, and corrupt and powermad judiciary.
No wonder so many people find it a fools errand to take the time to vote.
Well, we tried the ballot box. And the soap box. Now the jury box, if I can stretch it. There’s only one box left, and although the price has gone up, such boxes are still scatteringly available.
Roberts is turning into another Souter disaster
The CA AG or Governor should not have veto power over the peoples vote, and that is basically what they did.
It’s exactly what they did.
. Society recognized it as a marriage, and the govt didnt have any business in it.
“Society”??? That also includes legal recognition. IOW “governemnt” of some sort or another. You liberaltarians make me want to puke. You are essentially promoting fag “marriage” in the guise of mincing weasel words.
Why? Because he voted to keep DOMA intact? Curious logic.
In the one case, supposedly they are all about the states getting to decide for themselves. California decided. But, now theyre saying that California cant decide for itself if its power elite dont agree to defend their decision. So, it isnt really about states rights. Its about using whatever justification is necessary to get to the desired result.
Marlowe is right. This has become demonic.
Revolution is coming.
Xzins, I agree with you 100%.
What is crystal clear is that you are either so brain damaged that you have no ability to think rationally, or you are being disingenuous and deceitful and supporting perversion. One of the two.
Oh, I see...you just want uncle fedgov to keep handing you all those benefits at my expense and you’re just mad that the homosexuals are in on your gravy train now.
That's cause John Roberts is a reprobate faggot. He's just standing up for, AND defending "his" people. Just like 0dumb0 & Holder defend "their" people.
John Roberts will roast for eternity in Hell, in agony & torment, with his own demonic court rulings ringing is his ears.
God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man (or woman, or homo / lesbian faggot) sows, that shall they also reap.
Good advice. Lately I've felt distant from God, and I haven't been praying as much as usual. I believe it's because I haven't dealt with the anger (and yes, hate) that's in my heart for the destroyers of this nation. I need to take care of that, and get back on my knees.
You do realize that, in the 5-4 ruling you cite, Scalia joined him. I guess Scalia is becoming one of those reprobate faggots, too. Imagine that.
I argue that marriage is a religious institution and the gov’t doesn’t have any business telling everyone that they have to accept it because most religions don’t believe in it.
Like it or not society formed common law. What was commonly accepted for most of history was that marriage was a private contract between a man and a woman and usually (in most cultures including ours)God.
So, no, I don’t think the gov’t has any business forcing christians or anyone else to recognize something that we don’t believe in. A legal recognition opens doors for demanding it be taught in schools, etc.
I’m not promoting anything except that the gov’t should stay out of private lives. Pick your fights more wisely.
The argument that Scalia ‘caved’ is a terrible argument. Scalia had a scathing dissent which proves this not to be the case.
I never stated Scalia caved. There are many on here who seem to think Roberts caved. I simply stated the fact that Roberts voted the same as Scalia. So how did Roberts cave on this issue?
Never said he did, It’s not me you’re arguing with...
Part of the Common Law (otherwise know as the English Common Law), states that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Along with habeaus corpus, trial by jury, etc are all components of English Common Law.
Marriage is one of the three pillars of the common law. Removing a pillar isn’t going to get you where you want to go.
If you want smaller government, then the government needs to assert their authority in the areas in which they are permitted.
As is, the government will simply do whatever they feel like, which is a formula for unmitigated expansion. Hobbling the state from exercising their legitimate duties simply opens things right up for them to exercise illegitimate duties.
Arguing the state should not be involved in marriage really is no difference in arguing that the state should not be involved in immigration, etc.
I’m going for Perversion. They know damn well they are cutting us off at the knees.