Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act provision

[Big Dog]

So much for all that "Rule of law" stuff.

Scalia's dissent on US v. Windsor is phenomenal.

[Ralph Wiggum]

Scalia's dissent on US v. Windsor is phenomenal.

Rush Limbaugh is describing it right now.  From what little bits I've read, it sounds excellent.

[Big Dog]

Rush Limbaugh is describing it right now.  From what little bits I've read, it sounds excellent.

Just turned on the radio to catch it. Thanks for the heads-up!

[JohnnyReb]

What happened to the wall between church and state? Our government has been in the marriage business for what, 220+ years, while religion has been in the business of marriage for over 4,000 years. I'd say religion is the sole owner of the institution of marriage and as such the determining agency of what constitutes a marriage.

Personally, since the government has destroyed the family unit with its many acts/laws/programs against that unit, government should just get out of the marriage business altogether.....no tax benefits for marriage/children/nothing.....no government forced child support....no government aid for unmarried or married pregnant women....you made it, you take care of it......this would truly make all people equal.....this would make men (and women that can't or chose not to get pregnant) equal to homosexuals that can't benefit from being married and not having children.

[Big Dog]

What happened to the wall between church and state? Our government has been in the marriage business for what, 220+ years, while religion has been in the business of marriage for over 4,000 years. I'd say religion is the sole owner of the institution of marriage and as such the determining agency of what constitutes a marriage.

Personally, since the government has destroyed the family unit with its many acts/laws/programs against that unit, government should just get out of the marriage business altogether.....no tax benefits for marriage/children/nothing.....no government forced child support....no government aid for unmarried or married pregnant women....you made it, you take care of it......this would truly make all people equal.....this would make men (and women that can't or chose not to get pregnant) equal to homosexuals that can't benefit from being married and not having children.

 

[Wineslob]

I do not support gay marriage, but it should be a state issue. Last time I checked, marriage is not a right. I have no problems if gays want to have civil unions. I consider gay marriage a very low priority issue for me.

Same here. It's almost a non-issue considering everything else Obummer is doing.

[txradioguy]

Rush Limbaugh is describing it right now.  From what little bits I've read, it sounds excellent.

Scalia tore the majority a new asshole in his dissent.

In a ripping dissent, Scalia says that Justice Anthony Kennedy and his colleagues in the majority have resorted to calling opponents of gay marriage "enemies of the human race."

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "dis- parage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

Scalia says that the court's holding – while limited to the Defense of Marriage Act – is a sure sign that the majority is willing to declare gay marriage a constitutional right.

It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress's hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will "confine" the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with.

http://news.yahoo.com/scalia-high-handed-kennedy-demeans-institution-101636785.html

[Ralph Wiggum]

Scalia tore the majority a new asshole in his dissent.

http://news.yahoo.com/scalia-high-handed-kennedy-demeans-institution-101636785.html

Thanks TRG!

[txradioguy]

Now we get to see if Rubio is true to his word for once or goes back on it...again.

The voiding of DOMA now means that the gay partners of illegal aliens are now recognized when Obama gives amnesty to them.

Rubio said that was a deal breaker for him.

We shall see...

[Big Dog]

The voiding of DOMA now means that the gay partners of illegal aliens are now recognized when Obama gives amnesty to them.

Wouldn't they have to have a marriage license from their country of origin?

[txradioguy]

Wouldn't they have to have a marriage license from their country of origin?

Slight correction on my part...it will grant green cards to illegal alien partners of gay Americans.

Rubio said that was a deal breaker.  I'm sorry for the confusing way I typed it above. 

[Big Dog]

Slight correction on my part...it will grant green cards to illegal alien partners of gay Americans.

Rubio said that was a deal breaker.  I'm sorry for the confusing way I typed it above. 

Roger.

I don't hold out any hope that Rubio will back out of his support of the amnesty bill.

[J P Sousa]

 The Prop 8 decision was a punt, but a reasonable one. It is a recognized principle of civil law that a party must have suffered measurable damages (actual or potential) to bring a lawsuit, and the appellants were unable to show damages (and therefore, standing). When the State of California refused to defend its own constitution, the outcome was preordained.  

I would think that the courts denying the voters their right to make a decision via the voting booth is "damage".  (but I'm not a fast talking lawyer)
.

[Ptarmigan]

What happened to the wall between church and state? Our government has been in the marriage business for what, 220+ years, while religion has been in the business of marriage for over 4,000 years. I'd say religion is the sole owner of the institution of marriage and as such the determining agency of what constitutes a marriage.

Personally, since the government has destroyed the family unit with its many acts/laws/programs against that unit, government should just get out of the marriage business altogether.....no tax benefits for marriage/children/nothing.....no government forced child support....no government aid for unmarried or married pregnant women....you made it, you take care of it......this would truly make all people equal.....this would make men (and women that can't or chose not to get pregnant) equal to homosexuals that can't benefit from being married and not having children.

Agreed. I always say government should get out of business of marriage period. Like I said, it is not a right.

[txradioguy]

Roger.

I don't hold out any hope that Rubio will back out of his support of the amnesty bill.

Me either.

[Big Dog]

I would think that the courts denying the voters their right to make a decision via the voting booth is "damage".  (but I'm not a fast talking lawyer)
.

Thee voters got to exercise their rights when they voted. Their votes were counted. The state constitution was amended.

The Federal courts later ruled the constitutional amendment to violate the US Constitution. The citizens can't file suit against a Federal court for violating their right to amend the state constitution.

The State of California had the duty to defend the constitutional amendment, which it refused to do. The citizens did not file a suit against the State of California for failing to perform its Constitutional duty. They should have, in my opinion.

My opinion is that the Supreme Court's proper decision would have been to vacate all Federal decisions regarding the case, but they didn't call me before they made their decision.

[obumazombie]

So what's next?  Bigamy?

Hey, get in line, behind necrophilia and bestiality. Animals are people too.

[Splashdown]

On a separate note, take a look at the 85 senators who approved DOMA. You'll see some interesting names: Biden, Schumer, Durbin, Reid, etc.

link

[txradioguy]

Next up...I predict the Military will officially recognize gay marriage and force those states that don't recognize gay marriage to do just that and the Libs will get via brute force what they couldn't get otherwise.  Federal recognition of gay marriage across the entire country.

[J P Sousa]

Next up...I predict the Military will officially recognize gay marriage and force those states that don't recognize gay marriage to do just that and the Libs will get via brute force what they couldn't get otherwise.  Federal recognition of gay marriage across the entire country.

You must have been watching Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, almost word for word. 
.

[MoshMasterD]

I do not support gay marriage, but it should be a state issue. Last time I checked, marriage is not a right. I have no problems if gays want to have civil unions. I consider gay marriage a very low priority issue for me.

Well, with this decision, it is now a right.  You can now have more than 1 wife, even marry your daughter and/or son, maybe your dog Pokey can be your spouse.  Probably the biggest winners are NAMBLA.  Not opinion, 100% grade A fact.  Marrying goats, cows, even the dead is legal.  Fact!!!!

[Karin]

On a separate note, take a look at the 85 senators who approved DOMA. You'll see some interesting names: Biden, Schumer, Durbin, Reid, etc.

link

Dana Loesch on twitter is telling everyone far and wide that this was a Dem initiative to grow big gov't.  She remembers well, because at the time she was a demwit handing out pamphlets about it.  So she gets nasty tweets back, "ugly bitch" which she then RT'd.  

The left threatens you with rape now if you bring up how DOMA is Dems’s baby. NOH8!

[txradioguy]

You must have been watching Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, almost word for word. 
.

Really?  Wow.  No I don't have AFN at my off post house so I can't see FNC.

It's not rocket science though really.  If you know Liberals and what their end game is its easy to predict their next move.

[txradioguy]

And right on cue:

Hagel: Defense Department Welcomes Supreme Court Decision

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=120364

[JohnnyReb]

And right on cue:

Hagel: Defense Department Welcomes Supreme Court Decision

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=120364

We're headed for an "All Girl" military.