Same-sex marriage proponent Kat McGuckin of Oaklyn, N.J., holds a gay marriage pride flag while standing in front of the Supreme Court on Nov. 30, 2012 in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images file)

The Supreme Court just announced that it will hear arguments on the same sex marriage issues.  The Constitutionality of DOMA, California’s Proposition 8, and Arizona’s law on domestic partner benefits may be determined as early as June.

Reuters repors,

(Reuters) – The Supreme Court seized center stage in a historic social policy debate over same-sex marriage on Friday by agreeing to review the validity under the Constitution of a federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

In an order, the court also announced that it would consider a challenge to California’s ban on gay marriage, known as Proposition 8, which voters narrowly approved in 2008.

Same-sex marriage is a hot-button issue in a country where 31 of the 50 states have passed constitutional amendments banning it while Washington, D.C., and nine states have legalized it, three of them on Election Day last month.

Yet even where it is legal, married same-sex couples do not qualify for a host of federal benefits because the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, passed by Congress, only recognizes marriages between a man and a woman.

Gays and lesbians married under state laws have filed suits challenging their denial of such benefits as Social Security survivor payments and the right to file joint federal tax returns. They argue the provision, known as Section 3, violates equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

Meeting in private on Friday at their last weekly conference before the court’s holiday recess, the justices considered requests to review seven cases dealing with same-sex relationships. Five of them were challenges to the federal marriage law, one to California’s gay marriage ban and another to an Arizona law against domestic partner benefits.

 

 

Disable Refresh for 30 Days

Cookies and JavaScript must be enabled for your setting to be saved.

1 2

`
  1. If the High Court normalizes the abnormal, then it will open up Pandora’s Box in,

    Lawsuits against any Church or Catering Company that doesn’t recognize their “marriage” since it would be against their own Religious beliefs.

    Permanent changing of School Curriculum that would make it mandatory to teach children from First Grade onward that homosexual marriage is normal and healthy, because the Supreme Court said it is.

    They would also teach that anyone who disagrees with ‘gay marriage’ is an oppressive voice against ‘Civil Rights’. If you think the queer agenda is bad in our schools now, you haven’t seen anything yet.

    There will be gay marriage plays in schools to show how everyone should accept what is the new norm. If they’ll teach kids to chant “Barack Hussain Obama, mmm, mmm, mmm” then you damn well know they’ll teach your children about how gay marriage is good.

    I can go on, and on with the openings it will give the queer mafia to push their agenda off on the kids more than ever before.

    If this wins, people like Kevin Jennings wins. Remember him?

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/14/obamas-safe-schools-czar-tied-lewd-readings/

    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/safe-school-czar-ignored-statutory-rape

  2. @2 : Hey buddy, the dustbin of history is that way. ==>

    Buh-bye.

  3. @2 ; Hey, buddy, the dustbin of history is full of failed cultures that ignored the basic realities of life.

  4. ++

    OT.. related:

    ht BCPA

    December 6, 2012

    Senseless push for ‘emergency contraception’

    [For the most part, the prescriptions would be given to 13- to 16-
    year-old girls. Dr. Patricia Lee June is with a different organization,
    the American College of Pediatricians, which opposes the suggestion.
    She cites studies that reveal that the "morning-after" pill does not
    reduce the unplanned pregnancy rate.

    She is also concerned that it increases early sexual
    activity and allows older men to prey on young girls.

    "For girls in the 13- to 15- year age range, a high percentage of them
    are impregnated by men over age 20," Dr. June reports. "And being able
    to say hey, just take this pill and you won't get pregnant makes it much
    easier for them to coerce or seduce them."

    And she notes another factor that has apparently
    been discarded: "The parent is not in the loop."

    "Children's brains are not mature until the mid-20s," the doctor explains.
    "They can't make mature decisions, [so] the parents need to be involved.”

    As for the doctors who follow the Academy’s suggestion, Dr. June
    tells OneNewsNow, “Let’s just say their ethics are not the same as
    my ethics.” But she believes a large number of pediatricians will
    ignore the recommendation because it simply “doesn’t make good
    sense to them.”]

    hey, what’s the big deal, they’re just prepping them for
    when pedophilia goes the way of same sex marriage..

    ["Speakers addressed the around 50 individuals in attendance on themes ranging from the notion that pedophiles are “unfairly stigmatized and demonized” by society to the idea that “children are not inherently unable to consent” to sex with an adult. Also discussed were arguments that an adult’s desire to have sex with children is “normative” and that the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) ignores the fact that pedophiles “have feelings of love and romance for children” in the same way adult heterosexuals and homosexuals have romantic feelings for one another."]

    “YOU AIN’T SEEN NOTHIN’ YET!” ~ BHO

    ==

  5. #3, and #4,

    Nice to see how you had to double post under different names, ‘buddy’.

    The only failed culture are two bearded freaks giving each other wedding rings.

  6. I don’t know about anyone else – but I’m not hopeful that marriage will remain between a man and woman for procreation and the advancement of a family with the dumbass Latina, the lesbo softball player, and the bitch that hates the Constitution. Toss Roberts in as a “getalong” sympathy vote and that’s that.


  7. #7 December 7, 2012 at 6:51 pm
    Mad Hatter commented:

    #3, and #4,

    Nice to see how you had to double post under different names, ‘buddy’.

    Liberals aren’t very smart and it’s good to often remind them, often.

  8. ++

    OT..

    flashback to February 22, 2009

    The Revolt of the Kulaks Has Begun

    [This movement can succeed if it does not stop at protest and includes changes in economic behavior. Obama’s redistributive plans require higher taxation, but higher tax plans (to be announced this week by Obama) are based on the fallacy that the “rich” will not change their economic behavior in reaction to higher tax rates.

    History tells us, however, that economic redistribution plans fail because the producers of society would rather not produce, than have the fruits of their production taken away and given to others. Obama can raise the tax rates on income, but he cannot force people to generate income to be taxed. People may just say “no.” This resistance will not come from evading taxes, but from evading taxable income. In the end, as must all economic redistributors, Obama either will have to resort to repressive measures, or he will have to abandon his redistributive plans.]

    Murder By Communism (by any other
    name, the results are the same) *-(

    [How can we understand all this killing by communists? It is the marriage of an absolutist ideology with the absolute power. Communists believed that they knew the truth, absolutely. They believed that they knew through Marxism what would bring about the greatest human welfare and happiness. And they believed that power, the dictatorship of the proletariat, must be used to tear down the old feudal or capitalist order and rebuild society and culture to realize this utopia. Nothing must stand in the way of its achievement. Government--the Communist Party--was thus above any law. All institutions, cultural norms, traditions, and sentiments were expendable. And the people were as though lumber and bricks, to be used in building the new world.

    Constructing this utopia was seen as though a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism, and inequality. And for the greater good, as in a real war, people are killed. And thus this war for the communist utopia had its necessary enemy casualties, the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, wreckers, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, rich, landlords, and noncombatants that unfortunately got caught in the battle. In a war millions may die, but the cause may be well justified, as in the defeat of Hitler and an utterly racist Nazism. And to many communists, the cause of a communist utopia was such as to justify all the deaths. The irony of this is that communism in practice, even after decades of total control, did not improve the lot of the average person, but usually made their living conditions worse than before the revolution. It is not by chance that the greatest famines have occurred within the Soviet Union (about 5,000,000 dead during 1921-23 and 7,000,000 from 1932-3) and communist China (about 27,000,000 dead from 1959-61). In total almost 55,000,000 people died in various communist famines and associated diseases, a little over 10,000,000 of them from democidal famine. This is as though the total population of Turkey, Iran, or Thailand had been completely wiped out. And that something like 35,000,000 people fled communist countries as refugees, as though the countries of Argentina or Columbia had been totally emptied of all their people, was an unparalleled vote against the utopian pretensions of Marxism-Leninism.]

    Secrets of Communism (by any other
    name, the results are the same) *-(

    ==

  9. We all know how Sotomayor and Kagan are voting……Roberts just rewrite it call it tax so he can pass it.

  10. The people already voted. Twice. No judge should overturn the will of the people.

    But as someone recently told me, the gate of hell are about to open…

  11. “review the validity under the Constitution of a federal law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman”

    So, is it Constitutional for a law to say,

    Tab A + Slot B = Marriage

    - or -

    Is A + B = M TRUE?

    Aside from the lack of such enumerated powers (or is it weights and measures?) it is absurd because that is clearly not the intent of this case, the intent is,

    Is A + B = A + A = B + B = M TRUE?

    Rather than counting imaginary angels dancing on the head of a pin, SCOTUS would better put its magical power to use by declaring the energy content of gasoline to be infinity so none of us will ever have to refill our tanks again.

  12. bobby roberts is a hemorrhoid on society.

  13. Not hard to predict how this will turn out. Is the jackal in the White House going to leave us any semblance of our Republic? I’m at the point where I experience a wave of overwhelming nausea just seeing his picture or listening to his voice. God help us……………..

  14. There has been archeological evidence for several decades supporting claims that 4 of the 5 cities surrounding and including Sodom and Gomorrah had judges, but the 5th city did not have a judge. Further it is stated that in the 4 that had a judge, the residents had gone to their judges demanding a law to make it legal for them to lay a bed on the street and for them to be allowed to take anyone they pleased and lay them on it and do their will to them, right on the street. This was made plain they were referring to rape and rape by sodomy, same sex any numbers.

    The claim is that it is the 4 cities whose judges ruled this to be acceptable and legal that were the 4 that God destroyed by hailing fire on them, and the one city spared was the one without a judge.

    Anyone been reading or watching the interviews and material by Rabbi Jonathan Cahn about the 9 (now many more) Harbingers, mainly centered on Ground Zero, Cedar and Sycamore trees, and Bricks and Stones, surrounding Isaiah 9, Ezekiel 17, the Great Diaspora of Israel, and the things America is doing to follow the pattern precisely of that lead-up?

  15. ++

    indeed a good read & vise verse..

    We Don’t Need Public Schools: They Need Us

    By Mychal Massie on December 7, 2012 in Daily Rant

    ==

  16. They’re going to hear the suits ! That figures , sexist haters all of them !! Why wouldn’t they hear the skirts first ?
    I am appalled and frankly unsettled by this impractical solution to the unemployment problem.
    How long would it take for the lack of procreation to trickle down to the unemployment problem.

  17. Rose, what archaeological evidence are you talking about? The archaeological record can’t even nail down the exact location of the cities, let alone the fable you’re retelling.

  18. Courts and lawyers operate from presidences. In the cast of discrimination, there is no presidence where anyone of any race has ever been denied the right to marry. And that’s it…period.

    Queers and lesbo’s are not a new species, race, philum, or kingdom. There is no presidence where anyone of a different race has ever been denied the right to marry. What queers are going to have to do is prove they are a separate race of people who are being denied the right to marry. And since they are just mostly mentally ill people who are under the delusion that they are a separate race or philum of human being, some new kingdom of human, they should be denied the right to marry.

    Or otherwise these men in black will wipe out ten thousand years of human history where even primative people’s inheriently knew that it was a man and a woman who got married for the legality of reproducing human kind, same species as queers, i.e. regular White human beings, in the case of so called “homosexuals” they need to be asked “Are you getting married for the specific purpose of reproducing, not adopting as far as you know?” And if they say, “No, we’re both men, (boys, girls, unknown it’s, one’s the guy, one’s the female, etc.” then the judge can tell them, “Then if you cannot reproduce the human species and you are not going to be allowed to adopt, then there is no reason for you to get married because there won’t be any need for extra legality in your relationship. And in that case you should just live together and forget about getting married. Getting married is something that is beyond the reason for your being together.”

    And that’s just the way it is.

    And you do know why queers are pushing the marrage thing don’t you? It’s another attack against Christianity just like forcing the Catholic church and all others to provide contraseption and abortions to those in the church who are taking out private insurance. This to is just another attack on Christian ethics and the Christian belief system, faith, and a spiritual lifestyle. They have been living together for hundreds of years. But it’s only been in the last thirty or fourty years that queers have been trying to force states laws to let them get married. It just so happens that since the liberals began attacking the Christian’s for their discrimination against Blacks and long haired, pot smoking Hippies, liberals have thrown queers and lesbo’s in our faces because the Bible says that “…if two men lay together it’s an abomination…”. And liberals were the crusaders for homo’s for rights for their kind, whatever kind that is. So this is nothing but another attack on Christian’s.



1 2


`

© Copyright 2014, TheGatewayPundit.com. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions