Faith Community at
March 19, 2019, 08:21:28 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Wordsfree is on a New Server again! (April 2017)
We moved from Azure to a new cloud solution that should be more stable, and importantly: cheaper! -- Matt
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
Author Topic: U.S. Supreme Court rules Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional  (Read 2132 times)
Forum Fanatic

Karma: +89/-5038
Offline Offline

Posts: 5544


View Profile Email
« on: June 26, 2013, 06:54:10 PM »

U.S. Supreme Court rules Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional

Who needs a link?  Who needs the story?  The headline says it all.  The court found, 5-4, that the federal government could not divide marriages that were performed legally in a particular state, into two classes, and prefer one class over the other.

I hope this doesn't make us get upset, angry, or otherwise anxious.  I think as Christians we should always reflect the peace of Christ that He gave us at premium cost, to our best extent.  This peace will get us straight through the end times until the second coming.  The more peaceful we are, the more power our voices will have anyway.  The same truth expressed clearly and directly can lose power if it is also expressed loudly or angrily.

Who is really surprised that this happened?  Maybe it's happening quicker than most think, but I'm guessing a huge amount of money is riding on gay marriage, and it's pushing itself through like a battering ram.  I couldn't say how long it would take, but I thought it was pretty much inevitable.  It's like stopping an avalanche, or herding cats, or something like that.  It's not what we want, but we really lost the game when 12 states started marrying.  Unless the federal government claims the right to tell states what is and is not a marriage.  I wonder if marriage among more than two people is next.  Marriage to an estate or trust, maybe?

I am not surprised at the court's findings.  I believe there is some law or principle that says states have to honor the marriages of other states.  Federal law required filers of joint returns to be a woman and man, although in practice you don't have to indicate which filer is which.  I suppose that will change now, so that a legal marriage by any state will qualify for a joint return.

The first thing that comes to mind, is that the Church already accepts only a subset of civil marriages as valid -- those which accompany Church marriages.  And I think there are exceptions but I don't want to make it complicated.  For example, divorcees can get civil weddings the Church will not recognize.  Nor will she ever officially recognize gay marriages.  Even if some renegade priests marry gays in the Church, it isn't going to go viral because the Church doesn't usually consult the poll numbers when determining what she will teach and accept as a valid marriage.

« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 07:11:57 PM by Alan » Logged

... love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.
Global Moderator
Forum Fanatic

Karma: +216/-102
Offline Offline

Posts: 6413

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2013, 03:18:19 PM »

I have really mixed feelings on this subject, especially when combined with the overturning of Prop 8 out of California.

Our constitution is very clear that rights that are not specifically enumerated as belonging to the federal government belong to the states. Regulation of marriage is clearly not such a right given to the federal government. On that basis, I expected and don't have a problem with DOMA being overruled since it was an intrusion into what a state had already decided within its legal rights. If the state was to decide that while they will recognize same-sex marriages that they were going to treat them differently, more like civil unions, I would similarly have a problem with the US Supreme Court stepping in to override that.

In a similar vein, I have a real problem with the Supreme Court making a decision whose effect is to override Prop 8. They did not technically do that; they instead ruled that the group challenging the lower court ruling that overturned it did not have standing to bring the case. The problem there is that it is not possible for those who voted for and supported Prop 8 to show direct harm and thus standing would essentially be impossible to attain. In the end though the Court has chosen to override what a state democratically decided within their rights.

The two rulings are totally inconsistent with each other on this very basic issue of constitutionality and I find that very disturbing. Since the Supreme Court cannot be appealed while unquestionably having political leanings we now have lost the system of checks and balances that was put into place to avoid exactly what is now happening. we have a politically-active Court making omnipotent decisions along with Presidents (of both parties) creating "executive orders" and doing "recess appointments" to bypass the check of the legislative branches charged with approving such things.

To be fair, both those who favor and those who oppose same sex marriage are similarly trying to have it both ways. They will argue on one side in favor of the states being the sole regulators of marriage while arguing on the other side that the federal government needs to regulate it. In this case the "pro" side won going both ways.

"Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called children of God."
This is the effect of true charity, to be on good terms with all men, to consider no one your enemy, and to live at peace with those who hate peace.--Robert Bellarmine
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!