SCOTUS punts on Prop 8: Rules no standing; Same-sex marriage legal in Calif.; Updates

As Twitchy reported Wednesday morning, the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage act as unconstitutional. A dissent opinion in that ruling hinted at the decision in the Prop. 8 case.

Did SCOTUS punt?

The decision:

Same-sex marriage is now legal in California.

What else does this mean?

Twitchy will monitor this breaking news and provide reaction throughout the day.

Update:

  • nc

    There was a weird split on this one.

    • Clete Torres

      I thought so too. But I’m confused by what the court meant by the plaintiff having no standing to sue. Wouldn’t any CA resident under the law have standing?

      • nc

        Don’t ask me. I’m only a tax paying California voter.

  • Axelgreaser

    BIRKENSTOCK, GAYLIFORNIA, HERE I COME! All of this must be very confusing to gay people, still at the mercy of courts agonizing over their intellectual, legal and political convictions and politicians who keep waffling on the issue so as to not lose all that gay cash, still handling the perennial issue with rubber gloves and with their noses plugged, living in fear both the Christians and Gay Mafia will begin screeching at them. But it sounds like Californication is the best, safest bet and all same sex couples should move to California immediately where they seem to have cozied up to the institution of Gay Marriage. For the time being, anyway, until some politician freaks out over an angry constituency. Kali really should be the Mecca for all liberals, a haven for Dem sycophant’s and misfits of every size, shape and hue, no guns, no exhaust fumes and everyone wearing the proper shoe. One big, happy pot farm where the birds that chirp in the trees pay a ‘chirp tax’, happily!

    • Michelle

      Are you not aware California is not the first state to have same sex marriage? Many other states already have same-sex marriage, starting with Massachusetts 10 yrs. ago.

  • TJ

    Freedom of Gay marriage is another firewall against the creation of the Islamic caliphate.

  • https://twitter.com/Captain_Cy_kun Cy

    The best part about this and DOMA is that it strikes down a federal solution and leaves it up to the states. No matter which side of the issue you’re on, conservatives should see that as a victory.

    • therantinggeek

      Sure, as long as the other States that already have laws on the books against SSM aren’t compelled to recognize such a union that took place in a State that allowed it…

      • https://twitter.com/Captain_Cy_kun Cy

        Of course. And if that happens I’m sure it’ll be something else decided by the supreme court. But I’m gonna be optimistic on this one and not worry about that until it happens.

      • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

        The way it was explained to me is that the State doesn’t have to give them State benefits but they do have to recognize the Federal benefits which isn’t all that much of a change.

      • TocksNedlog

        The decision on DOMA didn’t change that.

        • therantinggeek

          Thankfully, but it wouldn’t surprise me to see a whole bunch of new lawsuits crop up in the next three to six months…

    • nc

      Unless you live in CA and voted in the majority, twice (!), not to allow it, but no matter. The activists ignored the voters and put this in front of a gay judge to get the result they wanted. That’s the result that is standing today.

      • https://twitter.com/Captain_Cy_kun Cy

        Can’t they just vote on it again though?

        • JBDestiny

          Missing the point. The people of CA spoke – district judge imposed it on them anyway. So voting means nothing.

          • RblDiver

            ^This. It was dutifully passed by the people, but an activist judge (who, as I recall, was gay himself) decided to throw it out. If the SC wanted to uphold states’ rights, they would have upheld Prop 8 while throwing out DOMA.

          • https://twitter.com/Captain_Cy_kun Cy

            Yeah, you’re 100% right. I made my comment too soon (and in the wrong section, should have been in the DOMA topic in hindsight). So it’s only half of a win for the states. Sad.

        • nc

          I understand from your post below that you were referring to other states, not CA. Right?

          Just in case, and for those in Rio Linda, I’ll explain: we here in CA will not be able to vote on this again. It has been a ballot proposition twice (in 2000 and 2008), passed both times, but it just isn’t going to be on another ballot. Our governor and attorney general refused to defend Prop 8, and the Forces were determined to have their way, people’s will be d@mned. That’s just how it is.

        • TocksNedlog

          Sure they can, and then it will be challenged and struck down again.

    • RblDiver

      No, it doesn’t. I wanted DOMA repealed and Prop 8 upheld. By punting on Prop 8, they do NOT leave it up to the states. The lower court ruled that it was unconstitutional by the US constitution, indicating that, no, it isn’t a “state decides.” The SC in this decision says that if the state doesn’t agree with a decision passed by the people, tough s%$# for the people; all the state has to do is not defend an issue, and bam, it goes away.

      • bgbear_rnh

        yes, but if the attorney general/governor had defended prop 8, it may have had a different outcome and if similar situation comes up in another state, they do not have to follow Walkers or the 9th districts’ (now voided) decision.

        Messy.

  • GaryTheBrave

    Next the homosexuals will demand that, rather than 18-year olds register for Selective Service, they instead be buggered to prove they accept and support homosexuals.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      You wacky authoritarians. Everything has to be either forbidden or mandatory with you nutjobs.

  • GaryTheBrave

    I agree with @seanmdav. The referendum process that allows the public to state their collective position to a policy is now moot. From here on the politicians will fear what a minority will say or do and will hinder the rights, freedoms and liberties of all Americans.

    • FirstNameTooMuchLastNameSwag

      Because your rights are sooooooo infringed if two people you DON’T EVEN KNOW are allowed to marry.

      • john gill

        lol…good one ryan

        • FirstNameTooMuchLastNameSwag

          Thanks

          • Grandma HeadInjury

            You girls want a room?

      • NRPax

        In light of the frivolous lawsuits that gay couples have brought against people that didn’t want to provide services for their weddings, rights have been infringed upon already by this issue.

      • GaryTheBrave

        No, my rights are infringed when I vote on referenda that was put on the ballot through a petition and the losers petition a court to say that my vote didn’t matter. This is supposed to be a country of, by, and for the people. Not anymore.

  • john gill

    Why do conservatives, dislike Gay ppl so much? Why do you care if two ppl get married?how does this effect your life….?…………………..do you choose to be strait???I know I didn’t choose to be strait, I just like pssy, it is what it is….just like gays don’t choose to be gay, its how they are made up and feel inside…….let go of the hate ppl. and let ppl live their life…in other words…..BUT THE Fk OUT.Yall conservatives/teabaggers are always saying, “less govt”….well get the govt out of the bedroom…….This is why conservatives will never/ever win another presidential election…….enjoy ur day.

    • NRPax

      You want government out of the bedroom unless you want government to fund what you do in the bedroom. Personally, I’d rather the federal government stay the hell out of this issue altogether and leave this for the states to decide.

      • john gill

        why even let states decide?The state is still the govt lol..

        • NRPax

          You’re so adorable, I bet you work children’s parties.

          The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

          • Michael Anderson (WB)

            You expect a liberal to recognize the constitution?

          • TocksNedlog

            Liberals DO recognize it!

            “Hey, what’s this piece of the Constitution doing stuck to the bottom of my shoe? Come here, little fella; I thought I’d shredded ALL of you!”

    • adam

      Seems like most liberals you confuse the words acceptance with the word tolerance. And the words bigot and hate with the word disagreement. If you truely wanted equality for all you would be fighting to get rid of marriage licenses all together. It’s against all singles, gay or straight. The government has decided that you should pay more in taxes because you haven’t gotten married.

      • john gill

        you can call it tolerance /disagreement , wateva, your not fooling me adam…its discrimination, bottom line……let the hate go , you will feel better :)

    • Maxwell

      That whole “you didn’t choose to be straight” is a load of crock. While who you are attracted to may not be your choice, the body physically responds to touch more than what is physically attractive. So realistically, it’s not impossible for a homeosexual person to be with a person of the opposite sex, just likd it’s entirely possible for a heterosexual person to be with someone of the same sex.

      Also, your grammar hurts my eyes. Go take an english 101 class.

      • john gill

        Don’t read my post then, if you don’t like my grammer lol.its shorthand typing, kinda like texting, evolve with the times Maxwell..

        • therantinggeek

          This isn’t Twitter. You’re not restricted to 140 characters. 😛

          • TocksNedlog

            Yeah, but his vocabulary IS.

    • NRPax

      Why do liberals hate gays? Bill Clinton was the President who signed DOMA in the first place and he’s a liberal Democrat.

      • john gill

        cmon buddy…..the only folks (majority of them) trying to stop gay marriage are conservatives…

        • NRPax

          And a liberal President took the first step at stopping them. Keep deflecting all you want. It doesn’t help.

        • Lisa Dean

          So, in California and other states, it’s those terrible conservatives who are the ones voting down same sex marriage.

        • fivegreatkids

          lol! You should probably take a look at the largest demographic voting block AGAINST gay marriage in California. It was the ‘African Americans’ who we all know vote conservative in droves.

          • SpinMeNot

            bazinga!

          • Bathing Suit Area

            That’s actually a myth.

        • fivegreatkids

          lol! You should probably take a look at the largest demographic voting block AGAINST gay marriage in California. It was the ‘African Americans’ who we all know vote conservative in droves.

    • wwbdinct

      I don’t care either way. As long as the government stays out of the churches choice to marry or not marry gay people. K sweetie?

      • john gill

        thats fine with me as well……A church has the right to marry who they want, but stop taking tax payer $$ then lol.

        • wwbdinct

          How does a church TAKE taxpayer $$ …LOL. Please make sure you let all the mosques know that they HAVE to marry gay couples. K sweetie?

        • TocksNedlog

          The government is funding churches now, is it?

        • Clete Torres

          Are you really that stupid, or is it just an act?

    • NCRelite

      We don’t dislike gay people. Instead of spouting off, you should try to educate yourself. For example: legalizing gay marriage = more government. The government shouldn’t even be involved in marriage in the first place.

      “enjoy ur day” We do enjoy our days substantially more than folks on the Left, that’s why we tend to live happier lives. Liberalism requires that people be in a constant state of discontent so that they call for CHANGE. That’s why Dear Leader Obama creates so much conflict between people.

      • Bathing Suit Area

        I love just how many people who got their marriages certified by the government are now all of a sudden pretending that they wished government would stay away from marriage now that they’ve stopped excluding gays.

    • fivegreatkids

      I don’t hate gays. I disagree with their lifestyle choice and think it is one of the things helping to destroy our country but I do NOT hate gay people. I know many great people who live the gay lifestyle. That said, many have now promised to demand that all churches and businesses recognize said marriages and perform said marriages in their churches, make wedding cakes in their bakeries etc…. They can have all the civil unions they want imho but marriage is between a man and a woman. My religion will not perform a “gay” marriage in our church-how long before gay organizations start with the law suits to change that? That is what I dislike.

      • Bathing Suit Area

        Your church is still allowed to refuse to perform interracial marriages if they want to, why would this be different?

    • fivegreatkids

      I don’t hate gays. I disagree with their lifestyle choice and think it is one of the things helping to destroy our country but I do NOT hate gay people. I know many great people who live the gay lifestyle. That said, many have now promised to demand that all churches and businesses recognize said marriages and perform said marriages in their churches, make wedding cakes in their bakeries etc…. They can have all the civil unions they want imho but marriage is between a man and a woman. My religion will not perform a “gay” marriage in our church-how long before gay organizations start with the law suits to change that? That is what I dislike.

  • Moonbeam

    More good news!

    Texas Vote Passing Abortion Bill Is Rendered Moot

    AUSTIN, Tex. — Hours after claiming that they successfully passed some of the toughest abortion restrictions in the country, Republican lawmakers in Texas reversed course on Wednesday and said a disputed late-night vote on the bill did not follow legislative procedures, rendering the vote moot and giving Democrats a bitterly fought if probably short-lived victory.

    The reversal capped a remarkable day in the Texas Legislature here. Senator Wendy Davis, a Fort Worth Democrat in pink sneakers staged a filibuster marathon of more than 10 hours in which she never sat down. Abortion rights activists succeeded in disrupting Republican senators, and the fate of a bill that Gov. Rick Perry had made a priority devolved into a legislative mess so thick that even senators who had voted on the bill could not say for certain whether they had indeed voted on the bill.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06

    • TocksNedlog

      Good news, everyone! You can continue to kill your baby-in-the-womb past the time when even liberals concede that it has brain activity and can feel pain.

      HURRAH!!!

  • Mr. Right

    SCOTUS to the people of California: Drop dead. We don’t care that you voted twice against it. Those of you in red states will have to recognize it as well very soon.

    • MC12

      Why were the people of California over-ruled? Because you can not legislate discrimination. The People can’t just make up any new law. It has to be consistent with the Constitution of the United States, or it will get the ax. Deal with it.

      • therantinggeek

        Congress should have never pushed for DOMA in the first place, even though your boy Bill Clinton signed it into law. Or did you forget that little fact? Two, gay couples in a civil union were already given EQUAL RIGHTS under California State Law regarding state benefits, they just couldn’t call themselves “married”. This was a federal benefits/tax issue from the get-go and should have never reached SCOTUS, in my opinion.

      • TocksNedlog

        The District Court ruling that declared it unconstitutional was WRONG.

  • MC12

    Rights cannot be voted away, and the minority is protected from having rights denied by the majority. Our constitution guarantees these protections. If rights could be voted away the south would still have slave states.

    • NRPax

      And now clearing the duplicate comment out.

    • NRPax

      First off, there is no right to marriage anywhere in the Constitution.

      Secondly, the Constitution repealed slavery, which means that it trumps efforts from any state in the union to bring it back. Please get a better analogy for the next time.

    • nc

      “…the south would still have slave states”? What are you smoking? No, I take that back. I won’t give you the excuse for such a vile statement. Sicko.

    • Jason Knust

      Marriage has always been defined by the States. The enumerated powers in the US Constitution says NOTHING whatsoever about marriage. Therefore the States have the power to define it. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have strong feelings either way, and I am inclined to get the gov’t out of the marriage business altogether. So I am cool with the DOMA ruling. But not the Prop 8 ruling.

  • Damien Johnson

    Leaving it up to the individual state. I can get with this. Problem is though, this sets a huge precedent. Now, even if the people vote against gay marriage all they have to do is take it to the SC to override the will of the people. My personal view on gay marriage as a Christian; Marriage to me will always be one man and one woman. But gay couples should have the same benefits that straight couples do. I will never agree with homosexuality, but those couples are none of my business. I do not believe they need to be under the word “marriage,” but I also feel that at this point it doesn’t matter. Churches need to be able to maintain the right to refuse a homosexual marriage. Christian businesses need to be able to maintain the right to not be forced to make gay marriage wedding cakes, flower arrangements etc in order to not participate in things they don’t agree with.

    Gay marriage is not the cause of the downfall of the family, it is one of the symptoms. It was one of the goals that was sought after, along with removing the man from the head in order to break the family down, along with making it socially acceptable to have kids out of wedlock, etc etc.

    • NRPax

      Now wait a minute…if those Christian businesses couldn’t be coerced into doing things that go against their religion, then that’s wrong!!

      Sorry. Couldn’t resist having a little fun.

  • RblDiver

    So, the Supreme Court says that the State knows better than the People. If We the People pass a law that the State doesn’t agree with, tough s*$& for We the People, all the State has to do is not defend it.

  • FirstNameTooMuchLastNameSwag

    lol twitchy deleted my comment. Republicans sure love free speech.

    • Grandma HeadInjury

      Free speech is guaranteed to not be infringed by the government by the constitution. Twitchy is not the government. Plus if you didn’t read the terms of service, too bad. Stop cryin’ like a bitch…

    • TocksNedlog

      What, YOU said something inappropriate? Get outta town!

  • Michael Anderson (WB)

    If marriage is basically a religious construct shouldn’t the government stay out of marriage entirely?

    • NRPax

      Shh! You’ll break the poor little dears with those inconvenient questions.

      • Michael Anderson (WB)

        That concept though will break people on both sides. The “icky gheys are destroying the country” people want the government to ban gay marriage, and the lgbt groups want churches to be forced to perform marriages. In my opinion as far as government is concerned it should be a contract, let churches decide on ceremony.

    • ceemack

      Marriage is a social contract as well as a religious construct. Marriage between men and women is a clear benefit to society–civilizes men, protects women, provides for children. Marriage between men and men or between women and women? Not so much.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      I assume you’ve been campaigning to end legal recognition for straight marriages then, right?

      • Michael Anderson (WB)

        Basically yes. Not in a legal push, but trying to convince my conservative friends when the topic comes up.

  • http://www.vatican.va/ Rulz

    Marriage should be between a man and a woman.

  • Cindy Bear

    The rejection of DOMA has very little to do with “Gay Marriage”, It is aimed more at Federal employees getting the benefits of their gay partner health insurance or social security payments, able to file joint tax returns, and force Christians and other religious groups into performing their “union ceremonies” within their hallowed halls against their wishes and beliefs. Just another feather in the cap of the secular humanists and their bent on the destruction of our great country.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      If you hate secularism so much, go move to Iran.

      • Cindy Bear

        Why put words in my mouth? Just because I don’t “like” something doesn’t mean I “hate” it. Grow up!

  • http://www.insomniaclibertarian.blogspot.com BruceMajors4DC

    If you say one group of churches, and their sacraments, including their marriages, are State approved, and another set of churches (and their marriages and sacraments) are not State approved, you are establishing a State religion, which violates the First Amendment. http://americasfuture.org/doublethink/2013/06/a-guide-to-the-marriage-debate/

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Well how else are they supposed to let everyone know that real twue xtians are destined to be in charge?

  • in_awe

    The bigger issue here is the gutting of the proposition system and establishing that the Governor and State Attorney General will decide which democratically passed laws will be allowed to stand. More broadly the SC said that if the Governor or State Attorney General in any state do not agree with a popularly passed law they are under no obligation to defend it in court, and therefore THEY have ultimate veto power over the people’s choices.

    So, as an example, if you have a state like CA in which every state elected office is held by left wing Democrats, and the Democrats have a supermajority in the legislature then this ruling strips away the final way for the people to say “No” to the direction the leftists are taking the state. It is the SC saying to the people “Sit Down and Shut Up”, your masters will tell you what it good for you despite your votes to the contrary. Your voices do not matter.

    Way to go Supreme Court. Why don’t you take the next logical step and allow elected officials to declare themselves immune to recall elections and term limits. Like in Iran, you can have those in office determine who is allowed to run against them. Heck, just go ahead and grant them the ability to declare themselves “rulers for life”.

    Is this what Jefferson, Washington Adams, et al really had in mind? Combine this ruling along with others that procedurally disallow the requirement that voting be limited to citizens, allow same day voter registration and that prohibit states from establishing strong measures to limit voter fraud. We are witnessing the legitimized murder of vox populi

  • © Sponge

    You’re really stupid. That’s about all I can say about that.

    Christians believe in the bible which is clear on this. They’re now praying for the souls of all those practicing this. That’s about it.

  • adam

    How so? The Supreme Court just said it’s up to the states to decide if
    they approve of same sex marriage. Seems like a win to me.

  • Andrea Gonzales

    Really? Nothing has changed. DOMA was rule on the grounds of states’ rights and that it interfered with the states’ ability to define marriage. STATES RIGHTS FTW! For Prop 8, nothing was done. They punt it back to the 9th circuit which found it invalid only in California. So what did we get today: marriage federally is not defined, gay marriage is legal in some states and illegal in others, federal benefits extend to those only in states where gay marraige is legal, and I’m eating a chocolate cake because I’m exhausted.

  • FirstNameTooMuchLastNameSwag

    Don’t fear. I’m sure conservatives will do whatever it takes to keep it alive at any cost!

  • Guest

    Sorry Bradley and but this doesn’t mean you can legally marry your Doberman. Your lawyer lied to you.

  • FirstNameTooMuchLastNameSwag

    lol. The Bible.

  • NRPax

    Don’t worry. There are plenty of liberals who will refer to blacks as Uncle Toms.

  • NCRelite

    “Don’t fear. I’m sure LIBERALS will do whatever it takes to keep it alive at any cost!”

    fixed that for you

  • https://twitter.com/Captain_Cy_kun Cy

    I dunno about SCOTUS ruling that it has to be legal everywhere, but so what if most states legalize it? It’s still a victory for the states being able to decide for themselves over being forced by the federal government to go one way or another.

  • LibLieExposer

    In that case, my pistol license in one state should be universally recognized in the other 49, plus D.C. If the government acts in one state must be recognized by the others when it comes to gay marriage, then it must apply to ALL government acts, NO discrimination against gun owners!

  • TocksNedlog

    Yep. All of those states in the Bible-belt and the Deep South are just lining up to enact same-sex marriage!

  • © Sponge

    That tells us all we need to know.

  • http://www.vatican.va/ Rulz

    It’ll be the Quran that will be delivering crushing blows to liberal secularism.

  • MC12

    Does Californians have the right to decide whether they approve same sex marriage or not? Clearly they don’t. Eventually the Supreme Court will rule same way about every state.

  • praymorenow1

    Seriously? I’m never surprised at the foolish, rather childish left. Christians, the 75% of Americans who usually call themselves ‘christian’ in some way….will do what today?

    Go to work, the market, school, gym, eat lunch, buy shoes, the usual…..no mass national protests, no rioting in the street, a few may hold their breath, put up a sign here & there….about 1/100th of 1%……..and that’s about it. A few will begin new court proceedings or propositions or petitions…..

    Most people expected the Courts to do what they did today.

    To spank down BILL CLINTON’S DOMA……and to punt on Prop. 8 (the 2nd time Calif. voted to uphold the state constitution & maintain male-female marriage only)….. no big surprise.

    If you’re a Christian, the decisions of man and ‘the world’ are rather predictable….. it does not stop one from believing in The Word, and Him, and that which I cannot see necessarily……..
    I await the 2nd phase of this – to force churches to conduct same sex marriages….no matter what. Mind you, not a Mosque, but, a temple or church or ward….you will be the next target. As is already happening in California – — –
    Same court that gave us the VRA ruling yesterday…..a bone for the conservatives……gave us this ruling today……… Same court that gave us the property rights & election campaign restriction rulings, gave us Obamacare green light, gave us these two decisions………..please don’t tell me it’s a ‘conservative’ court….we have not had that in decades.

  • RblDiver

    How does the state get to decide for themselves when they DID decide (to ban it), only to have that decision thrown out?

  • Rabid

    They’ll use all the other cards in the Hate Deck too.

  • TocksNedlog

    Hey, that was ‘a long time ago’!

    Yesterday, even.

  • rinodino

    And plenty of conservatives that will call Latinos roaches and want to switch African Americans with Africans because they are “quiet”

  • Damien Johnson

    Whoa whoa, California is already forcing Churches to provide gay marriages? As I’ve been saying, they do this in Canada, so it can definitely find it’s way down here.

  • TocksNedlog

    California is NOT “forcing Churches to provide gay marriages.”

  • Clete Torres

    Not so sure on that, Damien. Not saying you’re wrong, but can you point us to a link regarding CDN churches being forced to go against their teachings?

  • TocksNedlog

    The reason why Californians don’t have the right to decide on same-sex marriage is NOT because of the U.S. Supreme Court.

  • TocksNedlog

    Because the decision was thrown out by the CA Supreme Court. Now, if there were to come a time in the future when that court was NOT filled with progressive activist judges . . .

  • Damien Johnson

    If you READ, you would see I was asking that person a question because that was what that person said, not stating that as fact dipwad.

  • TocksNedlog

    1) You asked a question, I answered it; I didn’t accuse you of stating your question as a fact, so feel free to curb the name-calling.
    2) When you write “they do this in Canada,” are you claiming that government authorities in Canada are forcing churches there to conduct same-sex marriages? Because that isn’t true.

  • bgbear_rnh

    IRRC 8 was thrown out by one federal district judge, Cal Supremes said 8 was valid.

  • Jason Knust

    It was thrown out FIRST by the CA Supreme Court. But then Prop 8 was an amendment to the CA state constitution. It was then thrown out by a US Circuit Judge (Vaughn Walker). So even if a state votes to amend its constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman, it will eventually be ruled unconstitutional.

  • Damien Johnson

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ontario-christian-minister-forced-to-conduct-same-sex-marriages-or-get-sack/ That was from google. I remember I saw something to that effect on lifesitenews, so that may not be the same article but it appears to be one of them.

  • SpinMeNot

    You got that right. Its like the LIVs saying the Constitution gives the right to Gay Marriage in the clause about life liberty and the pursuit of happiness …

    Logic has no effect them, the effective lobotomy that results from a public school education these days makes them impervious to anything that can’t be understood by Patrick the Starfish.

  • SpinMeNot

    The basis of the ruling was actually the right to liberty, guaranteed by the 5th Amendment. Section 1 of the decision establishes jurisdiction, section 2 of the decision starts with the liberty protections of the 5th amendment. It then moves on to equal protection under the law (14th amendment) and then finally there is a brief paragraph of states sovereignty. I suspect the last paragraph was added by Kennedy.

    In other words, Kennedy sold us out.

    The liberal media is trying to report this in a manner to give the left the ability to yell, “but it is all about states rights, so you wing nuts need to shutup.”

    you can find the text here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/150136897/Supreme-Court-s-DOMA-decision

    The decision was written in October of 2012. Gee, go figure that they sat on it. Can you say electioneering? If a liberal yells at you, you said it right.

  • Clete Torres

    “Brown was very clear that she is contracted by Cambridge to perform marriages at city hall…”

    Ah, under contract to the city. Okay, that explains it. I was under the impression that the CDN government was going into churches forcing the issue. Kind of a big difference.

  • TocksNedlog

    So, NO Canadian churches are being forced to perform same-sex marriages — like I said.

  • TocksNedlog

    We’ll see.

  • LibLieExposer

    “Pursuit of Happiness” is in the Declaration of Independence. “Pursuit of a Penis” is not.

  • SpinMeNot

    Yes, I know where the pursuit of happiness clause is. I was simply relating that a large number of LIVs believe it is in the Constitution.