June 26, 2013 · By Bob Ellis · 9 Comments
The Supreme Court has struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, pretending two homosexuals in a semi-committed sexual relationship somehow equates to the unique union of a man and a woman in the commitment of marriage. After Chief Justice John Roberts’ treachery with ObamaCare last year, this sellout really didn’t come as a surprise.
The primary focus of this decision was with regard to the taxpayer-funded benefits–including immigrant benefits–real married couples are afforded by the federal government under law. Now, the taxpayers will be forced to support and subsidize an immoral, unnatural and unhealthy sexual practice that counterfeits the invaluable institution of marriage.
The only silver lining is that the judicial activists on the Supreme Court didn’t have the guts to completely overturn DOMA today, though this decision certainly paves in gold the avenue for that in the future.
The Supreme Court has also stuck it to the people of California in the Proposition 8 decision overturning the will of the people in favor of the will of homosexual activists and their useful idiots.
It was done on the premise that the people did not have standing to appeal the lower court ruling of judicial activists which sought to overturn the will of the people, because the officials who are sworn to uphold the law in California gave a big middle finger to the people of California, their oaths and the rule of law and refused to defend the lawfully passed will of the people. If “we the people” don’t have standing to defend the law that they themselves passed, who does???
While the Supreme Court claims it is refusing to rule on the matter, by “not ruling” on the matter, they HAVE ruled on the matter–to allow the judicial activism of a lower court to stand recognized as the law of the land (in substitution for the actual duly passed law of the land, which has been struck down). UPDATE: This may not be the case, if Alliance Defending Freedom is right.
As to the DOMA decision, this is the crazy claim made by the court majority:
It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others.
First, the state has NOT found counterfeit marriage to be “dignified and proper.” Indeed, DOMA itself states that counterfeit marriage is NOT dignified or proper. Kennedy is employing the usual liberal duplicity in putting the cart before the horse, or perhaps more properly, substituting his own opinion for actual law.
In Justice Scalia’s dissent he points out that the majority’s opinion sounds more like regurgitated propaganda from homosexual activists than a reasoned legal opinion:
The majority concludes that the only motive for this Act was the “bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.”
He also points out some of the problems which will arise from this asinine, baby-splitting decision by the court majority:
To choose just one of these defenders’ arguments,DOMA avoids difficult choice-of-law issues that will now arise absent a uniform federal definition of marriage. See, e.g., Baude, Beyond DOMA: Choice of State Law in Federal Statutes, 64 Stan. L. Rev. 1371 (2012). Imagine a pair of women who marry in Albany and then move to Alabama, which does not “recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex.” Ala. Code §30–1–19(e) (2011). When the couple files their next federal tax return, may it be a joint one? Which State’s law controls, for federal-law purposes: their State of celebration (which recognizes the marriage) or their State of domicile (which does not)? (Does the answer depend on whether they were just visiting in Albany?) Are these questions to be answered as a matter of federal common law, or perhaps by borrowing a State’s choice-of-law rules? If so, which State’s? And what about States where the status of an out-of-state same-sex marriage is an unsettled question under local law? See Godfrey v. Spano, 13 N. Y. 3d 358, 920 N. E. 2d 328 (2009). DOMA avoided all of this uncertainty by specifying which marriages would be recognized for federal purposes. That is a classic purpose for a definitional provision.
Great job, Supreme Court idiots! You just took a law which fostered stability and order, and replaced it with your judicial activist opinion which will create disorder and confusion. Of course, disorder and confusion are the meat and potatoes of liberalism, because disorder makes for the ideal environment to do “what is right in your own eyes” and to Hell with the law and what is right.
I hate to sound defeatist, but I am really losing hope fast that there is any future for America. We seem Hell-bent on destroying ourselves.
This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.
Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964