Watch Live: Obama’s Counterterrorism Speech

‘#24forOK’: Doc Thompson Begins 24 hour radio marathon to Benefit Oklahoma Tornado Victims!

Faith

Is Gay Marriage Heading to the Supreme Court? Justices to Weigh Major Cases Today

Nov. 30, 2012 7:11am Billy Hallowell

WASHINGTON (AP) — The running fight over gay marriage is shifting from the ballot box to the Supreme Court.

Three weeks after voters backed same-sex marriage in three states and defeated a ban in a fourth, the justices are meeting Friday to decide whether they should deal sooner rather than later with the claim that the Constitution gives people the right to marry regardless of sexual orientation.

The court also could duck the ultimate question for now and instead focus on a narrower but still important issue: whether Congress can prevent legally married gay Americans from receiving federal benefits otherwise available to married couples.

The court could announce its plans as soon as Friday afternoon. Any cases probably would be argued in March, with a decision expected by the end of June.

Supreme Court May Take Up Gay Marriage, Will Decide on Friday

AFP/Getty Images

Gay marriage is legal, or will be soon, in nine states – Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington – and the District of Columbia. Federal courts in California have struck down the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but that ruling has not taken effect while the issue is being appealed.

Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved gay marriage earlier this month.

But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example in May. In Minnesota earlier this month, voters defeated a proposal to enshrine a ban on gay marriage in that state’s constitution.

The biggest issue the court could decide to confront comes in the dispute over California’s Proposition 8, the constitutional ban on gay marriage that voters adopted in 2008 after the state Supreme Court ruled that gay Californians could marry. The case could allow the justices to decide whether the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection means that the right to marriage cannot be limited to heterosexuals.

A decision in favor of gay marriage would set a national rule and overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. A ruling that upheld California’s ban would be a setback for gay marriage proponents in the nation’s largest state, although it would leave open the state-by-state effort to allow gays and lesbians to marry.

Credit: AP

Throughout U.S. history, the court has tried to avoid getting too far ahead of public opinion and mores. The high court waited until 1967 to strike down laws against interracial marriage in the 16 states that still had them.

Some court observers argue that the same caution will prevail in the California case.

“What do they have to gain by hearing this case? Either they impose same sex marriage on the whole country, which would create a political firestorm, or they say there’s no right to same-sex marriage, in which case they are going to be reversed in 20 years and be badly remembered. They’ll be the villains in the historical narrative,” said Andrew Koppelman, a professor of law and political science at Northwestern University. Koppelman signed onto a legal brief urging the justices not to hear the California case.

Yet some opponents of gay marriage say the issue is too important, and California is too large a state, for the court to take a pass.

“The question is whether there’s a civil right to redefine marriage, as the California Supreme Court did. We don’t think there is,” said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage.

Regardless of the decision on hearing the California case, there is widespread agreement that the justices will agree to take up a challenge to a part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The law was passed in 1996 by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate and signed by President Bill Clinton. It defines marriage for all purposes under federal law as between a man and a woman and has been used to justify excluding gay couples from a wide range of benefits that are available to heterosexual couples.

Credit: AP

Four federal district courts and two courts of appeal have overturned the provision in various cases on grounds that it unfairly deprives same-sex couples of federal benefits. The justices almost always will hear a case in which a federal law has been struck down.

The Obama administration broke with its predecessors when it announced last year that it no longer would defend the provision. President Barack Obama went further when he endorsed gay marriage in May.

Republicans in the House of Representatives stepped in to take up the defense of the law in court.

Paul Clement, the Washington lawyer representing the House, said the law was intended to make sure that federal benefits would be allocated uniformly, no matter where people live.

“DOMA does not bar or invalidate any state-law marriage, but leaves states free to decide whether they will recognize same-sex marriage,” Clement said in court papers.

The court has several cases to choose from, including that of 83-year-old Edith Windsor of New York. Windsor faces $363,000 in federal estate taxes after the death of her partner of 44 years in 2009. In two other cases, same-sex couples and surviving spouses of gay marriages in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont are seeking a range of federal benefits, including Social Security and private pension survivor payments, access to federal employee health insurance and the right to file a joint federal income tax return.

In the only instance in which a gay couple already is receiving federal benefits, federal court employee Karen Golinski in San Francisco has been allowed, under a court order, to add her wife to her health insurance coverage. That could be reversed if the Supreme Court upholds the marriage law provision.

Photo Credit: AP

No matter which case the court chooses, the same issue will be front and center – whether legally married gay Americans can be kept from the range of benefits that are otherwise extended to married couples.

Justice Elena Kagan strongly suggested in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings that she would not take part in a gay marriage case from Massachusetts because she worked on it while at the Justice Department. The Massachusetts case is one of only two cases that have been decided by a federal appeals court. Windsor’s is the other.

Another case, from Arizona, has some similarities to the Defense of Marriage Act appeals. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which invalidated Proposition 8 in California, struck down a state law that said only married state employees were eligible for health benefits and withdrew domestic partner benefits for unmarried state workers. Separately, the Arizona constitution bars same-sex marriage, so gay couples had no way to obtain the state benefits.

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (73)

garylee123
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 1:12pm
Been around a couple thousand years. Thou shall not covet thy neighbors WIFE.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- NHwinter
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 3:30pm
  This was 47 years ago. April 3, 1965. An amazing prediction.
  
  Do you remember the famous ABC radio commentator Paul Harvey?
  
  Millions of Americans listened to his programs which were broadcast over 1,200 radio stations nationwide.
  
  When you listen to this, remember, the commentary was broadcast 47 years ago on April 3, 1965.
  
  It’s short…less than three minutes. You will be amazed.
  
  http://stg.do/9LDc
  
  Report this comment
- Pnis
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 8:58am
  Fortunately, we follow the Constitution and not some rules from a hate filled bronze age book.
  
  Report this comment
Alex
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 1:09pm
The origin of the federal government’s involvement in marriage stems from the antipolygamy campaigns of the 1860s – 1890s. The federal government and the courts once thought they were protecting marriage by enacting, upholding, and enforcing federal marriage laws to go after Mormons who were practicing polygamy. Although successful in forcing an end to the practice, the federal apparatus that was once constructed for their prosecution permanently placed the Federal Government in the middle of the issue. In hindsight, it might have set a trap for the traditional concept of marriage itself.

It is possible now with these federal powers that 9 people could legally destroy the definition of marriage in this country, as well as the protections afforded to natural offspring of a man and a woman. Why do I say that? Well, if the institution is now redefined with an eye towards validating sexual relationships, rather than towards the protection of statistically possible natural offspring, then all arguments of “it’s best for the children” shrivel up and die, because there is no such thing as “best for the children”. Marriage law becomes undefined, because it has no paradigm, model, or ideal. Anything really does go, despite what they say or promise. The law of unintended consequences kicks in.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- THERAPTURCOMES
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 3:57pm
  Jude 6-7 is very clear as to the fate of homosexuals and fallen angels seeking strange flesh and it is the lake of fire.
  
  I beg of you homosexuals and all other perverts, read and understand Romans 10:9-10 & John 3:18.
  
  Believing upon Christ is the only way to be saved and be removed from the 7 years tribulation Revelation 3:10. Because you have kept the word of my patience, I also will keep you from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth
  
  The resurrection/rapture is imminent http://youtu.be/ahEVxIzlxwo
  
  Report this comment
- Alex
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 5:48pm
  TheRaptureComes,
  
  You’re preaching to the choir with those scriptures on homosexuality. I’ve worked on promoting (and successfully I might add) constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage in three states. You should be loving me, but instead you take me for a f ag. I have been with one and only one woman my entire life, and that is my wife. You’re preaching to the wrong person here.
  
  As far as believing in Jesus Christ, you’re preaching to the choir there too. Jesus Christ is my Savior and Redeemer. Salvation comes through Christ or not at all. I love Him.
  
  As far as rapture goes? I’m not sure our ideas on what that entails are in alignment, but hey, no big deal.
  
  My original comments were addressing the twist of fate that exists in history. I just think it is ironic that the Supreme Court that once thought they were helping the family by upholding federal antipolygamy laws, and ended up sending my forefathers to prison for having more than one wife, could now be in a position to gut traditional marriage by forcing the whole country into same-sex marriage.
  
  Report this comment
FlagWavingPatriot
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 12:42pm
Tab A, Slot B. Whether you believe it goes against God’s word or not (I happen to think it does), it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out which parts go where.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
altops
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 12:35pm
Same sex marriage is an assault on GOD’S ordained institution and the separation of Church and state notion is OK everywhere else but when the STATE wants to effect and pollute My Faith, and Dilute My Marriage, and the Church’s Marriage Doctrine from an Holy GOD, their all well and Good to do so, this should be struck down based on , it is the state trying to administer doctrine of not only one Church or Faith group, But every single Monotheistic faith on the planet! Truly shocking to contemplate. And to suggest it is a civil right is like forcing ones faith down another’s unwilling throat. If We the People abide this as We have abortion/mass murder, then We deserve Gods Judgement, pray for his Mercy and that he impart His Wisdom on Us.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- encinom
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 12:59pm
  That opinion would matter, if the bible was a law book and this was a theocracy. But since the bible is not a law book and the laws of this nation are secular, whatever your opinion about God and his laws do not govern how others may choose to live their own lives.
  
  Report this comment
- PaxInVeritate
  Posted on December 1, 2012 at 1:07am
  ALTOPS… you are correct, and unfortunately it will get worse as far as the government imposing abominations on God’s Faithful. As in the time of Jonah and Nineveh, we are receiving warnings from God, and unless we fast and pray that our brothers and sisters open their hearts and return to the proper respect of God’s Laws we will receive chastisements the like the world hasn’t seen since the foundation of the world. Fast and pray this prayer for our nation (and spread it to those of like mind).:
  
  ~Crusade Prayer (85) to save the United States of America from the hand of the deceiver~
     “O dear Jesus, cover our nation with Your most precious protection. Forgive us our sins against God’s Commandments. Help the American people to turn back to God. Open their minds to the True Path of the Lord.
     Unlock their hardened hearts, so that they will welcome Your Hand of Mercy. Help this nation to stand up against the blasphemies, which may be inflicted upon us to force us to deny Your Presence.
     We beseech you, Jesus, to save us, protect us from all harm and embrace our people in Your Sacred Heart. Amen.”
  
  Report this comment
- jay1975
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 9:45am
  Why are you so insistent on the US being ruled by the “laws” of your god? That is not the nature of the US, so get over it. When same-sex marriage passes for all, you can simply choose not to have one.
  
  Report this comment
media-bias-steals-elections
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 12:27pm
Notice how the article was written expressly to avoid any mention that marriage is an establishment of religion, protected by the 1st Amendment?

You might not have, but God did?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- encinom
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 1:04pm
  How do the marriage of two individuals violate the 1st Amendment? Do Justices of the Peace and secular wedding violate the 1st Amendment? What about Catholic being able to get divorced outside of the Church, even though the church prohibits such actions, are divorces violations of the 1st Amendment also? What about the state allowing non-christian or even atheist weddings?
  
  Report this comment
Senior Viking
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 11:03am
There are only two places for a homosexual; the closet or therapy.

They are not normal and are not equal to the same rights as the majority of society.
They may marry. No one is saying they can’t marry…someone of the oppositie sex.

I was disgusted with the Real News crew last night. I was so disappointed in them.
They had a problem with abortion and homosexual behavior as a “civil right”.
It is not a question of civil rigthts. Perversion is not normal and baby killing is murder at any point in their life.

I am re-evaluating wheter to continue my full subscription to GBTV since I no longer will watch Real News. I no longer respect the news source. Not one person on the program was opposed to **** rights and most probably have no problem with abortion.

B’bye

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Senior Viking
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 11:16am
  The Blaze — you have a problem with the abbreviation for ‘homosexual’ rights? You edited out the abbreviation for homosexual?
  Have you become as PC as the rest of the world?
  Who cares if we offend? Truth is truth and “The Truth Lives Here”?
  
  Report this comment
tommy.tommy
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 10:57am
Our leaders or our Judges will have the same judgement as the filthy sodomites, I bet. “Eternal death” Because they let evil come out of its’ box. Like a pandora box. Ya know? Satan is real. When our Judges and our leaders see evil as good. Man. this is sick, evil, mentally retarded, and perverted as Satan wants to be. Well, he will have a short time as the Bible foretold and the evil homosexuals as well. I know, the evil homosexuals worships Satan by their ouija boards to get their way.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
vaman
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 10:33am
No matter how hard christian radicals try to stop it, gay marriage will happen in all states. No matter how they attempt to justify their bigotry with a few bible quotations, the fundamentalists will lose and gays will be married and will be your neighbors. Your kids will go to school with their kids (unless you’re a home school lunatic). The god group will fall to their knees praying and be certain the world is ending, but it won’t. Everything will be fine, just now, there will be equal protection for gay people that marry. The radical christian becomes less and less relevant every day.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- NHwinter
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 3:35pm
  The radical christian becomes less and less relevant every day. Only in your eyes, but not to God.
  
  Report this comment
- NHwinter
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 3:42pm
  Since when did Christians who are trying to live by a standard of God or Nature and those standards have been accepted for hundreds of years, now become the radicals and not the ones who are going against God and Nature? Who the heck is the screwy one?
  
  Report this comment
blackbean
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 10:12am
Is it any clearer the time in which we live than these words from the Bilbe, “As it was in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, so shall it be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man”? This movement is world wide like I have never seen or read about in history. Pay attention people!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- vaman
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 10:39am
  Deuteronomy says if your wife isn’t a virgin when you marry her, then execute her. Oh, I’m sorry. We’re not talking about that fable? We’re on Sodom and Gomorra. My mistake, please continue and let’s to Jack and the Bean Stalk next.
  
  Report this comment
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 10:54am
  I love when the religious nutjobs act like the person who wrote the Old Testament was writing an eye witness account.
  
  No no no, it was a normal man who saw the world around him and just started making crap up on how he thought the world came to be.
  
  It’s pure myth.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 1:07pm
  Vaman, don’t forget if the victim of a rape lives in the city she must also be stoned with her rapist, if in the country the victim just has to marry the attacker.
  
  Report this comment
watashbuddyfriend
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 9:59am
The supreme court has no business viewing, or reviewing marriage of any kind! Especially with those liberals on the Court!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- encinom
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 1:08pm
  It has every right, when the Equal Proctection Rights of citizens are in danger from the Christian Taliban in te Statehouses.
  
  Report this comment
teammommy
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 9:57am
OK so please comment:

Marriage began and alwasy has been a religious ritual. Along with baptism, Bar/bat Mitzvahs, decon ordination, communion, etc. The government does not regulate that…so why should we apply for a marriage license? We dont apply for a communion license!

Why not get the govt to get out of this ceremony, and allow all folks civil unions? Marriage should be left alone to the churches, and we as a faith will be happy, and if two lesbos want civil unions with contracts and such they should be allowed. No Supreme court involvement, no religious ceremony and faith being trampled. win-win.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Locked
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 10:17am
  I’d be glad to respond. For background: white, straight, male, Christian. Self-identify as a conservative and a constitutionalist.
  
  “Marriage began and alwasy has been a religious ritual.”
  True
  
  “Along with baptism, Bar/bat Mitzvahs, decon ordination, communion, etc. The government does not regulate that…”
  
  Also true.
  
  “so why should we apply for a marriage license? We dont apply for a communion license!”
  
  Because the government has granted recognition of marriage many benefits. Communion receives none. If you do not want those benefits, you can call yourself married and thumb your nose at the government.
  
  “Why not get the govt to get out of this ceremony, and allow all folks civil unions?”
  
  On the other hand, why not just call all of these two-person unions “marriage” and then let the churches decide if they want to hold ceremonies? A church ceremony is not required for legal recognition of marriage.
  
  Marriage should be left alone to the churches.”
  
  Why?
  
  “and we as a faith will be happy, and if two lesbos want civil unions with contracts and such they should be allowed.”
  
  Does this mean that all married people will also need to have a civil union or they will forgo the benefits granted by the government? In my view, the less expensive route would be to just call it marriage rather than have all married people reapply for civil union status.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 10:22am
  To finish up:
  
  “No Supreme court involvement, no religious ceremony and faith being trampled. win-win.”
  
  What religious ceremonies and faith are being trampled when the government declares two gays married? As a Christian I know remarriage is always adultery, but I don’t feel my faith is being trampled when the government allows divorcees to remarry.
  
  I also have an issue with your use of “faith” in a previous sentence. Not all faiths think the same way. Some Christian denominations even perform gay marriage ceremonies. I think they’re wrong (and really need to reread the Bible), but it’s their faith and their church, not mine.
  
  My issue is not with gay marriage, but with the government involved in the marriage (or civil union) process at all. Neither marriage OR civil unions are mentioned in the Constitution… and by the ninth amendment, that means marriage should be up to the states. But I figure that if the government’s going to ignore the Constitution when it comes to marriage, they might as well be consistent. It doesn’t affect me as a Christian and a straight man at all.
  
  Report this comment
- Cavallo
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 11:01am
  Maybe we need to eliminate marriage from the government books altogether? What exactly would that change? Taxes, certainly. You’d have a backlog of civil “separation of assets” suits (new divorce). The complicated aspect would be for children. Although it might be advised to then get a notarized contract of paternal trust upon the acquisition of children (Birth, Adoption). You do open the door to adult incest and polygamy but how common would that really be?
  
  Report this comment
teammommy
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 9:51am
I could have done with out those men kissing photos. I almost vomited in my mouth. Ugh.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- watashbuddyfriend
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 9:57am
  Me too!
  
  Report this comment
ClaudeRains
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 9:39am
“Justice” Roberts will side with the left saying gay males are necessary to ensure there is no shortage of attorneys.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Cavallo
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 11:07am
  LOL, good one.
  
  Report this comment
SerenityPlease
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 8:40am
If equal protection is afforded for gay people then the same should apply to people who want to marry multiple spouses. Not that I think that would be a good thing. I’m for traditional marriage. But if we are going to redefine for one kind of thinking person then we should redefine for other kinds of thinking persons. Bible doesn’t say anything wrong with polygamy, constitution doesn’t say anthing wrong about polygamy. I hope the Supreme Court takes into consideration all the twists and turns redefined marriage has the potential to take. Please lets stick with one simple definition.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The_Jerk
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 9:44am
  Adult sisters marrying brothers, Mothers marrying sons, Fathers marrying daughters… any perversion becomes valid.
  
  Report this comment
XaviorOnassis
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 8:37am
You CAN NOT support the Constitution of the United States and also suggest that the government has a role in defining marriage. The government has no such role in the Constitution and is further in violation of the First Amendment every time it tries to interfere with church sacraments/practices.

The Government needs to get out of the marriage definition business. The ONLY aspect of union that government is concerned with is the legal/contractual aspect (rights and responsibilities, etc). All unions between two consenting adult humans, hetero or homosexual, should be certified as “civil unions.” Marriage is a matter of faith/belief and as such, people who wish to be “married” need to find a church to legitimize that (and there are plenty of them).

Whether you believe in gay marriage is irrelevant. The Constitution was not designed as a means to define what churches may/may not do. See First Amendment.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- toiletclogga
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 8:46am
  Once the government started taxing citizens by way of a marriage license, that is where they stepped into the marriage definition arena. Do away with the tax/license, do away with the problem of the definition!
  
  Report this comment
- ai4px
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 9:06am
  Right on, Clogga!! Once the govt started taxing people, it got into the business of deciding who is married and who isn’t. Before then it didnt’ matter did it? In truth (with regard to tax rates), why don’t we just tax everyone at the same rate instead of playing on the slippery slope of taxing some people at differing rates than others? Another reason the government cares who it counts as married is because of SSI. Again, it didn’t matter who was called married until there was money involved.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Jerk
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 9:49am
  XaviorOnassis: “You CAN NOT support the Constitution of the United States and also suggest that the government has a role in defining marriage.”
  
  Can mothers marry adult sons? Fathers adult daughters? First cousins? Brothers and sisters? I think that your conclusion is not only foolish, it’s also wrong.
  
  Government has an obligation to protect the one, unique, relationship of a man and woman… for species survival’s sake. Government does not have any obligation to protect any of the other perverse relationships.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 9:58am
  @The_Jerk
  
  “I think that your conclusion is not only foolish, it’s also wrong. ”
  
  Where in the Constitution is there mention of marriage? Xavior is right: it’s not in the Constitution. If we want the Constitution to have a say in marriage, then there’s a process for amending the Constitution to do so.
  
  Report this comment
- XaviorOnassis
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 10:03am
  @THE_JERK There is a difference between drawing lines pertaining to how closely two people in a union may be related to be in a certified civil union and whether a relationship between two adult people may/may not be called a “marriage.” Marriage is a matter for churches to decide, not the government. The government has no role in “protecting” a religious institution or sacrament and the U.S. Constitution should not be weakened by people who wish to codify discrimination into the Bill of Rights. Again, your personal belief regarding gay marriage is irrelevant. Any effort by government to define marriage is blatantly unconstitutional.
  
  Report this comment
- Cavallo
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 11:50am
  @The Jerk, Most governments provide laws that defend certain cultural morals. There are cultures that value polygamy and incest (FDLS, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India). It might come down to what cultural traditions should the government codify into statutory compliance? My personal belief is that your concerns would be minimized via social pressure against the practices. However, on the other side of the coin we have seen that cultural peer pressure is being banned by law. The government is forcing people to associate, forcing acceptance, regardless of tradition. Turn back the government telling people who they must do business with, who they must be educated with, and who they must let into their clubs and groups, and your concerns are probably over blown.
  
  Report this comment
huntinwabbits
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 8:33am
Supreme Court? Oh you mean the court that constitutionally has very little power and is forced to preface all their rulings as “The opinion of…”.

I guess gone are the days when we would impeach supreme court members for cursing or being rude and we usher forth into a future where a judicial branch that was intended to be the weakest, becomes the untouchable strongest, dictating our lives. How is it that Congress has no idea the power they constitutionally have over the Supreme Court? Judges were intended to fear for their jobs constantly. Now it’s the people who fear the judges.

Man I wish George Washington was here today. There has to be someone that all of America respects that could slap us in the head. Though if the founding fathers themselves couldn’t get through to us despite penning commentaries on the Constitution, then what can?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
EJ1979
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 8:15am
Give them what they want, be done with this bs, will give the rats one less thing to campaign about next election.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ares338
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 8:05am
I don’t care who sucks what……leave me out of it.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
jackact
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 8:03am
The baby steps must be taken in order that Kagan can safely propose to Sottomayer.
:(

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- jackact
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 1:03pm
  …with Janet Napolitano as ‘best man’
  :(
  
  Report this comment
TheMajority
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 8:03am
Fine! Make gay marriage legal! But do it through the islamic religion if you refuse to start your own Church!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
toiletclogga
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 7:42am
You can’t legislate God’s acceptance of gay marriage! First, they (gay radicals and progressives) started out with civil unions. There was minor pushback, however, most people said, “to each their own, if gays need the same benefits as people who are married, then a civil union is good.” Now that there is a civil union law, it’s not enough for the radicals who now want to call it “marriage.” Why? To destroy traditional marriage as seen through the eyes of Christians. This is not a gay rights issue. This is an effort to destroy traditional Christian values.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ai4px
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 7:46am
  But… we don’t live in a theocracy. Look at the Muslim countries for lots of bad examples of the harm a theocracy does. Ohh and look to the middle ages in Europe for even more examples. How’s about we adopt a libertarian outlook… if you don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person.
  
  Report this comment
- qpwillie
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 8:04am
  @ai4px
  How about we don’t start taking away the definitions of terms to make them mean anything we please. If a word can mean anything, it means nothing.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 8:27am
  @Toilet
  
  “You can’t legislate God’s acceptance of gay marriage! ”
  
  No you can’t. But marriage law in the US isn’t based on religion so that’s a non-starter of an argument. If it was, remarriage (and divorce in most cases) would be illegal. Both are clearly sinful – Jesus Himself says as much.
  
  ““to each their own, if gays need the same benefits as people who are married, then a civil union is good.” ”
  
  Problem is, civil unions do not provide the same benefits as actual marriage. Heck, this article says as much several times. The tax laws are different; the inheritance is different; the insurance coverage is different.
  
  “This is an effort to destroy traditional Christian values.”
  
  Again, marriage in the US is NOT “Christian.” Remarriage is allowed although it is explicitly banned in the Bible. A church service is not needed; just a government official who can sign your marriage certificate and issue you a license. If you want a government that mandates your religious beliefs, you’re in the wrong country and always have been.
  
  Report this comment
- toiletclogga
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 8:44am
  Then you have a problem with civil unions! You cannot marry two like ends. It is physically impossible. As such, there is no such thing as a “gay marriage.” Gays can engage in a civil union. That is all. What the gay community wants is social acceptance, and this would mean forcing churches to marry them. It isn’t going to happen. I don’t believe for a second that this has to do with financial impact of gays who are in a relationship with each other.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 9:04am
  @Toilet
  
  “You cannot marry two like ends. It is physically impossible.”
  
  Again, as per The Blaze’s own article (and, y’know, reality), 9 states + DC say that you can. “Marriage” is not a Christian-only concept. “Marriage,” as far the US government is concerned, is whatever their laws say it is… not whatever religious folks say it is.
  
  “What the gay community wants is social acceptance, and this would mean forcing churches to marry them. It isn’t going to happen. I don’t believe for a second that this has to do with financial impact of gays who are in a relationship with each other.”
  
  I don’t believe for a second that allowing gay marriage will force churches to marry gays… because a marriage ceremony is not necessary for a legally recognized marriage. When it does, then I’ll have an issue with it.
  
  Technically, I have an issue with the federal government being involved in the marriage business at all. I don’t believe they have the Constitutional right to give benefits to married couples, gay or straight. I think it’s a state issue.
  
  Report this comment
- toiletclogga
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 9:42am
  @Locked..gays have the civil unions, why do they need to have it referred to as “marriage?” If there is a shortcoming with the civil union, then gays should be decrying the shortcomings. Leave traditional marriage alone. When two people of the same sex want to engage in a lifetime committment, it has to be called a civil union in the eyes of society and government. Marriage is defined as that between a man and a woman. We all know why gays need to have their civil unions called a marriage, don’t we?
  
  Report this comment
- DeathRattle
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 9:45am
  I agree CLOG
  
  @AL
  We do live in a free society, but there is something greater than government….. He is called GOD. The gay rights issue has never been about rights, it has been about changing (forcing) mans acceptance of homosexuality. You can sway the will of man, but God is unchanging and evangelical Christians will not change our views on it either. God loves each and everyone of us, but he has given us certain guidelines by which to live and acceptance of all of the militant homosexual agendas in the world won’t quiet the voice in their heads and hearts telling them they are wrong.
  
  Believe in God or not, there are consequences to the choices we make and there will be a judgement on each of us. There is a line drawn at this point in history where there is no more gray area, you are either for God or you are against Him. People’s hearts are growing harder to Him everyday, we were told this would happen and it is.
  
  The Government can bow down to this kind of deviant perversion, I and millions of Christians will not….. EVER.
  
  Report this comment
- DeathRattle
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 9:51am
  @QPWILL
  
  You are correct, truth has become relevant. Put the facts out and they will be ignored simply because people want to continue to live without the burden of consequences. This LGBT agenda is about changing the terminology so homosexuality is acceptable.
  
  This president has set a terrible precedent that if you don’t like a law you don’t have to follow it. Criminals are victims and victims are persecuted, welcome to the downward spiral.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 9:53am
  @Toilet
  
  “it has to be called a civil union in the eyes of society and government.”
  
  It “has to be”? Why? Because you say so? You’re being morally relativistic here, claiming that your definition claims priority over what society decides… just because you say so. I’m a Christian too (I assume you are as well, apologies if you’re Jewish or Muslim), but I don’t care if gays marry because no one is forcing me to marry a gay man or for my church to hold their ceremony if they don’t want to. Sure, homosexuality is a sin, but so is divorce and remarriage. I know plenty of people who claim to be Christians but who are living in sinful remarriages. That’s their problem; not mine.
  
  “Marriage is defined as that between a man and a woman.”
  
  Currently this is legally true (at the federal level). Before 1996 it was not. But what the government defines as marriage can change over time. God’s laws don’t change: but God’s laws are not the US’s laws.
  
  Report this comment
- toiletclogga
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 12:49pm
  @Locked–As a Christian, you know that marriage is a convenant by which you are committing yourselves to each other, and asking God to bless your union. With a civil union, I believe two gay people are committing to each other without asking for God’s blessing. If you are knowingly living in sin as a gay couple, do you believe that God is condoning that relationship? Obviously not since the word of God explicitly forbids these types of relationships. As a Christian, I am obliged to speak out against that which God forbids. We are all sinners, including me, but you do not see me asking people to condone my sinful behavior. Rather, I’d expect others to steer me towards moral and righteous behavior.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 2:06pm
  @Toilet
  
  “As a Christian, you know that marriage is a convenant by which you are committing yourselves to each other, and asking God to bless your union.”
  
  Sure. Getting married in the church means just that. Nowhere in legal, government-sanctioned marriage is God or a belief in Him a requirement. Otherwise atheists couldn’t marry. Or polytheists. Or Satanists.
  
  “If you are knowingly living in sin as a gay couple, do you believe that God is condoning that relationship? Obviously not since the word of God explicitly forbids these types of relationships.”
  
  That would be up to the couple, I’d think. I certainly don’t believe they’re living in a godly relationship, but the sin is on them, not me. Same for divorcees who remarry. The word of Jesus Himself forbids those relationships, but 50% of marriages end in divorce, and the majority of divorcees will marry again. And that’s perfectly legal.
  
  “As a Christian, I am obliged to speak out against that which God forbids. We are all sinners, including me, but you do not see me asking people to condone my sinful behavior. Rather, I’d expect others to steer me towards moral and righteous behavior.”
  
  Certainly. And here we are, as rational people, both agreeing that homosexuality is sinful. Where we seem to differ is in thinking that “speaking out” about sin means “using the government to enforce my religious views on others.” You can point out sin without using laws to force morality.
  
  Report this comment
- toiletclogga
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 2:46pm
  @Locked–I believe the argument is the verbage being used by the government in deciding what is marriage, and what is civil union. I’m of the opinion that those who wish to engage in a homosexual monogomous relationship should be entitled to the similar benefits as those who are engaged in traditional marriage. My concern with calling their relationship marriage is that government will soon start to dictate who can get married by whom, and in what church. The government has the ability to take away tax exemption status from churches should they not comply with certain laws. It would then be up to the church to determine if they wish to remain tax exempt of give into the pressures of the government. This could also create schism’s within the congregations that divide Christians and weaken the Church. We already see it happening with allowing openly homosexual clergy in some of the Protestant congregations.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 3:23pm
  @Toilet
  
  “My concern with calling their relationship marriage is that government will soon start to dictate who can get married by whom, and in what church. The government has the ability to take away tax exemption status from churches should they not comply with certain laws. It would then be up to the church to determine if they wish to remain tax exempt of give into the pressures of the government.”
  
  Churches already face this issue, however. For example, churches cannot tell their congregants to vote for specific candidates running for office. Well, in theory; I’m of the opinion that this requirement is unconstitutional… but that’s up to the courts to decide. For now, it’s enough knowing that even though this is the law, the government refuses to enforce it. And until a church ceremony is required for marriage, the gov’t can’t force it.
  
  “This could also create schism’s within the congregations that divide Christians and weaken the Church. We already see it happening with allowing openly homosexual clergy in some of the Protestant congregations.”
  
  See, I have never seen “the Church” as homogenous. If it was we’d all still be Roman Catholic, right? “Protestantism” is already based on the idea of protesting what we find incorrect with the Holy See’s teachings. What binds us as Christians is our love of God; we’re all brothers and sisters in Christ. But that doesn’t mean the family always agrees with one another ;-)
  
  Report this comment
HOOT_OWL
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 7:30am
Can we just split this country down the middle already .

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- EJ1979
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 8:17am
  True that! Left on one side, right on the other, see which side is flooded with chaos first.
  
  Report this comment
sizzlinsexybeckster
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 7:20am
Where the heck are all these gay people coming from? Did somebody tamper the water? Will they be able to marry their pet gerbils, too?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- huntinwabbits
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 8:42am
  Gays have been around. Their number’s aren’t growing. Their voice in the media is. Perversion isn’t a new concept. The media acceptance of such perversion is. And yes pet gerbils are next on the list. To redefine marriage implies there was a definition to begin with. And there was. 1 man and 1 woman. If we are to break from that norm to accept a small minority point of view, then how can we deny other small minority points of view. Man and pet. 50 year old’s and 12 year old’s. Woman and shoe. If we can redefine marriage and make it a “right” then how can we deny that “right” to other forms of perversion. After all, it’s all love right? Don’t be surprised to hear that phrase in a few years from a child molester. If love is a right, then we can’t grant it to some and not to others.
  
  Report this comment
- DeathRattle
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 9:52am
  Bingo Wabbit, well said!
  
  Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 7:20am
“The court also could duck the ultimate question for now and instead focus on a narrower but still important issue: whether Congress can prevent legally married gay Americans from receiving federal benefits otherwise available to married couples.”

This is the only imptortant aspect…Not allowing gay people to have certain benefits that married people get is discrimination and violates “equal treatment” of Constiution. I also believe it is unconstitutional for single people to pay higher tax rates than married people on “equal treatment” grounds

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ai4px
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 7:38am
  I agree with you completely. We live in a secular country and the only relevant question concerns tax breaks and benefits for those the government recognizes as married. Yeah, I’m straight, but I still think the government ought to recognize gay couples just as they do hetero couples. Gay folks should quit calling what they want “marriage”. Marriage has a religious connotation, and the bible says homosexuality is a sin. However if you call it “civil union” I have yet to meet a person who objects to the idea that a gay couple can have state recognized rights to each other’s medical records, file taxes together, etc. Just don’t call it marriage, it throws people.
  
  Report this comment
- huntinwabbits
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 8:48am
  Discrimination is the key word here. Making marriage a “right” will force discrimination lawsuits nationwide. If gays can marry, so can polygamists. And so can humans and pets. And so can child molesters and children. And so can women and shoes. Don’t you dare think you can redefine marriage to accept gays point of view and think that other minority groups who want to marry their pets and cars and children will stay silent. Discrimination is a much broader topic than just you not getting what you want.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on November 30, 2012 at 9:21am
  @Huntinwabbits
  
  “And so can humans and pets. And so can child molesters and children. And so can women and shoes.”
  
  I suppose you’ve never heard of the idea of “consent”?
  
  Report this comment
Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on November 30, 2012 at 7:19am
Justice Elena Kagan strongly suggested in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings that she would not take part in a gay marriage case from Massachusetts…..Nudge nudge wink wink.
Already know that was a lie.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.