Home
The feds passed a law which basically said a marriage for recognition of federal benefits is a marriage between a man and a woman. Four clear votes say that it is unlawful discrimination and a wrongful intrusion in the States traditional role of defining marriage. Kennedy the swing vote says that it is an intrusion on State's rights to define marriage.
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/29/17505931-supreme-court-likely-to-advance-gay-marriage-but-stop-short-of-broad-ruling?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1
I am really not in agreement with this argument. The states can make any relation with their elected representatives which makes their hearts glow with satisfaction, but they are limited to State Budgets on the recognition of the classification. Our Federal Representatives within clear roles of bestowing benefits on classification originated by their own budget priorities could easily have states undermining the very foundation of those budgets by changing the statutory definition within clear classifications which were calculated based on federal assumptions. This sets dangerous precedence beyond the issue of same sex marriage. I am not so certain that Kennedy will go this far. I think a very good argument can be made that the elected representatives of the people must change the definitions at the federal level. That activist courts advancing social issues which impact the federal budget in over 1100 incidences is not simply a state retaining its jurisdiction over marriage, rather it is central to the function of our legislature to prioritize budgets.
I would like to see recognition of same sex marriage, but not by an activist court. I would like to see the people of this nation reach that conclusion in the legislative process. I think the conservative block will be doctrinally correct in their arguments, but like Dredd Scott the power of the States will be recognized with the overturning of DOMA, and I believe a great injustice will be commited by trying to do the right thing, and a fundamental non recognition of constitutional principles......However, if it is clear that Kennedy is going to vote for this....you may see a near unanimous court as the other justices will probably have partial dissents but rule with the majority.
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/29/17505931-supreme-court-likely-to-advance-gay-marriage-but-stop-short-of-broad-ruling?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1
I am really not in agreement with this argument. The states can make any relation with their elected representatives which makes their hearts glow with satisfaction, but they are limited to State Budgets on the recognition of the classification. Our Federal Representatives within clear roles of bestowing benefits on classification originated by their own budget priorities could easily have states undermining the very foundation of those budgets by changing the statutory definition within clear classifications which were calculated based on federal assumptions. This sets dangerous precedence beyond the issue of same sex marriage. I am not so certain that Kennedy will go this far. I think a very good argument can be made that the elected representatives of the people must change the definitions at the federal level. That activist courts advancing social issues which impact the federal budget in over 1100 incidences is not simply a state retaining its jurisdiction over marriage, rather it is central to the function of our legislature to prioritize budgets.
I would like to see recognition of same sex marriage, but not by an activist court. I would like to see the people of this nation reach that conclusion in the legislative process. I think the conservative block will be doctrinally correct in their arguments, but like Dredd Scott the power of the States will be recognized with the overturning of DOMA, and I believe a great injustice will be commited by trying to do the right thing, and a fundamental non recognition of constitutional principles......However, if it is clear that Kennedy is going to vote for this....you may see a near unanimous court as the other justices will probably have partial dissents but rule with the majority.
