tes_Supreme_Court.svg-255x255.png)
WASHINGTON — In a move that could have wide-reaching consequences, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear two cases involving the redefinition of marriage next year.
The court announced on Dec. 7 that it will hear cases challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act and a California’s Proposition 8.
The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which received overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for all federal policies.
Last year, President Barack Obama instructed the Department of Justice to stop defending the law in court.
While the majority of U.S. states continue to acknowledge marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the nation has seen an increasing push to redefine the institution in recent months.
In May, President Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to voice support for a redefinition of marriage. Citizens in Maryland, Maine and Washington state voted to redefine marriage in November, bringing the total number of states to legalize “gay marriage” to nine, plus the District of Columbia.
The court will now decide the fate of the Defense of Marriage Act, which had been struck down by appeals courts arguing that it violated the Constitution's equal protection clause.
In addition, the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment adopted by California voters in 2008 to recognize marriage solely as the union of one man and one woman.
The measure was approved by the people after the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of redefining marriage and the state began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
In February, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the amendment on narrow legal grounds, arguing that because same-sex couples had already been given a “right” to marry in the state, this right could not later be removed without a legitimate reason.
The issue will now come before the nation’s highest court and could have nationwide implications for the definition of marriage in the United States.
Decisions in both cases are expected in late June.
Matthew Warner: Thank God for the HHS Mandate
Dan Burke: A Novena to the Mother of God for the United States
Comments
Post a Comment
It will be interesting to watch the Constitutional process at work.
Flawed and biased ruling by, surprise, the 9th Circuit. A “right” given by a state is not a moral right, it is only a legal right.
Nothing is taken away. The states involved can still marry and the citizens can still get married. To bow to the laws of one state and ignoring the law of another, is unfair favoritism. The issues will have to be decided referring to the constitution and precedent.
The Supreme Court has already given notice that it is not the highest moral court in America with its Roe v Wade debacle against God’s laws concerning human life. Can we expect any different response to another violation of God’s law concerning Marriage? I must view thus case with trepidation. The God our forefathers trusted is apparently not the God the Supreme Court trusts
I hope the Court honestly looks at the issues involved. The protection of the rights of children is the main reason for marriage. Emotionally and psychologically, and in many physical ways as well, intentionally depriving a child of his biological mother or father without grave reasons is like depriving a person of his right or left arm and saying there is nothing wrong or abnormal with doing that for the sole benefit of the medical practitioners.
Professor Marshall McLuan, author of the Global Village, claimed that if he had control of the press, radio and TV for 1 month,he could have the world believing the world is made of green cheese. This explains the growing acceptance of the term “gay marriage.”
One the one hand, there is a very serious likelihood that this will be a disaster of national scope, one which I would have wanted to defer for a few more years. (I am not optimistic about the near term, meaning next 5-20 years.) On the other hand, it is probably better to have this case heard before Obama is able to make more appointments.
Whose side are you on? Does the truth hurt? What I said about the Supreme Court is readily apparent. Censorship from you is ratheer surprising to me.
God is merciful but He is also just and righteous. Homosexuality, laciviousness, abortion, divorces, atheism, violence, wars…the direction in which the world has turned; all of these things are an affront to Him. Those who fight or support or play the flag-bearers for these causes or pass the laws for these sinful acts must look inside themselves and see the damage they are doing to their own souls; the risks they are taking. Our Lord is crying for what we have done to ourselves and while He has been merciful, time grows short. Members of the courts have the chance to make the right choice in His eyes. I believe we all know what direction they will take, though. Pray.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.