cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index cj.myfreeforum.org
NEWS, prophecy, dreams, ZionsCRY, Bible, teaching, visions
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

US Supreme Court USSC
Page 1, 2, 3 ... 41, 42, 43  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> America NEWS
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.

Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
Site Admin

Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Posts: 32234

PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:56 pm    Post subject: US Supreme Court USSC  Reply with quote


USSC High Court shows contempt for we the people!
High court hears case on federal benefits for gays
Demonstrators chant outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, March 26, 2013
- In the second of back-to-back gay marriage cases, the Supreme Court is turning to a constitutional challenge to the law that prevents legally married gay Americans from collecting federal benefits generally available to straight married couples.
A section of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act says marriage may only be a relationship between a man and a woman for purposes of federal law, regardless of state laws that allow same-sex marriage.
Lower federal courts have struck down the measure, and now the justices, in nearly two hours of scheduled argument Wednesday, will consider whether to follow suit.
The DOMA argument follows Tuesday's case over California's ban on same-sex marriage, a case in which the justices indicated they might avoid a major national ruling on whether America's gays and lesbians have a right to marry. Even without a significant ruling, the court appeared headed for a resolution that would mean the resumption of gay and lesbian weddings in California.

Marital status is relevant in more than 1,100 federal laws that include estate taxes, Social Security survivor benefits and health benefits for federal employees. Lawsuits around the country have led four federal district courts and two appeals courts to strike down the law's Section 3, which defines marriage. In 2011, the Obama administration abandoned its defense of the law but continues to enforce it. House Republicans are now defending DOMA in the courts.
Same-sex marriage is legal in nine states and the District of Columbia. The states are Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington. It also was legal in California for less than five months in 2008.

The justices chose for their review the case of Edith Windsor, 83, of New York, who sued to challenge a $363,000 federal estate tax bill after her partner of 44 years died in 2009.
Windsor, who goes by Edie, married Thea Spyer in 2007 in Canada after doctors told them that Spyer would not live much longer. She suffered from multiple sclerosis for many years. Spyer left everything she had to Windsor.
There is no dispute that if Windsor had been married to a man, her estate tax bill would have been zero.
Like the Proposition 8 case from California, Windsor's lawsuit could falter on a legal technicality without a definitive ruling from the high court.

March 26, 2013
Former Oklahoma State Senator James Williamson, who helped create State Question 711, a measure that Oklahomans passed overwhelmingly in 2004 to ban gay marriage, says he's worried the Supreme Court will override the voters will.
Thats what the radical homosexuals are trying to do.  They're trying to get a national judicial ruling to bypass the democratic process.
State Question 711 was passed by 76 percent of Oklahoma voters and created a ban in the state's constitution, but Williamson said that wont matter if the High Court rules that such bans are unconstitutional.
We would be bound, as we are on the abortion issue and other issues, to follow the court ruling.


Federal gay marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional

Judge rules California's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

USSC rules on gay marriage

HARBINGER  WARNINGS - Isaiah 9 prophecy
When GOD destroys USA, you cant say He didnt WARN us!

April 2017
New Justice Neil Gorsuch replaced Scalia

              Posted   <*))))><   by  

DAILY NEWS with prophetic analysis    


Last edited by CJ on Sat Apr 15, 2017 9:43 am; edited 12 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17176

PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:43 pm    Post subject: Re: USSC High Court shows contempt for we the people! Reply with quote

The high-profile case has brought together two one-time Supreme Court opponents. Republican Theodore Olson and Democrat David Boies are leading the legal team representing the same-sex couples.
They argued against each other in the Bush v. Gore case that settled the disputed 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. Opposing them is Charles Cooper, Olson's onetime colleague at the Justice Department in the Reagan administration.

Well, well...surprise surprise! Rolling Eyes Wow...it seemed like the whole Bush v. Gore ordeal was yesterday, and now we're seeing lawyers that were on OPPOSITE sides TEAM up together to push for gay marriage, while their "opponent" happens to be one of their long-time colleagues? Rolling Eyes
Looks like one big happy family now!

But Republicans have also been crossing to the pro-gay marriage side. Wallace is among dozens of Republicans who filed a brief in the Supreme Court case arguing for Prop 8 to be overturned.  And Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, publicly reversed his position on the issue after his son came out as gay.

The position shifts, though, do not signal a party-wide change of heart. Many Republicans would still prefer the issue be left up to the states and are encouraging the high court justices to rule narrowly.

Uhm...didn't Obama once upon a time ago say gay marriage should be LEFT UP TO THE STATES?(Before he "changed" his position, that is)

This is just my opinion - but if the ruling will be just this(left up to the states), then it's going to open up a whole new can of worms, why? B/c the gay rights movement in those 30 states are going to come out complaining, "But California got their way with the high courts, why can't we have our equal rights?".
This line of thinking by the establishment is a TRAP!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17176

PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Supreme Court indicates it may strike down marriage law
3/27/13 - The Supreme Court seemed to be leaning toward striking down a law that denies federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples in a move that would reflect a shift in Americans' attitudes about gay marriage.
In a second day of oral arguments on same-sex marriage, a majority of the court raised serious concerns with the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, enacted in 1996 under President Bill Clinton.

Arguments over the last two days on the DOMA case and a separate one challenging California's ban on gay marriage marked the high court's first foray into a delicate and divisive political, religious and social issue in the United States as polls indicate growing public support for same-sex marriage.

In theory, the cases have the potential for the court to take a significant step toward endorsing gay marriage as it gains support in some parts of the country. Based on the arguments, however, a partial victory for gay rights activists seems more likely than the sweeping declaration of same-sex marriage rights they had hoped for.

As demonstrators rallied outside the Supreme Court building for a second day, Justice Anthony Kennedy, a potential swing vote, showed a willingness to invalidate DOMA, which denies married same-sex couples access to federal benefits by defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
He warned of a "real risk" that the law infringes on the traditional role of the states in defining marriage.
A conservative, Kennedy is viewed as a key vote on this issue in part because he has twice authored decisions in the past that were viewed as favorable to gay rights.

In contrast to the ambivalent approach they displayed on Tuesday in arguments about California's Proposition 8 gay marriage ban, the nine justices seemed willing to address the substantive issue in the DOMA case, while also eyeing procedural questions.

The court is not expected to rule on the two cases until the end of June. If the justices were to strike down DOMA, legally married gay couples would be winners because they would have improved access to federal benefits, such as tax deductions.

Justices gave a strong indication they might resolve the Proposition 8 case on procedural grounds, but even that would be viewed as a win for gay rights activists as same-sex marriages in California would likely resume.
What appears highly unlikely is a sweeping declaration of a right for gay people to marry, a possible option only in the California case.
Overall, a majority of the justices made it clear that, while they might not impede the recent movement among some states toward gay marriage, they were not willing to pave the way either.

Nine states now recognize gay marriage, while 30 states have constitutional amendments banning it and others are in-between.
On several occasions over the two days, the justices' own remarks illustrated how quickly attitudes have changed in favor of gay marriage.

During Tuesday's arguments, Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative, questioned whether there was sufficient data to show that children are not adversely affected if raised by same-sex couples. Likewise, Justice Samuel Alito noted the concept of gay marriage is "newer than cellphones and the Internet."

Offering a liberal perspective, Justice Elena Kagan prompted murmurs of surprise from onlookers on Wednesday when she quoted from a U.S. House of Representatives report written less than two decades ago, at the time DOMA was enacted, that referenced "moral disapproval" of gay marriage.

As attention turned to DOMA on Wednesday, Kennedy made it clear where he stood, referring to DOMA as "inconsistent" because it purports to give authority to the states to define marriage while limiting recognition of those determinations.
His states' rights concerns were echoed by two of the liberal members of the bench, Kagan and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "What gives the federal government the right to be concerned at all about what the definition of marriage is?" Sotomayor said.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer also raised concerns about the law.
Ginsburg stressed how important federal recognition is to any person who is legally married. "It affects every area of life," she said.

Comparing marriage status with types of milk, Ginsburg said that a gay marriage endorsed by a state, but not recognized by the federal government, creates two types of marriage, "full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage."

If the court rules on the states' rights issue, the justices could strike down the law without deciding the bigger question of whether DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.

Kagan spoke of a "red flag" that indicates Congress passed DOMA with the intent of targeting a group that is "not everyone's favorite group in the world."
Separately, several conservative justices criticized Obama and his Justice Department for not defending the marriage law in court.
Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether Obama had "the courage of his convictions" for continuing to enforce DOMA while calling it invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17176

PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Corporations Paint Their Brands Red For LGBT Rights
27 Mar 2013
 Thousands of people are taking to social media to voice their personal support for gay marriage but individuals are not the only ones supporting the cause. Corporations and public figures are using their branding to ride the trend this week as the Supreme Court argues two pieces of landmark legislation regarding same-sex marriage.  

Political supporters of the gay rights initiatives have donned icons based on the Human Rights Campaign equality symbol with shades of red instead of blue and yellow on their personal Facebook pages.
Governors Martin O'Malley of Maryland, Jack Merkell or Delaware, Peter Shumlin of Vermont and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, all from states that allow gay marriage, changed their profile pictures in lieu of the Proposition 8 and DOMA arguments.

Well, speaking of images the NWO use to condition the public with, here's the latest they're using, in particular on social media, toward the public to push legalizing gay marriage.

What’s That Red Equal-Sign on Facebook All About?
Mar 26, 2013 They’re popping up on Facebook news feeds around the nation, but without much explanation. Just what are those red equal-sign Facebook profile pictures all about? Look no further than the Human Rights Campaign, an organization in support of gay marriage that is running a particularly successful social media initiative as the Supreme Court discusses the issue over the next two days.

In a Facebook post today, the HRC asked gay marriage supporters to “paint the town red,” wearing red in their wardrobe as well on their Facebook pages, changing profile photos over to the HRC “=” logo. The idea has even caught the eyes of Congress, with 13 members showcasing the symbol, according to Ryan Beckwith.

Ryan Teague Beckwith  @ryanbeckwith  
Updated: 13 members of Congress changed their Twitter avatars in support of gay marriage today. http://bit.ly/YCp7sI  #SCOTUS #Prop8
7:29 PM - 26 Mar 13

The campaign has left many on Twitter wondering what changing a profile picture will accomplish.

Eric Arnold  @DudeImEric  
Just got off the phone with #scotus justice Scalia. Said he was going to vote no until he saw all the red profile pictures on FB.
Boston comedian Dana Jay Bein had a more optimistic outlook in a Facebook post: “Seeing all of the people who support can inspire people to take MORE action – small change. I’d much rather see red equal signs than pictures of Grumpy Cat and ironic self shots.”
The HRC initiative has seen a few spin-offs since this morning, with several profile picture explanation posts  seeing high numbers of shares, in an attempt to clarify what the red profile pictures stand for.

Twisted Evil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17176

PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Analysis: Gay marriage rights may carry bigger U.S. tax burden for some
3/28/13  If the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down a federal law defining marriage as between a man and woman, the newfound rights for gay married couples may bear something not so welcome - a bigger tax burden.
That's because with equality, gay couples will face the same tax woes of many heterosexual couples with similar incomes, including the tax hit known in America as the marriage penalty.
Taxpayers filing as married couples may be forced to pay higher taxes as their collective income crosses into a higher tax bracket sooner than if they were filing separately.

Oral arguments on Wednesday gave gay marriage backers hope the court would overturn the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) after a majority of the nine justices raised concerns about the law's validity under the U.S. Constitution.
Taxes are at the very heart of the challenge to DOMA.

The case involves Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a New York couple. When Spyer died in 2009, DOMA prevented Windsor from enjoying one of the biggest tax breaks enjoyed by heterosexual Americans - the exemption from federal estate tax on wealth passed from one spouse to another.

If the law is struck down, the ruling extending the exemption to gay and lesbian surviving spouses would also clear the way to more than 1,100 federal benefits, rights and burdens linked to marriage status.

Cynthia Leachmoore, a tax preparer in Soquel, California, has about 40 same-sex married couples as customers ranging from teachers to Silicon Valley workers.

A handful of them have joint incomes that top $1 million. They're facing $25,000 to $30,000 more in federal and state taxes if DOMA goes down and they file taxes jointly, she said.
"Most of them don't care. They'd really like to be able to say that they were married" on tax returns, Leachmoore said. "That's more important to them."

Married gay couples would see other benefits, including a break in taxes now paid on health insurance and greater access to federal family and medical leave.
There are some 130,000 same-sex married couples in the United States as estimated by the Census Bureau, and nearly 650,000 same-sex couples, married and not, in total.

The Byzantine U.S. tax code's marriage definition is not consistent. In some sections, the marriage provisions are defined for a "husband and wife." Other places say "spouse."

If the law is struck down, the Internal Revenue Service may need Congress to clarify the tax code, or the Obama administration may say same-sex married couples will be treated the same as opposite-sex marriages, said Annette Nellen, a tax professor at San Jose State University.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in 2004 estimated that recognition of gay marriage would, on net, help the budget's bottom line by $1 billion a year over 10 years. The increased revenue would account for about 0.1 percent of total federal revenues at the time.

My Comment: So this is about $$$$ after all as well?

The Williams Institute, a unit of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law, estimates that gay marriage may be good also for the fiscal health of states and localities that legalize it.
Of the 50 states, 31 have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. It is legal in nine states and Washington, D.C.

The remaining states' policies vary, with some recognizing marriage from other states, some providing some of the legal benefits of marriage and others denying marriage by state laws.

Williams Institute estimated that if Rhode Island legalized marriage, its coffers would gain $1.2 million in 2010 dollars over three years, largely due to lower spending on social welfare programs and increased income tax revenue and marriage license fees.

That is the small slice of the hundreds of millions in operating deficits Rhode Island is expected to be working under in the next five years, as estimated by a governor's report.

Because of differing state laws, it is unclear what the impact might be in states with laws disallowing gay marriage.

Brian Moulton, an attorney with the Human Rights Campaign, said that if he married legally in Washington, D.C., and moved to Oklahoma, where gay marriage is not legal, the federal government might still recognize the union.

But Todd Solomon, a partner at law firm McDermott Will & Emery and author of a book on domestic partner benefits, said he was not so sure that would be the case.

"It is an open question as to what happens in Oklahoma," he said. "Each state will still be allowed to legislate marriage."


Although the case was about the estate tax, only 3,600 estates owed the estate tax in 2012, according to government figures, and the wealthiest Americans pay most of it.

The end of DOMA might also save same-sex couples from having to pay some federal taxes on healthcare benefits they receive through a spouse's employer. Unmarried domestic partners on average owe an extra $1,000 annually in taxes on these benefits because they are now taxed, according to Williams.

"Everyone will get a benefit if they were carrying health insurance," said Nanette Lee Miller, head of non-traditional family practice at accounting firm Marcum LLP in San Francisco.

The impact on Social Security benefits will be mixed. DOMA prevents same sex couples from claiming the survivors benefits extended to married couples. But Social Security recipients might face greater taxes on their benefits because they will hit the level where the benefits begin to be taxed sooner if married.

Prov_11:1  A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.

So apparently, one of the agendas here is the love of money...lawyers, accountants, and the federal/state governments will all be profiting quite a bit over this(well, maybe not the latter as much b/c they are so deeply in debt).

Last edited by BornAgain2 on Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17176

PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rush Limbaugh: Regardless of Supreme Court Ruling Gay Marriage Is 'Inevitable'
3/28/13  In his radio show today, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh said defenders of traditional marriage have lost the battle, even though the Supreme Court won't hand down its decisions for another few months.
"I don't care what the Supreme Court does, this is now inevitable," Limbaugh said, "and it's inevitable because we lost the language on this."

Limbaugh took issue with the idea that the word marriage was already applied to gay couples. Therefore, he asserted, modifiers like "hetero" or "opposite-sex" are now at times added to denote a union between a man and a woman.

"I maintain to you that we lost the issue when we started allowing the word 'marriage' to be bastardized and redefined by simply adding words to it - because marriage is one thing, and it was not established on the basis of discrimination. It wasn't established on the basis of denying people anything," the radio host said. "Marriage is not a tradition that a bunch of people concocted to be mean to other people with. But we allowed the left to have people believe that it was structured that way."

On Wednesday, he made a similar prediction, saying that gay marriage would soon become legal " nationwide."
Earlier this year, Limbaugh compared homosexuality to pedophilia.
Today, he claimed discrimination against gay couples "is not an issue."

"No one sensible is against giving homosexuals the rights of contract or inheritance or hospital visits. There's nobody that wants to deny them that. The issue has always been denying them a status that they can't have, by definition. By definition - solely, by definition - same-sex people cannot be married. So instead of maintaining that and holding fast to that, we allowed the argument to be made that the definition needed to change, on the basis that we're dealing with something discriminatory, bigoted, and all of these mystical things that it's not and never has been."

Leviticus 18
Do not have sex with your sister
Do not have sex with your neighbor’s wife
Do not sacrifice your children to Molek (abortion)
Do not have sex with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Do not have sex with an animal

Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, even the land was defiled so the land vomited out its inhabitants. If you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17176

PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?
Psalm 11:3

SCOTUS-induced chaos on gay marriage?
31 Mar 2013
If there is a narrow ruling against Prop. 8 and DOMA is struck down, expect a legal and political mess.
If the Supreme Court decides the two gay marriage cases it heard last week the way most court watchers believe it will, expect legal and political chaos.

The court seems ready to strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, while ruling quite narrowly on California's Proposition 8, allowing a lower-court decision to stand. Such an outcome would make gay marriage legal in California without deciding whether state bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional.

And that would allow more of what we've seen up to now: a growing number of liberal blue states moving to legalize gay marriage, and a growing number of conservative red states enacting bans.
But there will be one big difference: Gays who live in states that allow gay marriage may have an array of federal privileges unavailable to those living in states that ban such marriages. And that raises complex questions.

What happens to two gay men who marry in New York and then move to Salt Lake City? Will they still be married? If they have children, will the kids have two parents under Utah law? And will their federal benefits, such as survivors' Social Security benefits, travel with them, even though they've moved to a state where their marriage isn't valid? Will they file their federal tax returns jointly but state returns separately? And don't even think about the issue of divorce.

This kind of legal patchwork virtually guarantees that politicians in states that don't recognize gay marriage will be debating and legislating the issue for years, making for an even more confusing situation. The ensuing chaos could harm more than just gay couples; the Republican Party stands to lose too.

Gay marriage has been embraced by a substantial majority of Democrats and Democratic politicians. In blue states, the trend lines suggest that opinion among Democrats will soon be so one-sided that it will cease to be an issue.

It's different in the GOP. Most Republicans still oppose same-sex marriage by a wide margin, with only about a quarter in favor in a recent Pew Research Center poll. But the survey also suggests that the issue will grow as a wedge that divides the party, in part because of a big generational divergence: 76% of Republicans over 65 oppose gay marriage, while only 54% of those under 30 do.

And when the question is changed from marriage to equal rights, the wedge potential is even clearer: Republicans divide right down the middle as to whether homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples, 49% to 48%, with young people again more permissive than older voters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17176

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gay couples, employers could face legal maze if Supreme Court strikes down DOMA
4/3/13  If, as many legal experts predict, the Defense of Marriage Act is struck down by the Supreme Court, advocates behind the decadeslong movement for gay rights will have won a major victory. But the decision could also create a dense legal maze for gay and lesbian married couples, one that would surely lead to more lawsuits that could make their way back to the Supreme Court.

And striking down DOMA would not just affect same-sex couples, but their employers. Basically, said Jonathan Zasloff, a professor at UCLA School of Law, the result could be a “mess.”
The problem resides in conflicting state gay marriage laws and how the federal government would interpret them. Last week, the court heard arguments about whether Section 3 of DOMA—which prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages—is unconstitutional. Justice Anthony Kennedy, generally the court’s swing vote, seemed inclined to strike down the statute on the grounds that it interferes with states' rights to define marriage, raising hopes among gay rights groups that thousands of married same-sex couples will be able to access the federal benefits of marriage for the first time.

If DOMA is struck down, then same-sex couples residing in states that allow gay marriage will suddenly be included in the more than 1,100 federal laws that give benefits to married couples. Gay couples, for instance, could file jointly on their tax returns, apply for Social Security survivor benefits if their spouse dies, and take up to 12 weeks off to care for a sick family member without fear of losing their job under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

But what about a gay couple that gets married in New York and then moves back to North Carolina, or any other of the 38 states that have explicitly banned gay marriage?

At first glance, it appears they would have no access to these rights, and that their marriage would not be recognized either by their state or the federal government. During oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito asked attorney Roberta Kaplan, who was arguing against DOMA, this very question. Alito asked whether a New York gay couple who moved to North Carolina could qualify for the same federal estate tax breaks that heterosexual married couples enjoy if one spouse dies.

"Our position is only with respect to the nine states ... that recognize these marriages," Kaplan responded.

In Kaplan's version of events, the Supreme Court could strike down DOMA and essentially create two different worlds for gay married couples in the country. In a handful of states, gay couples would enjoy all the benefits of heterosexual couples, but if they moved to the majority of the states in the union, their marriage would effectively disappear—for both federal and state purposes.

But Zasloff doesn’t think that will pass muster. He predicts same-sex couples would sue the government, arguing that this policy violates their constitutional right to travel. (In the past, the Supreme Court has struck down states’ waiting periods for new residents to enroll in welfare programs, holding that they violated the right of interstate travel.) Same-sex couples could also make a broader legal argument that the federal government should define “marriage” based on where a couple got married, not where they currently live.

The Supreme Court could sidestep this inevitable legal battle by explicitly noting whether the federal government should recognize same-sex marriages if the couples are no longer living in states that issued their license. But some experts say don’t count on it.

Andrew Koppelman, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law, says he would be "astonished" if the Supreme Court clarified the issue in its opinion. Zasloff agrees, noting that Kennedy, who will most likely write the DOMA opinion if it is struck down, is known for his sphinxlike unwillingness to expound upon the details in his opinions.

That would leave broad discretion to the Obama administration to define the issue administratively, Koppelman says. The White House could direct federal agencies like the IRS to accept marriages based on where a couple got married, not where they live.

Should the Supreme Court justices spell out that same-sex marriages are not valid in states that don't recognize them, the legal differences between married same-sex couples in different parts of the country would be stark.
Under that scenario, Todd Solomon, a partner at the Chicago law firm McDermott Will & Emery, who focuses on employee benefits issues, predicts a gay-couple migration to the nine states (and the District of Columbia) that allow the unions, since Social Security, tax and other federal benefits are at stake.

Cathy Stamm, a consultant at Mercer, a human resources firm, said employers are also anxious to see what the Supreme Court will decide. She's advising firms to comb through their benefit plans that involve employees' spouses—anything from health insurance to pension plans to employee discounts—to figure out whether state or federal law will require them to cover same-sex spouses if DOMA is struck down. Solomon predicts that employees in same-sex marriages may sue employers if they deny certain benefits to their spouses if this happens.

Employers might face a particularly tricky situation if they’re based in an area that allows same-sex marriage but their employees commute in from a state that does not. So, for example, would an employee with a same-sex spouse be eligible to take 12 weeks of family leave if he or she lives in Virginia but works in D.C.? Even though Virginia doesn't allow same-sex marriage, most labor laws are based on where the place of work is, so there's no simple answer. Stamm says employers hope the Supreme Court will help them avoid this legal thicket.
"There's a lot of confusion about what employers need to do," Stamm said. "I think employers would welcome some guidance from the court when they provide their ruling."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17176

PostPosted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heitkamp, Donnelly now support gay marriage

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two freshman Democratic senators from conservative states, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, have joined the growing chorus of lawmakers who say they support gay marriage.

In separate statements released minutes apart on Friday, the senators said their views on the issue had evolved. They joined a rapidly growing list of senators who support gay marriage and the list now includes 49 Democrats, two independents who caucus with Democrats and two Republicans.

"I have concluded the federal government should no longer discriminate against people who want to make lifelong, loving commitments to each other or interfere in personal, private, and intimate relationships," Heitkamp said. "I view the ability of anyone to marry as a logical extension of this belief."

Donnelly said he reconsidered his opposition to gay marriage after recent Supreme Court arguments and public discussion on the issue.

"I have been thinking about my past positions and votes," he said. "In doing so, I have concluded that the right thing to do is to support marriage equality for all."

Donnelly and Heitkamp are the latest Democratic senators to announce their support for gay marriage. On Thursday, Florida Sen. Bill Nelson became the 51st senator to announce support for gay marriage. Both Donnelly and Heitkamp were elected in 2012, winning close races in states that were handily carried by GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

There are now only four Democrats in the Senate who have not expressed support for gay marriage: Sens. Mark Pryor, of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, and Joe Manchin, of West Virginia.

Two Republican Senators, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Rob Portman of Ohio, have announced their support for gay marriage.


Having lived in Louisiana for almost 20 years, pretty much the 1996 Senate election b/w Landrieu and Woody Jenkins was rigged. It was a VERY razor-tight election, and Jenkins's team demanded a recount of the votes b/c they were suspicious of dead people on the rolls somehow being able to vote.

Having said that, pretty much all of the Capitol Hill elections are rigged, and the NWO establishment likely wanted Landrieu in there(the Landrieu family has been a big political force in New Orleans for a long, long time - her brother Mitch is currently the mayor of New Orleans). So if/when she comes out endorsing same-sex marriage won't be a surprise. It's just a dog and pony show for now.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> America NEWS All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1, 2, 3 ... 41, 42, 43  Next
Page 1 of 43

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum