“What the Supremes Really Said About DOMA and Prop. 8”

by Donna Garner

DOMA MAJORITY RULING BY SUPREMES

In a 5-4 decision (with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority that included Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Obama’s two appointees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kegan), the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had no right to deny federal benefits to married same-sex couples (i.e., Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act – DOMA). 

In essence, what the 5 Supremes did in this ruling was to create a separate “class of people” based upon their choice of sexually perverse activities.

However, the Supremes left intact Section 2 of DOMA which gives the 36 pro-traditional-marriage states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

For instance, a pro-traditional-marriage state (such as Texas where state law recognizes only marriages between one woman and one man) does not have to recognize the same-sex marriages of people from New York.

Based upon the Supremes’ decision, the taxpayers in the 36 pro-traditional marriage states should not have to pay federal benefits to the same-sex partners from other states; but Congress and individual states will need to act swiftly to cut off the tentacles of the Obama administration as it tries to over-extend the Supremes’ ruling to force all of us to bear the increased costs of added burdens for the same-sex partners.  

Because the LGBT community (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders) practice such dangerous sexual activities, the sexually transmitted diseases and other medical conditions associated with their perverse behaviors will increase taxpayers’ costs exponentially.

(Please see Appendix A for the list of individual states and their definitions of marriage.)

Never in the history of the Supreme Court have we seen such a politically biased and radicalized decision come from a majority of the justices. In their written opinion, they accused people who support traditional marriage of harboring hatred (“animus”) and bigotry of homosexuals. 

In reality, it is just the opposite.  Those of us who support traditional marriage do so out of love because we care about the health and well-being of others and do not want them lured into the unhealthy and unsafe sexual activities practiced by the LGBT community that lead to pain and/or early death. 

(Please see Appendix C to learn of the medical consequences of LGBT sexual activities.)

Justice Scalia said it well in his minority dissent when he stated:

Henceforth those challengers will lead with this Court's declaration that there is 'no legitimate purpose' served by such a law, and will claim that the traditional definition has 'the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure' the personhood and dignity' of same-sex couples.

In the majority's telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us...

We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide. But that the majority will not do.

This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law.  Today's opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former.

PROPOSITION 8 MAJORITY DECISION

In the second part of Tuesday’s decision regarding California’s Proposition 8, it was Chief Justice John Roberts who wrote for the majority and stated, "We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here."

What really happened is that the state of California (i.e., California’s pro-gay Governor and Attorney General) refused to uphold their own citizens’ decision at the ballot box in November 2008 in which 52.4% of Californians approved Proposition 8 defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

When California’s state leaders refused to defend its own citizens’ Constitutional process, this left a group of pro-traditional-marriage organizations to take the lead to defend the right of California voters’ to express their wishes at the ballot box.

Unfortunately, the lawyers for the pro-traditional-marriage organizations did a disastrous job because they refused to present the dangerous and well-documented medical and psychological evidence of the LGBT lifestyle and the bad effects it has on the welfare of children in those homes.  (Please see Appendix C for the medical consequences.)

The two rulings (DOMA and Prop. 8) represent irony in its purest form. In the DOMA case, the majority of the Supremes said the states have the right to decide on the definition of marriage; yet in the second case (Prop 8), the Supremes ruled against the right of a state’s citizens to express their views at the ballot box. 

by State Legislature

Delaware (May 7, 2013)

Minnesota (May 14, 2013)

New Hampshire (Jan. 1, 2010)

New York (July 24, 2011)

Rhode Island (May 2, 2013)

Vermont (Sep. 1, 2009)

by Popular Vote
Maine (Nov. 6, 2012)

Maryland (Nov. 6, 2012)

STATES THAT DO NOT RECOGNIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGES

by Constitutional Amendment and State Law

Alabama (2006, 1998)

Alaska (1998, 1996)

Arizona (2008, 1996)

Arkansas (2004, 1997)

Colorado (2006, 2000)

Florida (2008, 1997)

Georgia (2004, 1996)

Hawaii (1998, 1994)

Idaho (2006, 1996)

Kansas (2005, 1996)

Kentucky (2004, 1998)

Louisiana (2004, 1999)

Michigan (2004, 1996)

Mississippi (2004, 1997)

Missouri (2004, 1996)

Montana (2004, 1997)

North Carolina (2012, 1995)

North Dakota (2004, 1997)

Ohio (2004, 2004)

Oklahoma (2004, 1996)

South Carolina (2006, 1996)

South Dakota (2006, 1996)

Tennessee (2006, 1996)
Texas (2005, 1997)

Utah (2004, 1997)

Virginia (2006, 1997)

Wisconsin (2006, 1979)

by Constitutional Amendment only
Nebraska (2000)

Nevada (2002)

Oregon (2004)

by State Law only

Illinois (1996)

Indiana (1997)

Pennsylvania (1996)

West Virginia (2000)

Wyoming (2003)

STATES WITH NO LAWS EITHER BANNING NOR LEGALIZING SAME-SEX MARRIAGES

New Jersey

New Mexico

Information taken from:  http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857

================

APPENDIX B

Excerpts from MassResistance Update – June 27, 2013

In the near term, this will radically change things on a federal level, especially given the Obama Administration's enthusiasm for pushing "gay marriage." As we outlined in our April 8 report, overturning Section 3 of DOMA will accomplish the following:

(1) All federal benefits. It will require the federal government (funded by taxpayers in all 50 states) to include homosexual "marriages" in all federal benefits. This includes Social Security, federal pensions, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans' benefits, and everything else involving marriage, including filing jointly on Federal income taxes.

(2) All federal programs. It also includes access to federal programs and other things run or controlled by the federal government, such as housing, federal loans, passports, health insurance, military housing, burial in military cemeteries, etc. Thus, the federal government would recognize homosexual behavior as equal to regular marriage throughout the range of all its activities.

(3) But even more frightening: Any federal funded contract, program, or activity. Given the wording of the decision it will also likely extend to any activities that receive federal funding, such as state programs, college programs, and virtually anything else involving federal money, such as federal contracts. We believe that the Obama administration will use this as a lever to accelerate the forced equalization of homosexuality with heterosexuality in all federal activities or anything connected to federal money -- similar to the way it did in the military with the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell." Judging from Obama's statement celebrating the ruling, we can expect them to move as fast as possible.

APPENDIX C

MEDICAL CONSEQUENCES OF LGBT SEXUAL ACTIVITIES – by DONNA GARNER

I am very concerned about the health of our society and particularly of the children in our country.  When 85% of diagnosed cases of HIV are among males ages 13 to 24, I am very worried.

“From 2005-2008…Most (74%) diagnoses of HIV infection in adults and adolescents were in males. Among males diagnosed with HIV infection from 2005-2008, 70% were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact. The percentage of diagnosed HIV infections attributed to male-to-male sexual contact was even larger (85%) among males aged 13 to 24 years…” --http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/msm/index.htm

The CDC and medical literature are clear. Anal and oral sex are dangerous sexual activities; and because those are the most often-practiced means for homosexuals to have sex, they are putting themselves in great danger as supported by the medical data.  

Yes, it is our business as citizens because it is our tax dollars that are being spent on healthcare for the millions who contract AIDS, HIV, and the other STD’s being passed at epidemic proportions among the LGBT community. Those dollars would be better spent on diseases that are not caused by chosen behaviors (e.g., cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinsons’, etc.).

Also, for the sake of the perpetuation of our society, the foundation of marriage based upon one natural man and one natural woman produces a much safer and healthier environment in which to rear children.

Please go to the following links:  

3.29.13 – “America, We Better Think Twice About Same-Sex Marriage” – by Donna Garner -- http://educationviews.org/america-we-better-think-twice-about-same-sex-marriage/

===========

5.25.13 – “Not Just the Death of the Boy Scouts” – by Donna Garner -- http://educationviews.org/not-just-the-death-of-the-boy-scouts/

===========

2.13.13 – “Kids Harming Themselves by Bad Choices” – by Donna Garner -- http://educationviews.org/kids-harming-themselves-by-bad-choices/

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com