U.S. Supreme Court Weighing Whether to Hear Homosexual ‘Marriage’ Cases

The nine justices of the United States Supreme Court are convening behind closed doors today to deliberate whether or not they will accept any of the plethora of cases that they have been petitioned to hear relating to the issue of homosexual “marriage.”

There are a reported ten cases before the court at this time, including a challenge relating to California’s Proposition 8, and several lawsuits surrounding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It is believed that the justices will accept one of the cases relating to DOMA, but there remains uncertainty over whether Proposition 8 will make the cut.

The Defense of Marriage Act, which federally recognizes marriage as being solely between a man and a woman, was signed into law by then President Bill Clinton in September 1996 after clearing the House and Senate with overwhelming support. In addition to providing a federal definition of marriage, the law bars homosexual relationships from being recognized by the IRS or the Social Security Administration, and also excludes homosexuals that serve as government workers from being recognized as a couple in order to obtain insurance benefits.

Approximately eight federal courts have ruled that portions of DOMA are unconstitutional because of the denial of federal benefits, thus increasing the likelihood that the issue will be accepted by the nation’s highest court for deliberation. Barack Obama has also been in favor of repealing DOMA, which he outlined as being part of his agenda and platform before being elected as president in 2008.

Proposition 8 also hails back to 2008, when voters in the state of California were presented with the ballot initiative of whether to enshrine marriage as being between a man and a woman in the state. The measure, which sought to add an amendment to the state Constitution declaring its support for Biblical marriage, passed by five percentage points in a vote of 52 to 47.

In 2010, District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, stating that the law violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. Walker placed a stay on the law, which the Ninth Circuit later upheld. In February of this year, in a 2 to 1 decision, the Ninth Circuit then agreed with Walker after hearing the case in full, resulting in a timely appeal to the nation’s highest court.

The Supreme Court rejects the majority of cases that reach its doorstep, but is more inclined to agree to hear those in which there is disagreement among the various circuit courts, of which there are 13. Cases that present a question of national importance or touch on issues that heretofore have not been addressed by the court also are more likely to be received.

  • Connect with Christian News

As of press time, the justices did not decide on Friday to accept any of the ten appeals, but an announcement could be made on Monday about the matter.

“It did agree to rule on whether taking a human gene out of the body is a process that can be patented,” outlined SCOTUS Blog late Friday afternoon. “It also agreed to rule on legal protection for makers of generic drugs.”

If the court decides not to hear any of the cases, the lower court rulings will stand, which in most — if not all — cases would strike down the Biblical definition of marriage in the corresponding states.

A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • It is tempting to say that marriage should be left up to the states, but it’s the federal government which, through its own actions has made marriage a FEDERAL issue. Most of the legal benefits and protections of marriage come from the federal government. Much of this has to do with tax law and Social Security.

    Complicating this issue even further is the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That this clearly unconstitutional law has been on the books for 15 years now is appalling. The reason DOMA is unconstitutional is that is sets up differing legal standards for legally married Gay and Straight couples. For instance, a Gay couple that is legally married in New York is unrecognized as such by the federal government, and that couple is ineligible for the tax breaks and Social Security benefits that a similarly married Straight couple takes for granted.

    Consider, also, the “Full Faith & Credit” clause of the Constitution. Because of this, any Straight couple can fly off to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend, get married by an Elvis impersonator, and that marriage is automatically honored in all 50 states. But because of DOMA, a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa becomes “UN-married” once they move south to Missouri.

    The only way marriage can be a “States’ Rights” issue is for the federal government to get out of the marriage business completely, and put an end to the 1,138 legal benefits that it bestows on legally married couples. I wonder how many Straight married couples would be happy with THAT!