Page 4 of 24 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 235

Thread: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    09-18-16 @ 03:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,029

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    DOMA is unconstitutional, because it violates states rights. It is not discrimination to define a contract between one man and one woman. This has existed for centuries. It is no more discrimination to deny GLBT "marriages" than to offer them, it is simply a matter of state contract law. Why is not having SSM contracts any more discriminatory than not having polygamy contracts?
    You've missed the issue. DOMA bars the federal government from recognizing gay legal because a state has allowed them, for the purposes of federal tax, social security, and other treatment. That's a big deal for gay couples for SS and joint filing purposes.

    So the issue is what is the basis for DOMA to discriminate against LEGAL marriages in states that allow same-sex marriage. There doesn't appear to be a coherent reason for this discrimination, so it violates the 14th amendment.

    At least that's the argument. Point is, that's the issue.

  2. #32
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,552

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    The amount that you get wrong on this forum about American law is staggering. Of the four clauses in this post, all of them are wrong. Okay, one is half right. But it is wrong in spirit.

    1) DOMA does violate equal protection, and equal protection will be used to strike it down. 2) This issue has nothing to do with the 10th amendment, and as I keep having to explain to people, the 10th amendment does not actually bar the federal government from doing anything. 3) Marriage is not a power. It is, however, a federally protected civil right. 4) Marriage is not covered under contract law. Family law is its own special body.

    Seriously, learn something true about the US system of law before you make these pronouncements.




    What would be so bad about that?
    Look up the definition of marriage and you will usually find the word contract included:

    Legal Definitions of Marriage in the United States | CLGS

    Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  3. #33
    Educator

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,115

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by TaraAnne View Post
    Gay marriage should have been legal years ago. I think those against gay marriage would have an arguement if they gave up the 1400 government hand outs gay couples are denied! The great thing is gay marriage by the end of the year. equal rights for all
    LOL. As a gay person with a partner (we had a ceremony but are not legally married) I can tell you that neither of us want any "handouts." What ridiculous terminology.

    We have every "benefit" that married people have. We simply had to have an attorney draw it up. What's mine is his; what's his is mine... even if one or the other die. There are no estate tax penalties, no income tax penalties... As a matter of fact, we have TREMENDOUS income tax benefits by NOT being legally married.

    I certainly support the right of each state to legislate on this matter. The case in California (the ban on gay marriage) passed by referendum. The original law allowing gay marriage was a stunt of judicial activism which was foiled by the majority of voters. I absolutely respect that.

    SCOTUS will have to uphold that referendum vote unless the states ratify a conflicting amendment between now and then.

    On the DOMA, I think the law violates the 10th amendment. It should be overturned. All powers not specifically referenced in the Constitution are relegated to the states. DOMA is an effort to circumvent the states' rights to decide on this issue.
    "We need to ask some very tough questions of the senator from Illinois. It's not enough to be black, it's not enough to be articulate, it's not enough to be eloquent and a media darling. The only question will be how deaf an ear, or how blind an eye will people turn in order to turn a frog into a prince." -Eddie Huff

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    09-18-16 @ 03:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,029

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decision...mplete_opn.pdf

    2 rulings on Windsor so far, both disagree with your assessment.
    Thanks for that. The thread was getting flooded with the usual tea party 10th amendment nonsense, which has no bearing on this case. It appears it will be a direct equal protection case, without strict scrutiny. The outcome will be very interesting.

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    09-18-16 @ 03:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,029

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Look up the definition of marriage and you will usually find the word contract included:

    Legal Definitions of Marriage in the United States | CLGS

    Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Irrelevant to the case at issue.

  6. #36
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:34 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,274
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    Thanks for that. The thread was getting flooded with the usual tea party 10th amendment nonsense, which has no bearing on this case. It appears it will be a direct equal protection case, without strict scrutiny. The outcome will be very interesting.
    The 10th amendment does have bearing on Windsor. States have the right to determine who they marry, within the limits of the constitution. That is a 10th amendment argument. Hollingsworth v. Perry is the case you are thinking of. Entirely different issue.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    09-18-16 @ 03:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,029

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by kamikaze483 View Post
    LOL. As a gay person with a partner (we had a ceremony but are not legally married) I can tell you that neither of us want any "handouts." What ridiculous terminology.

    We have every "benefit" that married people have. We simply had to have an attorney draw it up. What's mine is his; what's his is mine... even if one or the other die. There are no estate tax penalties, no income tax penalties... As a matter of fact, we have TREMENDOUS income tax benefits by NOT being legally married.

    I certainly support the right of each state to legislate on this matter. The case in California (the ban on gay marriage) passed by referendum. The original law allowing gay marriage was a stunt of judicial activism which was foiled by the majority of voters. I absolutely respect that.

    SCOTUS will have to uphold that referendum vote unless the states ratify a conflicting amendment between now and then.

    On the DOMA, I think the law violates the 10th amendment. It should be overturned. All powers not specifically referenced in the Constitution are relegated to the states. DOMA is an effort to circumvent the states' rights to decide on this issue.
    No, the case before the SC is about federal tax and social security treatment of gay marriage that are legal in the states that allow them. The issue of how each state treats gay marriage is not an issue in the case. It's a direct equal protection clause because DOMA treats gay marriage different from straight marriage for purposes of various federal benefits (like SS).

    Conservatives are fixated on the 10th amendment, which has no application to the case at hand.

  8. #38
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,315

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I base my opinions on many hours of studying the cases. I have actually read all the rulings and the arguments in both cases about to go to SCOTUS. I have also read many of the analysis and critiques of those rulings from those on both sides.
    Was I addressing you, madam?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #39
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Convince me that prefering to have two (or more) wives is not equally as strong a desire.
    I support legalized polygamy.

    That said, the EP clause is violated when contracts are denied on the basis of sex, gender, race, religion, sexuality, gender identity, physical disability, ethnicity, or number of contractually obligated parties. Since marriage must be controlled via contract in order to be legally recognized, restricting it based upon race, sex, gender, gender identity, or number of parties to the contract doesn't pass the smell test.
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  10. #40
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:34 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,274
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    Irrelevant to the case at issue.
    Not irrelevant. In fact part of Mass case rulings and Windsor:

    Cases predating Murphy demonstrate that the Supreme Court consistently lauded this
    10 conception of marriage as a critical social institution. See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S.
    11 145, 165-66 (1878) (“Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in
    12 most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be
    13 said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties.”).
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 4 of 24 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •