Page 5 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 235

Thread: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

  1. #41
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    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?
    It was once defined as between one man and one woman of the same race. It was still discrimination.

    Polygamy is a red herring. Gender is a classification protected from discrimination. Number of people in a group is not.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  2. #42
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,344
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    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.
    You really need to stop and read up before making statements like this. There are two cases going before SCOTUS. Neither of them is specific to taxes and social security. One of them is about how states treat SSM.
    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.

  3. #43
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    SSM is legally recognized by several states now.
    Yes, and in those states federal homosexual employees that are legally married in that state do not receive the job benefits that married couples may receive. I believe a ruling on this in MA ruled that because MA allows for SSM that those individuals are legally wed and that the DOMA provisions that prevent them from receiving benefits from the federal government are unconstitutional because it steps on the state of MA's right to define marriage.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  4. #44
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,344
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Yes, and in those states federal homosexual employees that are legally married in that state do not receive the job benefits that married couples may receive. I believe a ruling on this in MA ruled that because MA allows for SSM that those individuals are legally wed and that the DOMA provisions that prevent them from receiving benefits from the federal government are unconstitutional because it steps on the state of MA's right to define marriage.
    Just to be clear, niether of the Mass. cases is being reviewed by SCOTUS, probably because Kagan would have had to recuse herself from them.
    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.

  5. #45
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Yes, and in those states federal homosexual employees that are legally married in that state do not receive the job benefits that married couples may receive. I believe a ruling on this in MA ruled that because MA allows for SSM that those individuals are legally wed and that the DOMA provisions that prevent them from receiving benefits from the federal government are unconstitutional because it steps on the state of MA's right to define marriage.
    DOMA will almost certainly fall to that particular challenge.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  6. #46
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,124

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    clear cut equal protection issue.

  7. #47
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Was I addressing you, madam?
    No, you were just making an idiotic assertion that one person's ignorance is just as good as another's knowledge.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  8. #48
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,672

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    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.
    I agree somewhat. To me the issue is who gets to define marriage; the states or the federal gov't. If the state can include SSM (or polygamy) then the federal gov't must honor that marriage contract "definition" for "equal protection". If state A denies SSM then they should not have to honor that contract, simply because state B allows it. Because the 21st amendment removed federal power over alcohol prohibition it is still legal for a state/county or city to do so. There are 13 states that now allow SSM so there is no reason for the federal gov't to deny recognizing that state contract, but also no reason to expect the other 37 states to accept it. Think of the state issuing of CCW permits, simply because AZ does not require them that does not mean that TX may not have them. If UT grants CCW permits freely, even to non-residents, that does not mean that all other states must accept them.
    “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

  9. #49
    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
    You really need to stop and read up before making statements like this. There are two cases going before SCOTUS. Neither of them is specific to taxes and social security. One of them is about how states treat SSM.
    I"m just interested in Windsor. It's clearly about equal protection. It uses heightened scrutiny, which may be challenged in the SC. But beyond that, it's a direct equal protection case.

    The question whether the federal government may
    7 constitutionally define marriage as it does in Section 3 of
    8 DOMA is sufficiently distinct from the question in Baker:
    9 whether same-sex marriage may be constitutionally restricted
    10 by the states. After all, Windsor and Spyer were actually
    11 married in this case, at least in the eye of New York, where
    12 they lived. Other courts have likewise concluded that Baker
    13 does not control equal protection review of DOMA for these
    14 reasons.1

  10. #50
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    I agree somewhat. To me the issue is who gets to define marriage; the states or the federal gov't. If the state can include SSM (or polygamy) then the federal gov't must honor that marriage contract "definition" for "equal protection". If state A denies SSM then they should not have to honor that contract, simply because state B allows it. Because the 21st amendment removed federal power over alcohol prohibition it is still legal for a state/county or city to do so. There are 13 states that now allow SSM so there is no reason for the federal gov't to deny recognizing that state contract, but also no reason to expect the other 37 states to accept it. Think of the state issuing of CCW permits, simply because AZ does not require them that does not mean that TX may not have them. If UT grants CCW permits freely, even to non-residents, that does not mean that all other states must accept them.
    I would say that the Full Faith and Credit clause does require other states to recognize that marriage.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

Page 5 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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
  •