Page 6 of 24 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 235

Thread: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

  1. #51
    Educator

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,115

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    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 DOMA case is about these things. The Prop 8 case is not. The Prop 8 case is a direct appeal of a lawsuit stemming from the gay marriage ban in CA. This has zero to do with Social Security or Federal Income tax. There were two separate cases that were granted certiorari on this issue.

    The issue of how each state treats gay marriage is not an issue in the case
    Whether states have a right to legislate on the definition of marraige is clearly at issue in both cases.

    It's a direct equal protection clause because DOMA treats gay marriage different from straight marriage for purposes of various federal benefits (like SS)
    I agree that equal protection may be at issue in both cases, but especially in the DOMA case. As I said I'm all for repealing DOMA. The feds need to keep their grubby hands of issues that aren't within their scope or purview.

    This is a state by state issue because it is not specifically addressed by the Constitution. If Congress wants to change that, they should submit an ammendment to the 50 states for ratification.
    "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

  2. #52
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,488

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    No, you were just making an idiotic assertion that one person's ignorance is just as good as another's knowledge.
    I didn't expect you answer the question.
    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.

  3. #53
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:26 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    On same-sex marriage, options open : SCOTUSblog

    SCOTUSBlog will, as always, have the best coverage of anything related to the Supreme Court. This is interesting stuff:

    The rather wordy pair of orders the Justices issued at 3:13 p.m. Friday accepted for review core questions on the power of states and of Congress to pass laws that either forbid, or discourage, same-sex marriage, when such laws are passed either to express disapproval of homosexuality or to try to protect the traditional view that marriage should be open only to a man and a woman. But, on both of the granted cases, the Court told the lawyers to be prepared to argue points that could keep the Court from reaching the constitutional questions.
    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.

  4. #54
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,635

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    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.
    Then please explain the need for the 19th amendment.
    “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

  5. #55
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:26 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by kamikaze483 View Post
    The DOMA case is about these things. The Prop 8 case is not. The Prop 8 case is a direct appeal of a lawsuit stemming from the gay marriage ban in CA. This has zero to do with Social Security or Federal Income tax. There were two separate cases that were granted certiorari on this issue.



    Whether states have a right to legislate on the definition of marraige is clearly at issue in both cases.



    I agree that equal protection may be at issue in both cases, but especially in the DOMA case. As I said I'm all for repealing DOMA. The feds need to keep their grubby hands of issues that aren't within their scope or purview.

    This is a state by state issue because it is not specifically addressed by the Constitution. If Congress wants to change that, they should submit an ammendment to the 50 states for ratification.
    On the bolded part, close but not quite. In Hollingsworth v Perry the issue is not states rights, but whether or not banning SSM is unconstitutional. It is a subtle but important issue. Even if the court rules against DOMA in Windsor on states rights grounds, that would not necessarily mean that prop 8 would be legal.
    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.

  6. #56
    Educator

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,115

    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 think this is the heart of it. The federal government, for purposes of tax and entitlements, should recognize legal marriages. Marriages can only by certified by the authority of the state. The federal government can not marry a couple whether gay or straigt. There is no such thing as a federal marriage license. The only entity which CAN create a legal marriage is the state, so for the federal government to effectively dissolve that contract is a violation of that state's rights. And when a person ends up owing one penny in additional federal tax as a result of it, their rights too have been violated.
    "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

  7. #57
    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
    Not irrelevant. In fact part of Mass case rulings and Windsor:
    The nature of marriage will not get litigated in Windsor. The issue is federal benefits being denied to same-sex marriages that are legal. That horse has left that barn. The SC will have to determine if (a) the Windor level of scrutiny is appropriate (it used "heightened" scrutiny), and whether under whatever standard used, DOMA's prima facia discrimination is warranted. The test will debend on the standard used.

    Whether marriage is a contract or a gift of God will not be an issue. And the fact that the 2nd Circuit opinon delves into this is really not part of the ruling at hand.

    As to the Prop 8 case, that's a direct equal protection case too.

    I'm not sure where you're seeing other issues in these cases.

  8. #58
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,635

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I would say that the Full Faith and Credit clause does require other states to recognize that marriage.
    There are some limitations upon the extent to which a state may be required by the full faith and credit clause to enforce even the judgment of another state in contravention of its own statutes or policy. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657; Finney v. Guy, 189 U.S. 335; see also Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611; cf. Gasquet v. Fenner, 247 U.S. 16. And in the case of statutes...the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events.

    Until the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage in 1967, a number of states banned interracial marriage and did not accept interracial marriage certificates issued in other states. The full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 12-07-12 at 06:36 PM.
    “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. #59
    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

    From the SC blog.

    The merits argument in the DOMA case, and that, too, was something the Court agreed to consider, is whether Section violates the right to legal equality for same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws where they live. If the Court were to rule that the Court lacks jurisdiction, after finding that the Administration is not a proper one to appeal a ruling that it had won, that presumably would end that case. But there is still a private individual involved in that case — Mrs. Edith Windsor of New York City, who had to pay a federal tax on the estate she inherited from her single-sex spouse because DOMA allows that only for the surviving spouse of a man-woman marriage.
    Neither Windsor nor Hollingworth may survive standing issues, which the SC apparently is interested in, in order to avoid making the above substantive ruling.

    If that's the case than the 9th Circuit ruling would be struck down (I think), leaving Prop 8 intact, and the 2nd Circuit ruling in Windsor would survive, leaving the provisions of DOMA that bar federal benefits to same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

  10. #60
    Educator

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    12-11-17 @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,115

    Re: Supreme Court will tackle same-sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    On the bolded part, close but not quite. In Hollingsworth v Perry the issue is not states rights, but whether or not banning SSM is unconstitutional. It is a subtle but important issue. Even if the court rules against DOMA in Windsor on states rights grounds, that would not necessarily mean that prop 8 would be legal.
    I agree with this. The fact that the wording of the referendum said "Eliminates Right of SS couples to marry" makes this an important distinction. I still think, however, that the Prop 8 will be upheld on the basis that the state has a right to legislate on matters of marriage.
    "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

Page 6 of 24 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... 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
  •