• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Paschendale said:
No, you were just making an idiotic assertion that one person's ignorance is just as good as another's knowledge.
Click to expand...

I didn't expect you answer the question.
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then please explain the need for the 19th amendment.
 
kamikaze483 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Redress said:
Not irrelevant. In fact part of Mass case rulings and Windsor:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Deuce said:
I would say that the Full Faith and Credit clause does require other states to recognize that marriage.
Click to expand...

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:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Then please explain the need for the 19th amendment.
Click to expand...

First you explain to me the relevance of the question. Are you disagreeing that gender is a protected classification?

Sometimes discrimination is abolished by the courts, and sometimes it is abolished by Congress. I'm not sure why you think this is important to the discussion.
 
Deuce said:
First you explain to me the relevance of the question. Are you disagreeing that gender is a protected classification?

Sometimes discrimination is abolished by the courts, and sometimes it is abolished by Congress. I'm not sure why you think this is important to the discussion.
Click to expand...

Because whatever you "imply" makes any gender discrimination unconstitutional must have existed prior to this amendment. If that is/was the case, then why was this amendment necessary? Obviously gender is still used in many laws, especially the military, yet we accept that men and women are different, thus title IX sports rules/laws, separate jails/restrooms/dorms and etc.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Because whatever you "imply" makes any gender discrimination unconstitutional must have existed prior to this amendment. If that is/was the case, then why was this amendment necessary? Obviously gender is still used in many laws, especially the military, yet we accept that men and women are different, thus title IX sports rules/laws, separate jails/restrooms/dorms and etc.
Click to expand...

Gender discrimination in the military is allowed due to the government having a compelling interest, the discrimination is narrowly tailored and it is the least restrictive way to achieve that interest. Unless those criterion are met, discrimination based on gender is illegal.

Edit: CORRECTION!!

Gender is intermediate scrutiny, meaning that the government has an important interest.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Because whatever you "imply" makes any gender discrimination unconstitutional must have existed prior to this amendment. If that is/was the case, then why was this amendment necessary? Obviously gender is still used in many laws, especially the military, yet we accept that men and women are different, thus title IX sports rules/laws, separate jails/restrooms/dorms and etc.
Click to expand...

Being a protected classification does not inherently imply that no differences can exist. Discrimination is still possible, if an important state interest is shown.

So, if you can show me the important state interest in preventing two men from marrying, I'm all ears!
 
kamikaze483 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I dont think I was clear enough and you may have mis understood what I was trying to point out. I did this tounge in cheek. Maybe this link will convey what I was pointing to !
An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples | Resources | Human Rights Campaign

Believe me I am with you on this. My brother and his hubby have been together for 15 years both have great jobs and they are have similar benefits as you. However there are somethings they are missing out on.

I know Doma violates the 10th amendment. Plus the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment as well. Plus I think one could look at the fifth amendment as well. There are numerous reasons why gay marraige should be legal. However, it is very thin on why it should be illegal.
 
Although I really hope that SCOTUS pronounces DOMA DOA, the court's conservative majority has me kinda nervous. Homosexuals are the final class of individuals who can be and routinely are denied constitutional equality. I hope to see that change in my lifetime.
 
DiAnna said:
Although I really hope that SCOTUS pronounces DOMA DOA, the court's conservative majority has me kinda nervous. Homosexuals are the final class of individuals who can be and routinely are denied constitutional equality. I hope to see that change in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

I worry about that, too. But I feel fairly confident that, despite the strict allegiance that the conservative majority on the court has to the interests of the wealthy, they are not capable of diverting that hard from extremely compelling precedent.
 
DiAnna said:
Although I really hope that SCOTUS pronounces DOMA DOA, the court's conservative majority has me kinda nervous. Homosexuals are the final class of individuals who can be and routinely are denied constitutional equality. I hope to see that change in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

Nah, there's more groups out there. Nevertheless, it's a good step forward.
 
DiAnna said:
Although I really hope that SCOTUS pronounces DOMA DOA, the court's conservative majority has me kinda nervous. Homosexuals are the final class of individuals who can be and routinely are denied constitutional equality. I hope to see that change in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

The conservative argument against DOMA, that it infringes on states rights, is actually the strongest argument against DOMA. Of the two SSM cases that will be heard, it is the one most likely to be a victory for SSM supporters.
 
During what period of American history has marriage been up to the states? Never. The nonsense that it's a power the states hold isn't based on American legal tradition.
 
Hatuey said:
During what period of American history has marriage been up to the states? Never. The nonsense that it's a power the states hold isn't based on American legal tradition.
Click to expand...

Throughout US history it has been up to states. To quote from Gill V Office of Personnel Management:

It is true that DOMA intrudes extensively into a realm that has from the start of the nation been primarily confided to state regulation--domestic relations and the definition and incidents of lawful marriage--which is a leading instance of the states' exercise of their broad police-power authority over morality and culture. As the Supreme Court observed long ago, [t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
Throughout US history it has been up to states. To quote from Gill V Office of Personnel Management:
Click to expand...

And yet, it's not the states which create the benefits and rights which have come with marriage from the federal government. Why is that? It's like saying the car is yours simply because you drive it.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Convince me that prefering to have two (or more) wives is not equally as strong a desire.
Click to expand...

Despite opposing it for religious reasons, I can see multiple logical arguments in one could use in favor of polygamy. Those who claim being gay isn't a choice may sound a bit hypocritical arguing that promiscuity is a choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom