• 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!

SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

Your Star said:
Well boo.

It does mean that when there is another case against one of the other laws that ban SSM it will probably be a Loving type case, because of the DOMA case. Since it was such a broad ruling.
Click to expand...

yeah, not the worst possible decision, but this punt is somewhat incompatible with the other ruling. gays are warranted equal protection under the law, but states can still decide to deny essential civil rights via another channel? does not compute.

what will result is more states putting anti-gay language into their constitutions. then in five years, there will be a more complete decision overruling the denial of civil rights to gays in these states. what's sad is that they could have just done that today; they just delayed the inevitable.
 
Zyphlin said:
It will be interesting if DOMA goes one direction and Prop 8 goes the other, and potentially watching both sides congratulating the court on a correct decision and questioning their legitimacy with another. Hard to get a good handle on any of the rulings with instance analysis since I've not followed either extremely closely. Will be interesting to read some more in depth analysis from both sides shortly
Click to expand...
"We have no authority to decide this case on the merits, and neither did the 9th Circuit," Roberts said. So everyone going on about equality....calm down. DOMA was hit on procedural grounds based on who was making the appeal. SCOTUS did not rule on SSM itself. It would be very interesting to see if DOMA goes one way while Prop8 goes another.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

Samhain said:
Federal government has to recognize the state's recognition of what marriage is, but doesn't remit the state's ability to decide what a marriage is. What a fine line that will be.
Click to expand...

I agree. Eventually homosexual marriages will be legitimate in all the states but I agree with Sotomayor's position on this - that it is something the states must do at the state level in order to make it something everyone will eventually accept.
 
Your Star said:
But if someone from the states that has a ban on SSM sues their states(which I'm assuming is already being planned :lol:), or if someone is married in one state that allows, and moves to one that bans, and sues, it bodes well for a broad ruling that will make SSM the law of the land.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't place much faith in that approach, though. Kennedy was swayed by Equal Protection at the federal level, but he also appeared to be supporting state's rights in the process. A Marriage rights amendment would be the only sure path to nationwide legalization of gay marriage.
 
Helix said:
yeah, not the worst possible decision, but this punt is somewhat incompatible with the other ruling. gays are warranted equal protection under the law, but states can still decide to deny essential civil rights via another channel? does not compute.

what will result is more states putting anti-gay language into their constitutions. then in five years, there will be a more complete decision overruling the denial of civil rights to gays in these states. what's sad is that they could have just done that today; they just delayed the inevitable.
Click to expand...

Well, the Court has to still make decisions within its authority. They felt the Prop 8 didn't give them such authority, so it is only a matter of time for a real case. I am sure there is another Prop 8 case somewhere in the Court system right now.
 
Helix said:
yeah, not the worst possible decision, but this punt is somewhat incompatible with the other ruling. gays are warranted equal protection under the law, but states can still decide to deny essential civil rights via another channel? does not compute.

what will result is more states putting anti-gay language into their constitutions. then in five years, there will be a more complete decision overruling the denial of civil rights to gays in these states. what's sad is that they could have just done that today; they just delayed the inevitable.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it just delays the inevitable. The DOMA ruling gives way to a broad ruling, if the standing in this case was on better grounds, we'd be having an even better day.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

Papa bull said:
I agree. Eventually homosexual marriages will be legitimate in all the states but I agree with Sotomayor's position on this - that it is something the states must do at the state level in order to make it something everyone will eventually accept.
Click to expand...

Well, the states are entitled to be as different as they want to be, so long as there isn't an overriding federal law limiting that ability, which as we've seen the past, the feds ignore the 10th amendment.
 
Tucker Case said:
If a state passes a law allowing gay marriage, the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to invalidate that recognition. DOMA does that. Scalia will go out of his way to take a big government position on gay marriage because he has the ideological consistency of a grapefruit.
Click to expand...

DOMA didn't invalidate that recognition. It failed to extend it to federal facets only. Had DOMA sought to effect state level procedures, I think you would be correct, and this would be "big government".


However, again, this ruling places the right to define marriage firmly with the States. Putting aside the Courts' willingness to interpose its' "sense of the nation" in lieu of actual law, I think it makes a "therefore the national government in the form of this Court must strike down State decisions if they happen to be ones we disagree with" argument more difficult.
 
Dapper Andy said:
That's just liberal BS.
Click to expand...

There's a reason that this sort of remark doesn't belong in rigorous and reasonable debate. Let me show you why: your reply is just conservative (libertarian/green party/socialist/fascist/whatever) BS.

I can type that sort of thing all day. So can you. So can anybody. It's cheap, it plays on people's prejudices and emotions, and doesn't add anything to the conversation.

Dapper Andy said:
Arbitrary was clearly the wrong word but there is no moral issue to it.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Acting to restrict what people can and cannot do implies an ought. If I restrict people from, say, owning monkeys, I am implying that people ought not to own monkeys.

Dapper Andy said:
The law was struck down for political reasons.
Click to expand...

No doubt. But that's irrelevant.

Dapper Andy said:
Gay couples weren't prohibited from marrying in the eyes of the federal government because they were discriminated against. They were prohibited from marrying in the eyes of the federal government because they just didn't meet the requirements any more than my single heterosexual son still doesn't.
Click to expand...

And why doesn't he? If he doesn't, there is an implied ought, and a moral dimension to the issue.

Dapper Andy said:
I don't have a problem with the legislature changing the requirements for marriage if there is a compelling reason to do so but to consistently do away with law because liberal groups are just afforded special protections is getting silly and it's just bad policy.
Click to expand...

I'm curious how you'd support this point. It seems that you're saying that the law was struck down purely to grant uneven privileges to liberal groups. If that's your point, I'd like to see how you argue for it. If it isn't, please clarify.
 
The prop 8 ruling, from my limited reading, seems a strange mix of increasing the power of the states at the expense of the CITIZENS, not the federal government as is usually the case. Essentially, and I may be reading this wrong, it seems to be suggesting that if a referendum is passed that the state government doesn't like and the new law is found to be "unconstituional" by a lower level court then that's the end of it. Citizens have no further recourse to appeal the courts ruling without somehow showing that not enforcing their justly voted for law directly harms them.

I'm honestly unsure how I really feel about that. In general, I am in favor of state rights...but this is generally at the expense of the federal government. The notion of referendums is there specifically for rare instances where the elected figures are so far out of line with the desires of the population in a particular form that the population rises up to speak themselves. Allowing only a single level of judicial challenge being needed to overturn the will of the people in a general sense seems to be a somewhat questionable action.
 
Your Star said:
But if someone from the states that has a ban on SSM sues their states(which I'm assuming is already being planned :lol:), or if someone is married in one state that allows, and moves to one that bans, and sues, it bodes well for a broad ruling that will make SSM the law of the land.
Click to expand...

Sure. But what you just said, and what I commented on, are entirely different things
 
As asked/answered on SCOTUSblog, anyone with a state recognized marriage can file joint federal tax forms. Not sure what % of additional tax forms would apply to this, but it should reduce the tax burden.
 
Eventually, America gets it right. Despite those who oppose individual liberty, eventually we somehow arrive.

We seen them opposing the rights of women to vote. They lost.

We seen them opposing civil and voting rights to African Americans. They lost.

We seen them burning Beatle records and cursing rock and roll as devil music. They lost.

They will continue to lose because that's what losers do. Lose.

Congratulations America. Good to see the quest for freedom is still alive and well in our nation.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

Papa bull said:
Homosexuals always had the same equal protections anyone else had.
Click to expand...

You are just plain and simply wrong. That SHOULD be the case, but it hasn't been, which is why the SCOTUS recognized such in this ruling. It is the first nail in the coffin of nationwide discrimination...but it will rapidly continue in the movement toward liberty and justice for all. This decision essentially says that discrimination against gays is wrong. Unless there is an idealogical change in the balance of the Supreme Court over the next years (which is highly unlikely....Thank you God and President Obama)....state laws limiting marriage to straights only are pretty much DOA.
 
Thius quote from, Kennedy should blow poor Tucker's mind:

Justice Kennedy said:
The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, and whose relationship the state has sought to dignify.
Click to expand...

Note quite how I think Tucker views the constitution, though I could be wrong. Personally I like the quote.
 
Zyphlin said:
The prop 8 ruling, from my limited reading, seems a strange mix of increasing the power of the states at the expense of the CITIZENS, not the federal government as is usually the case. Essentially, and I may be reading this wrong, it seems to be suggesting that if a referendum is passed that the state government doesn't like and the new law is found to be "unconstituional" by a lower level court then that's the end of it. Citizens have no further recourse to appeal the courts ruling without somehow showing that not enforcing their justly voted for law directly harms them.
Click to expand...

Not the state government. The State Executive.


Governors and Attorney Generals, it turns out, have the ability to de facto overturn their State Constitutions at will. Isn't that interesting.
 
Your Star said:
But if someone from the states that has a ban on SSM sues their states(which I'm assuming is already being planned :lol:), or if someone is married in one state that allows, and moves to one that bans, and sues, it bodes well for a broad ruling that will make SSM the law of the land.
Click to expand...

Exactly!!!! The SCOTUS ruling on 5th Amendment grounds certainly signals and invites a nationwide challenge. This is the SCOTUS not wanting to move too fast at once, but it is a clear indication that the days of state "Straight only" marriages are numbered. A Great Day for America!!!!
 
cpwill said:
DOMA didn't invalidate that recognition. It failed to extend it to federal facets only. Had DOMA sought to effect state level procedures, I think you would be correct, and this would be "big government".
Click to expand...

Ah, but if a state recognizes a marriage as valid, that state has made it so that said marriage as equal to all other marriages recognized by that state.

If the federal government steps in and says, "No, that marriage is not equal to this marriage" they are invalidating that marriage in a de facto way.
 
roguenuke said:
Morals are subjective. You have your morals, the rest of us have ours. Yours are no better than anyone else's.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Worth another thread - but I would bet, when put to the test, you don't actually believe that.
 
Tucker Case said:
Ah, but if a state recognizes a marriage as valid, that state has made it so that said marriage as equal to all other marriages recognized by that state.

If the federal government steps in and says, "No, that marriage is not equal to this marriage" they are invalidating that marriage in a de facto way.
Click to expand...

:shrug: no, they are simply failing to extend its' validation to the federal level, but leaving it with the State. I get the unequal treatment argument (though I reject the "invalidation", as nothing is removed or un-validated), I just also think that the Federal Government has the right to make the definitions that it imposes upon its own officers.
 
From SCOTUSblog:


...We've had a few questions about Section 2 of DOMA. Section 2 of DOMA gives states the power to make the decision whether to respect same-sex marriages from other states. The Court does not discuss Section 2, but if there was to be a case about Section 2, both sides could find support in today's opinion. Challengers to Section 2 would argue that it is rooted in the same "bare animus" that the Court held characterizes Section 3. Defenders of Section 2 would argue that Section 2 is really about the states' rights to define marriage, which today's opinion supports....
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom