• 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

Not surprising. It sets up the It Is Up To The States argument though MSNBC is full of crap trying to paint this as an Obama single-handed victory

Isn't there some law that says a license granted in one state is valid in all, though?
 
Well. These rulings (well, one ruling and one dismissal) were about as anticlimactic as one could have predicted. Still, a small step in the right direction.
 
:shrug: no, they are simply failing to extend its' validation to the federal level, but leaving it with the State.

Which has the effect of invalidating the marriage by virtue of making it unequal. It undermines state's rights.
 
Interesting. Worth another thread - but I would bet, when put to the test, you don't actually believe that.

Bring it, cp. You make the thread, I'll be there.
 
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.

If a state recognizes SSM, and 11 do, I don't see how SCOTUS could have ruled other than it did in the Windsor case.
 
Bring it, cp. You make the thread, I'll be there.

:shrug: as a quick question, would you say that getting rid of slavery was a moral advancement?

If so, how? Isn't it true that the morality that the slave states held that slave-owning was justifiable or even desirable is equal to the moral position that it is not? You haven't had a moral advance in that case, so much as a use of massive amounts of violence by the proponents of one set of morals to impose their beliefs on those who propose another.
 
To the extent that the government insists on interfering with and regulating what was essentially a religious rite, this ruling is the correct one. All the more reason why the government should not be in the marriage business because this ruling does not just expand the right of gays to have their marriage recognized by the federal government, if a state so recognizes it, it also leaves open the possibility of other equal protections of other marriage "couplings" going forward.

As for the religious rite of marriage, it's likely that going forward churches will no longer participate in the civil aspect of marriage but only the religious aspect, retaining the rite as between a man and a woman and leaving no room for the civil equality to creep into their services. As such, those who wish to be married in the church of their faith will also have to be married in a civil ceremony recognized by the state in order to be "registered" with the state.
 
My God has different morals than yours, so this is still wrong.

You don't (none of us do) get you're own "God". By definition this is impossible.
 
To the extent that the government insists on interfering with and regulating what was essentially a religious rite, this ruling is the correct one. All the more reason why the government should not be in the marriage business because this ruling does not just expand the right of gay to have their marriage recognized by the federal government, if a state so recognizes it, it also leaves open the possibility of other equal protections of other marriage "couplings" going forward.

As for the religious rite of marriage, it's likely that going forward churches will no longer participate in the civil aspect of marriage but only the religious aspect, retaining the rite as between a man and a woman and leaving no room for the civil equality to creep into their services. As such, those who wish to be marriage in the church of their faith will also have to be married in a civil ceremony recognized by the state in order to be "registered" with the state.

You are wrong on one big level. There are many churches, including many Christian Churches who recognize gay marriages.
 
If a state recognizes SSM, and 11 do, I don't see how SCOTUS could have ruled other than it did in the Windsor case.

It boils down to the Feds cannot redefine something that is reserved to be defined by the individual States.
 
Which has the effect of invalidating the marriage by virtue of making it unequal. It undermines state's rights.

What about a states right to legalize marriage? Wasn't DOMA in opposition to states rights?

Two people married in Massachusetts weren't able to file federal taxes jointly because that marriage wasn't recognized at a federal level.
 
You don't (none of us do) get you're own "God". By definition this is impossible.

There are many Gods and Goddesses out there

THE PANTHEONS
AFRICAN GODS
AUSTRALIAN GODS
AZTEC GODS
BALTIC GODS
CARIBBEAN GODS
CELTIC GODS
CHINESE GODS
EGYPTIAN GODS
FINNISH GODS
GREEK GODS
INCAN GODS
INDIAN GODS
JAPANESE GODS
MAYAN GODS
MESOPOTAMIAN GODS
MIDDLE-EASTERN GODS
NATIVE AMERICAN GODS
NORSE GODS
OCEANIC GODS
ROMAN GODS
SLAVIC GODS
SOUTH AMERICAN GODS
SOUTH-EAST ASIAN
TIBETAN GODS

Godchecker.com - Your Guide To The Gods
 
Those who claim to speak for God are doing just that.....

No, they are either Prophets, or insane, or wicked if they claim to "Speak for God". But that does not alter the fact that you don't get multiple infinities, multiple First Causes.
 
It boils down to the Feds cannot redefine something that is reserved to be defined by the individual States.

Not exactly. The 5th Amendment ruling essentially says "Yes, states, you are free to define marriage, but you must do so in a non-discriminatory manner.....and discriminating against gays violates the 5th Amendment". There was nothing procedurally in Windsor that allowed them to do this...but there is a strong signal that the court will ultimately rule that any state ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. A Great day for America!
 
There are many Gods and Goddesses out there

THE PANTHEONS
AFRICAN GODS
AUSTRALIAN GODS
AZTEC GODS
BALTIC GODS
CARIBBEAN GODS
CELTIC GODS
CHINESE GODS
EGYPTIAN GODS
FINNISH GODS
GREEK GODS
INCAN GODS
INDIAN GODS
JAPANESE GODS
MAYAN GODS
MESOPOTAMIAN GODS
MIDDLE-EASTERN GODS
NATIVE AMERICAN GODS
NORSE GODS
OCEANIC GODS
ROMAN GODS
SLAVIC GODS
SOUTH AMERICAN GODS
SOUTH-EAST ASIAN
TIBETAN GODS

Godchecker.com - Your Guide To The Gods

:) a better discussion for the religion forum, perhaps, but these aren't really what you would call "God", perhaps as much as a "deity" or "higher power".
 
If a state recognizes SSM, and 11 do, I don't see how SCOTUS could have ruled other than it did in the Windsor case.

That's my take. Windsor was an affirmation of State's rights. It seems to open the door for the State's to retain their own gay marriage bans.

What will be interesting is whether or not the FFAC clause will force those state's to recognize the gay marriages from the 11 states that do recognize gay marriage, while still being able to refrain from giving marriage licenses to SS couples.
 
What about a states right to legalize marriage? Wasn't DOMA in opposition to states rights?

Two people married in Massachusetts weren't able to file federal taxes jointly because that marriage wasn't recognized at a federal level.

That's what I've been saying.
 
There are always rebels in every faith - this is not the norm, by any stretch.

The Norm? I'm not sure....but there are certainly many churches out there that do...and more and more coming around all the time.
 
Back
Top Bottom