• 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

roguenuke said:
My God is God. Your God is the one that isn't God.
Click to expand...

This is an impossibility. Neither of you "have" "a God". That's like saying that because I think that the earth is perfectly round and you think that it is elliptical that I "have" an Earth and you "have" a different Earth, and so we need not fear ever running into each other, as we live on separate worlds. No - we both live on the same planet; the difference is that one of our assessments of it is more accurate than the others'.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I agree, in principle, but you'll find in practice it's the exact opposite today - I can't think of a single mainstream religious marriage ceremony that is not recognized by the state in which it's performed - but it likely will revert back to the situation as you outline it above in the not to distant future.
Click to expand...

Polygamist marriages are not recognized by the state, but some churches do perform them. There is overlap in the usage, but marriage by the government and marriage by religious groups are two separate animals.
 
Your Star said:
Wondering, do people in states that ban SSM get to file joint federal tax returns? Do they get federal benefits that comes with marriage? Or are they denied by not being able to have their marriage recognized by the state they live in?
Click to expand...
Gays in here in SD cannot marry, so they cannot file joint taxes any more than another unmarried couple.
 
What if...? said:
Isn't there some law that says a license granted in one state is valid in all, though?
Click to expand...

It is the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, but it does not require states themselves to do much as far as marriage. Common law marriage was heard by the SCOTUS in the late 1800's and it has never nationalized those despite having opportunities to do so. It is an issue they avoid. Largely it is the same thing they did today. Just to pat myself on the back, I have posted here before that gay marriage was more comparable to common law marriage legally than it is to Loving. Based upon the reports I have seen, these decisions followed that history.
 
Your Star said:
Wondering, do people in states that ban SSM get to file joint federal tax returns? Do they get federal benefits that comes with marriage? Or are they denied by not being able to have their marriage recognized by the state they live in?

And if that is the case, what impact will it have on future rulings, because based on the ruling of DOMA, those laws could be seen in the same light.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to SSM couples who get married in one state, but end up living in a state that does not recognize them? I read something on that, which basically came down to it would be up to the administration, which in this case would likely decide to extend marriage benefits to those states. It is however not a clear cut thing as I understand it.
 
Samhain said:
Here is Ohio's basic law. Since there are different ages for males vs females, that's going to have to go. So will the second cousins portion. And the second sentance.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the Windsor decision to support that claim. There is a clear indication when they talk about the 5th Amendment requiring equal protection for gays that state laws that restrict marriage to "straights only" will be stricken. But it doesn't mean that other restrictions could fall as well...its just that this decision doesn't address them.
 
This is one of the expected outcomes of this case and a good one for those who support same sex marriage. There are problems with this ruling for the support side, but they are problems that really take either one change in opinion on same sex marriage and laws banning them, either via a current Justice or a new Justice.

The states' recognition of same sex marriage under Full Faith & Credit was never under legal review (from what I remember of the cases), so it really wouldn't have been likely at all for a ruling to strike this down. The Prop 8 case was not expected to take down all state marriage laws. We had hope, but it isn't a disappointment because it was expected to go down under a technicality, not a sweeping ruling.
 
Redress said:
Polygamist marriages are not recognized by the state, but some churches do perform them. There is overlap in the usage, but marriage by the government and marriage by religious groups are two separate animals.
Click to expand...

Polygamist marriages are the exception that prove the rule I put forward. It is true, there are government sanctioned marriages that certain churches don't recognize, such as gay marriages or second marriages without annulments in Catholic Churches, however, I would defy you to identify a single state or the federal government that does not recognize all marriages performed in Catholic Churches.
 
Redress said:
Are you referring to SSM couples who get married in one state, but end up living in a state that does not recognize them? I read something on that, which basically came down to it would be up to the administration, which in this case would likely decide to extend marriage benefits to those states. It is however not a clear cut thing as I understand it.
Click to expand...

It's rather interesting, it seems to me that this is leading up to a big case, similar to Prop 8, that will make SSM legal everywhere. It seems like the only reason we didn't get that today, is because of procedural reasons.
 
disneydude said:
There is nothing in the Windsor decision to support that claim. There is a clear indication when they talk about the 5th Amendment requiring equal protection for gays that state laws that restrict marriage to "straights only" will be stricken. But it doesn't mean that other restrictions could fall as well...its just that this decision doesn't address them.
Click to expand...

They don't mention sexuality in the Ohio law, as I've shown, so that would mean that it doesn't apply to "straights only", therefore nothing changes.
 
Redress said:
Are you referring to SSM couples who get married in one state, but end up living in a state that does not recognize them? I read something on that, which basically came down to it would be up to the administration, which in this case would likely decide to extend marriage benefits to those states. It is however not a clear cut thing as I understand it.
Click to expand...

no - SCOTUS seems to have deliberately avoided ruling on it. The only thing I see suggesting either way is the reaffirmation of the right of the States' definition to prevail over that of the Federal Govt.
 
Your Star said:
Wondering, do people in states that ban SSM get to file joint federal tax returns? Do they get federal benefits that comes with marriage? Or are they denied by not being able to have their marriage recognized by the state they live in?

And if that is the case, what impact will it have on future rulings, because based on the ruling of DOMA, those laws could be seen in the same light.
Click to expand...

Short answer? no.

Stop the victimhood.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Polygamist marriages are the exception that prove the rule I put forward. It is true, there are government sanctioned marriages that certain churches don't recognize, such as gay marriages or second marriages without annulments in Catholic Churches, however, I would defy you to identify a single state or the federal government that does not recognize all marriages performed in Catholic Churches.
Click to expand...

Only if they actually sign the paperwork and are legally authorized to do so in that state. Pretty much all ordained priests/ministers are, but that doesn't mean that the couple is automatically married legally just because the church says so.
 
Zyphlin said:
Cue individuals from both sides proclaiming that this ruling "inevitably" means unquestionably that their side will win out.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the purpose of analyzing the Supreme Court decision? There are certainly indications in their decision that seem to indicate and even invite nationwide challenges....and unless the idealogy of the Supreme Court shifts over the next few years, it certainly is a clear sign of hope for an end to discrimination nation-wide.
 
Samhain said:
They don't mention sexuality in the Ohio law, as I've shown, so that would mean that it doesn't apply to "straights only", therefore nothing changes.
Click to expand...

Well then...thats good. Gay marriage is legal in Ohio then.
 
Redress said:
Are you referring to SSM couples who get married in one state, but end up living in a state that does not recognize them? I read something on that, which basically came down to it would be up to the administration, which in this case would likely decide to extend marriage benefits to those states. It is however not a clear cut thing as I understand it.
Click to expand...

I do know, for a fact, that gay couples who came to Toronto or other parts of Canada to get married from states that did not sanction gay marriage, did not have their marriage recognized when they returned home. In fact, in cases where the gay couple decided to divorce, their state did not recognize their marriage so did not validate their divorce and they came back to Canada to get a divorce. Until recently, they could not get a divorce in Canada either because they were not residents of Canada even though they were married here.

Just more examples of the government's involvement in marriage being problematic.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Polygamist marriages are the exception that prove the rule I put forward. It is true, there are government sanctioned marriages that certain churches don't recognize, such as gay marriages or second marriages without annulments in Catholic Churches, however, I would defy you to identify a single state or the federal government that does not recognize all marriages performed in Catholic Churches.
Click to expand...

I specifically states there is overlap. In your example of the catholic church, you are looking at the practical, while ignoring the theoretical, which is that states are not required to recognize those marriages. If the catholic church decides to marry people that the state does not recognize as married, which is entirely possible if unlikely, then you would have your separation. Overlap is there, but they are still separate.
 
cpwill said:
no - SCOTUS seems to have deliberately avoided ruling on it. The only thing I see suggesting either way is the reaffirmation of the right of the States' definition to prevail over that of the Federal Govt.
Click to expand...

With Kennedy's caveat that there is no legitimate state interest in limiting marriages to "straights only". That is a clear invitation to bring a challenge that will allow for a nation-wide ruling. Why do you think Scalia was so vitriol in his dissent. The writing is on the wall.
 
roguenuke said:
Only if they actually sign the paperwork and are legally authorized to do so in that state. Pretty much all ordained priests/ministers are, but that doesn't mean that the couple is automatically married legally just because the church says so.
Click to expand...

Agreed - I didn't want to get buried in the details, just the overlying principles, but you are correct.
 
apdst said:
Short answer? no.

Stop the victimhood.
Click to expand...

Dude. I'm a fairly socially conservative fellow who agrees that as a society we tend to rush to reaffirm whatever a gay person does or says about sexuality, and that this enables and encourages victimish behavior... but even I'll come to YS's defense on that one - there was nothing victimish about the section you quoted - but rather an actual discussion of the ruling.
 
disneydude said:
Isn't that the purpose of analyzing the Supreme Court decision? There are certainly indications in their decision that seem to indicate and even invite nationwide challenges....and unless the idealogy of the Supreme Court shifts over the next few years, it certainly is a clear sign of hope for an end to discrimination nation-wide.
Click to expand...

I think it will take at least one more Justice to give the firm majority on it, but yes, I see the support as well for even overturning state bans. Especially since any case would take at least another year or two to reach the SCOTUS. What it likely will take is a case in the deep South to ensure that there is standing for either side, no matter each lower court's decision.
 
cpwill said:
no - SCOTUS seems to have deliberately avoided ruling on it. The only thing I see suggesting either way is the reaffirmation of the right of the States' definition to prevail over that of the Federal Govt.
Click to expand...

What I read was awhile ago, and my memory at my advanced age is not perfect. I would like YS to clarify what she is asking a bit, and then, well, there are lots of details still needing answers.
 
disneydude said:
With Kennedy's caveat that there is no legitimate state interest in limiting marriages to "straights only".
Click to expand...

I didn't see that - could you point me to it?

That is a clear invitation to bring a challenge that will allow for a nation-wide ruling. Why do you think Scalia was so vitriol in his dissent. The writing is on the wall.
Click to expand...

:shrug: perhaps so. That would explain certainly why he centered on the Court's opinion of itself as some kind of Super-Legislature, the electi masters of us all.
 
roguenuke said:
I think it will take at least one more Justice to give the firm majority on it, but yes, I see the support as well for even overturning state bans. Especially since any case would take at least another year or two to reach the SCOTUS. What it likely will take is a case in the deep South to ensure that there is standing for either side, no matter each lower court's decision.
Click to expand...

I don't think so at all. Kennedy clearly said in the opinion that there is no legitimate state interest in limiting marriages to straight only. That is a pretty solid 5 votes for a nationwide ban on laws discriminating against gays. Unless something dramatically occurs on the Supreme Court changing the balance the writing on the wall is clear. Thank God and Obama for saving our Supreme Court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom