• 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

disneydude said:
No. But you need 5 votes. Ginsburg will be replaced with a moderate to liberal, same with Breyer and at least one is likely to go within the next 2 years. Where are you going to get your 5th vote to secure discrimination?
Click to expand...

Kennedy
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
This is quite clearly the single biggest epitomization of a slippery slope fallacy I think has ever graced DP.
Click to expand...

Legalize polygamy: Marriage equality for all. - Slate Magazine

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.
Click to expand...
 
CanadaJohn said:
Kennedy
Click to expand...

Did you read the decision? Good luck...LOL....Kennedy made it clear that there is no legitimate state interest in restricting marriages to "straights only". What makes you believe that Kennedy is going to do a 180 degree shift? You might want to read the decision and also take a look at Kennedy's other related rulings. Kennedy is securing his legacy.
 
disneydude said:
But you are failing to recognize the clear indication that invites challenges to "straight only" discrimination. True, state limitations live another day, but you would have to be completely oblivious to not see the writing on the wall.
Click to expand...

I do see it. And I don't actually know how it would turn out, but there are indications that the Court does not favor ruling against state rights with just a 5-4 majority, even when it is a clear violation of EPC. It sucks, but there are a lot of ways that they could continue to avoid that sweeping ruling. I don't want it to be that way, but it is a definite possibility. It is diminished by getting that 6th Justice or more to support striking down those laws to give more confidence in doing it to any who may feel uncomfortable about it, not just Kennedy.

It would take time anyway for another case to reach the SCOTUS, particularly one without any standing issues and that isn't likely to have a narrow ruling. No one really knows how the other states may each try to argue these cases, and their arguments could determine how narrow or wide a ruling is made.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Seems that way, doesn't it - until you watched him twist himself into a jumbo pretzel in order to make a highly political decision in ruling Obamacare constitutional.
Click to expand...

That's part of what I'm looking at. His reasoning for Obamacare being Constitutional is solid.

He has a vision of what the law is, not so much with what it should be.
 
Redress said:
The bolded(again...why I do this mostly just with your posts I do not know...), I do not think the ruling says that. As I understand it, the ruling says that in this case the federal government does not have the authority to nullify the states definition because it does not serve a legitimate purpose.
Click to expand...

It seems that you're correct. The court did not say that the fed govt can't nullify a states definition. They said the opposite. The feds can nullify BUT ONLY IF such nullification served a legitimate purpose. In their opinion, denying a state the power to recognize a SSM served no legitimate purpose

This does not mean that, in the future, the court will decide that denying a state the power to prohibit SSM's serves no legitimate purpose. The court suggests the opposite - that denying a state the power to prohibit SSM's would serve the legitimate purpose of enforcing equal protection under the law, which is a legitimate purpose of the federal govt.
 
Tucker Case said:
How does nullifying a federal law banning gay marriage trample on state's rights?
Click to expand...

I say that because I don't think the boulder has run all the way down the mountainside.

From what i can tell from both rulings, State's will not be compelled to give out marriage licenses to SS couples. Even if the full faith and credit clause forces state's to recognize SSM's from other states, they'll still have the ability to not issue marriage certificates to SS couples.
Click to expand...

If this is exactly how it ends up being, I am totally fine with it. My biggest concern is that it gets overturned to pave a long, verbose road of forcing it completely in the other direction - thus wasting more time and money.

I'm against any federal law about marriage, but I'd rather that DOMA stands as-is than to attempt a full reversal and 180.
 
disneydude said:
Did you read the decision? Good luck...LOL....Kennedy made it clear that there is no legitimate state interest in restricting marriages to "straights only". What makes you believe that Kennedy is going to do a 180 degree shift? You might want to read the decision and also take a look at Kennedy's other related rulings. Kennedy is securing his legacy.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the nuance of Kennedy's position - I don't see it as one sided and cut-and-dried as you do. There was no state before the court that was arguing why they have a "legitimate state interest" in restricting marriage to straights only. If and when the time comes, we'll see what arguments they put forward. I'm not prepared to accept that by the time such a case gets to the Supreme Court that any or all of Kennedy, Breyer, and Ginsburg will be on the court or even alive.
 
Bronson said:
This is such a hilarious decision

It's going to open up a Pandora's Box for all kinds of Frankenstein "Marriage" experiments that don't mean anything. But hey, people want their tax incentives so anything goes, including Polygamy and Group Marriage now. The United States has become an Oligarchy run by lawyers in black robes.
Click to expand...

Can you show where in this ruling at would apply to polygamy or group marriages? Bet you can't.
 
roguenuke said:
I do see it. And I don't actually know how it would turn out, but there are indications that the Court does not favor ruling against state rights with just a 5-4 majority, even when it is a clear violation of EPC. It sucks, but there are a lot of ways that they could continue to avoid that sweeping ruling. I don't want it to be that way, but it is a definite possibility. It is diminished by getting that 6th Justice or more to support striking down those laws to give more confidence in doing it to any who may feel uncomfortable about it, not just Kennedy.

It would take time anyway for another case to reach the SCOTUS, particularly one without any standing issues and that isn't likely to have a narrow ruling. No one really knows how the other states may each try to argue these cases, and their arguments could determine how narrow or wide a ruling is made.
Click to expand...
I agree, but it is very likely that the court will take up a case within the next 3 years....and we are going to see more and more states shift to allow gay marriage. Once public opinion and state laws catch up, the SCOTUS will make the move. They clearly indicated that they didn't want to move too far too fast.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Oh man, a Slate article. I guess that about sums it up then folks. Someone call SCOTUS and tell them they forgot something. :roll: Get real. DOMA was not about polygamy or any other "Frankenstein (how derogatory of a term, might I add) marriages."
Click to expand...

Oh man, some guy on the internet whines about slippery slope and then can't refute a major left wing source pushing for that slippery slope using the rationality of "Marriage Equality".

The courts ALWAYS rules based on precedent. If you think this decision only affects gays in a vacuum then you're beyond professional help.
 
Gipper said:
This was a giant trampling of states' rights. Liberals tend to use phrases like "equal rights" and "full faith and credit" to blast open doors that allow even one hyper-liberal state to essentially spit in the face of 49 others by saying that when it sets the rules, the other states must fall in line like dominoes.

I would consider this a victory if it was a giant step in the direction of "gays can STFU now", but I doubt that this is the end of anything. It's more likely the soapbox for even louder bitching - if that's possible.
Click to expand...

So a ruling which says that the federal government has to respect what a state does in terms of marriage is somehow trampling on states rights?
 
Redress said:
Can you show where in this ruling at would apply to polygamy or group marriages? Bet you can't.
Click to expand...

The ruling will not only affect gays in a vacuum

Precedent is precedent

Do you even know why the court took this case? Hint: Tax reasons
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

Josie said:
I disagree. I think government should get their hands out of marriage altogether.
Click to expand...

That's really academic. They are in, and in to stay.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I appreciate the nuance of Kennedy's position - I don't see it as one sided and cut-and-dried as you do. There was no state before the court that was arguing why they have a "legitimate state interest" in restricting marriage to straights only. If and when the time comes, we'll see what arguments they put forward. I'm not prepared to accept that by the time such a case gets to the Supreme Court that any or all of Kennedy, Breyer, and Ginsburg will be on the court or even alive.
Click to expand...

They may not be around, but they are not likely to be replaced by another Scalia. The only hope that those who support state discriminatory "straight only" laws have is that there won't be a case within the next 3 years that make it to the Court...and that a Republican wins the next election and replaces Kennedy with someone in the Scalia vein. That's a long shot at best.
 
rocket88 said:
That's part of what I'm looking at. His reasoning for Obamacare being Constitutional is solid.

He has a vision of what the law is, not so much with what it should be.
Click to expand...

Robert's pulled the mandate as a tax out of his ass at the last minute in order not to rule against the first black President. He did so after the court had met to hash out their positions and he did so after it was agreed the court would rule the other way - he caved to political expediency at the expense of the law and the American people.
 
disneydude said:
I agree, but it is very likely that the court will take up a case within the next 3 years....and we are going to see more and more states shift to allow gay marriage. Once public opinion and state laws catch up, the SCOTUS will make the move. They clearly indicated that they didn't want to move too far too fast.
Click to expand...

All true. I hope that one of those more conservative Justices wakes up and realizes that it is a violation of the Constitution. It isn't very likely to happen, but I would prefer that to wishing one of them to die. Maybe one of their children could come out as gay, or perhaps grandchildren.

It could certainly go either way, particularly since we are very likely to see at least several more states legalize same sex marriage before we see a solid state case hit the SCOTUS. We could even see Congress pass a bill that goes further than the SCOTUS ruling. Who knows?
 
Bronson said:
The ruling will not only affect gays in a vacuum

Precedent is precedent

Do you even know why the court took this case? Hint: Tax reasons
Click to expand...

There is no precedent in this ruling that would affect polygamy. If you think otherwise, please feel free to quote the language.
 
Bronson said:
Oh man, some guy on the internet whines about slippery slope and then can't refute a major left wing source pushing for that slippery slope using the rationality of "Marriage Equality".

The courts ALWAYS rules based on precedent. If you think this decision only affects gays in a vacuum then you're beyond professional help.
Click to expand...

It's an opinion piece, nothing more. Here's another one (from your source). The difference between gay marriage and polygamy. - Slate Magazine

If you think "oh well, we let the gays, why not polygamists" then you are the one in need of an education. Explain the relationship between the two, Bronson.
 
Bronson said:
The ruling will not only affect gays in a vacuum

Precedent is precedent

Do you even know why the court took this case? Hint: Tax reasons
Click to expand...

Precedent is only precedent when the cases are very similar. The two groups in question, same sex couples and people who want more than one spouse, would have to not only have to be held at a similar status, but so would the states' reasoning for why those restrictions (sex/gender and number of spouses) are in place. Those reasons are not similar in any way. They are very different.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

American said:
That's really academic. They are in, and in to stay.
Click to expand...

We do not agree on much, but you are absolutely correct here. The government is going to keep recognizing marraige, and there is no significant movement to do otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom