• 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

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?

I don't see where the ruling says "the fed govt has to respect what a state does in terms of marriage"

It says it can't nullify what a state does unless it has a legitimate interest in doing so.
 
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?

First of all - do you really think that this is the end of it?

Second - the ruling pretty much did nothing of the sort. Gay marriage was legitimized with or without this being "struck down". If anything, this was more about PC than any sort of significant legislative move.

If it ends here, I'm fine. What I don't want is the gay lobby to essentially force an anti-DOMA act on the nation that is less tolerant.
 
Also it's important to note, that since DOMA is now dead, the immigration bill that is in the senate, now has a better chance to pass. Since the LGBT inclusion in the bill is no longer necessary.
 
So how do they chose which one wears the wedding dress? :mrgreen:
 
I don't see where the ruling says "the fed govt has to respect what a state does in terms of marriage"

It says it can't nullify what a state does unless it has a legitimate interest in doing so.

I was short cutting it for time. In this case, it says the federal government is not going to trump states rights, which is the exact opposite as being a ruling against states rights. Gipper said something stupid and ignorant, I corrected him.
 
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

Gays in a vacuum sounds kind of kinky. But whatever you're into, I don't judge.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

Hurray for the gays, haha! to the bigots.
 
First of all - do you really think that this is the end of it?

The supreme court is the final court. The process in this case is over. It affirmed states rights.

Second - the ruling pretty much did nothing of the sort. Gay marriage was legitimized with or without this being "struck down". If anything, this was more about PC than any sort of significant legislative move.

It did nothing of the sort. It said that the state get's to define marriage, and that the federal government had no justifiable reason to overrule the states in allowing SSM.

If it ends here, I'm fine. What I don't want is the gay lobby to essentially force an anti-DOMA act on the nation that is less tolerant.

What is an "anti-DOMA" act?
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

Had to log in today just to see what was going on after this ruling?

all i have to say is WOOOOOWHOOOOOO!!!!!!
:2usflag::2party:

not the end, not a HUGE/FINAL step but a very important and great one!

Im very happy that freedom had a small victory today and this is just one stepping stone on the path to equality!

Would have been nice for a larger ruling but i figured SCOTUS would take the turtle approach on this but the sails are up and the wind is going in the right direction. This definitely sets up for furture challanges that "seem" to be setting the way for equal rights and less discrimination in America.

A very good day! Americans that care about equality and freedom should be proud!
 
I was short cutting it for time. In this case, it says the federal government is not going to trump states rights, which is the exact opposite as being a ruling against states rights. Gipper said something stupid and ignorant, I corrected him.

So do you support some sort of act that enforces SSM in a language that brings it to states that want nothing of the sort?

50 bucks says it's coming in your lifetime.
 
There is no precedent in this ruling that would affect polygamy. If you think otherwise, please feel free to quote the language.

Read what the majority opinion said

DOMA singles out class of persons deemed by State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty'...

The Constitution's guarantee of equality 'must at the very least mean that a bare con- gressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot' justify disparate treatment of that group

Where does the court claim this only applies to gay people?
 
So do you support some sort of act that enforces SSM in a language that brings it to states that want nothing of the sort?

50 bucks says it's coming in your lifetime.

A federal law that forced states to perform SSM would be unconstitutional. Now, it is possible that the courts will eventually find that banning SSM is a violation of equal protection, but that is somewhat different.
 
It did nothing of the sort. It said that the state get's to define marriage, and that the federal government had no justifiable reason to overrule the states in allowing SSM.

Next time around, you can swap "federal" and "states". The next step is for Washington to trample a state's rights to not allow for SSM. The federal government has no idea how to not go into overkill.

As I said before, I am perfectly fine as long as this is it. This. Is. It. I just have no faith in D.C. in stopping here and letting 50 states determine what is best for them.

Then we get to have the whole "equal rights" and "full faith and credit" crap being thrown against the faces of red states.
 
Read what the majority opinion said



Where does the court claim this only applies to gay people?

What class of people are those wanting to enter into polygamy?
 
Read what the majority opinion said



Where does the court claim this only applies to gay people?

By the fact that it refers to that it cannot be the single justification by singling a group out. That is not the same thing as saying there can be no justification for any restrictions.
 
Next time around, you can swap "federal" and "states". The next step is for Washington to trample a state's rights to not allow for SSM. The federal government has no idea how to not go into overkill.

As I said before, I am perfectly fine as long as this is it. This. Is. It. I just have no faith in D.C. in stopping here and letting 50 states determine what is best for them.

Then we get to have the whole "equal rights" and "full faith and credit" crap being thrown against the faces of red states.

Your paranoid fantasies are interesting, but more appropriate to the conspiracy theory section of the board.
 
What class of people are those wanting to enter into polygamy?

Many Married Advocates

What do you have against Polygamy? It's not hurting you right? :lol:

By the fact that it refers to that it cannot be the single justification by singling a group out. That is not the same thing as saying there can be no justification for any restrictions.

You don't think other groups whose identities are defined by their sexual behaviors are not going to run with this precedent? Really?
 
Your paranoid fantasies are interesting, but more appropriate to the conspiracy theory section of the board.

So you're saying that there hasn't been a hyper-liberalization of the country, usually to its detriment, in the past 40 years.

Sure, sure. Go ahead and get me a tinfoil hat.
 
Basically, my thought process is that since they struck DOMA down on the basis of equality, it sets court precedence, and that all laws prohibiting SSM could be seen in the same light.

Unfortunately, even as that ruling and the other one, does not yet provide a sweeping precedent to fully realize equal protection as it relates to marriage, the rulings do create a framework for sustaining and possibly accelerating the trend toward that outcome. Some of the language e.g., the majority opinion's reference to a lack of "legitimate interest" to sustain DOMA will likely mark a starting point for future decisions, each of which will further erode the barriers to marriage equality.

The dissenting view in Proposition 8 is also important, as it does not argue against the substance of the issue. It is purely focused on state rights related to the procedural issue of standing. In terms of the substance of the marriage issue, that dissenting opinion describes the issue of marriage equality as "a realm of controversy where the legal community and society at large are still formulating ideas and approaches to a most difficult subject." In other words, even the dissenting opinion in that case does not reverse the ongoing legal and societal trend toward marriage equality. If anything, that language leaves the door open for a broader ruling at some point in the future, more likely than not making another contribution toward expanding equal protection to marriage.

Both rulings are small but important steps. They provide a foundation for additional progress.
 
Many Married Advocates

That is not a class of people.

What do you have against Polygamy? It's not hurting you right? :lol:

Nothing. I do not care about them.

You don't think other groups whose identities are defined by their sexual behaviors are not going to run with this precedent? Really?

Gays are not defined by they sexual behavior.
 
Unfortunately, even as that ruling and the other one, does not yet provide a sweeping precedent to fully realize equal protection as it relates to marriage, the rulings do create a framework for sustaining and possibly accelerating the trend toward that outcome. Some of the language e.g., the majority opinion's reference to a lack of "legitimate interest" to sustain DOMA will likely mark a starting point for future decisions, each of which will further erode the barriers to marriage equality.

The dissenting view in Proposition 8 is also important, as it does not argue against the substance of the issue. It is purely focused on state rights related to the procedural issue of standing. In terms of the substance of the marriage issue, that dissenting opinion describes the issue of marriage equality as "a realm of controversy where the legal community and society at large are still formulating ideas and approaches to a most difficult subject." In other words, even the dissenting opinion in that case does not reverse the ongoing legal and societal trend toward marriage equality. If anything, that language leaves the door open for a broader ruling at some point in the future, more likely than not making another contribution toward expanding equal protection to marriage.

Both rulings are small but important steps. They provide a foundation for additional progress.

Yeah, it's a good day for sure.

I also tend to think that since since Kennedy, and Sotomayor sided with the dissenters because they wanted a more broad ruling, and didn't want to turn the case away.
 
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.

obama - roberts  - obamacare decision.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom