• 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!

Prop 8 Ruling vs DOMA Ruling

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,907
Reaction score
60,364
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I asked this in the BN thread on the Prop 8 ruling thread, but my question is getting buried. Please note in advance I want to keep this to being just about the rulings and how they can be reconciled, and not about whether gay marriage is right, polygamy, or any other things. SO I ask respectfully to stick to just the question and those things directly related. Now, to my question:

The Prop 8 ruling was that California's Prop 8 was unconstitutional, violating the federal constitution. The DOMA ruling stated in part that the federal ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional because it interfered with a states right to regulate marriage. Now, it seems, at least on the surface, that the two rulings are in opposition to each other. I think I can see ways to resolve the two rulings, but I am not a lawyer, judge, or a legal expert in any way. Can the two be resolved? If one ruling is right, is the other inherently wrong?
 
My own opinion is that the DOMA ruling was correct and the Prop. 8 ruling is wrong. In addition to the DOMA ruling, Baker v. Nelson addressed this very issue. The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to a state law banning same-sex marriage because there was not a significant federal question involved. The dismissal constituted a ruling on the merits of the case, and therefore should have been controlling precedent in the Prop. 8 case. I mentioned this in my blog today, and will be expanding on it over the next week or so.
 
I'd be interested in hearing a lawyer's perspective on this.
 
My own opinion is that the DOMA ruling was correct and the Prop. 8 ruling is wrong. In addition to the DOMA ruling, Baker v. Nelson addressed this very issue. The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to a state law banning same-sex marriage because there was not a significant federal question involved. The dismissal constituted a ruling on the merits of the case, and therefore should have been controlling precedent in the Prop. 8 case. I mentioned this in my blog today, and will be expanding on it over the next week or so.

This is new information to me, thank you for that, it gives me yet more research to do.
 
I'd like to read the decision first before commenting; I just haven't had time recently.
 
I asked this in the BN thread on the Prop 8 ruling thread, but my question is getting buried. Please note in advance I want to keep this to being just about the rulings and how they can be reconciled, and not about whether gay marriage is right, polygamy, or any other things. SO I ask respectfully to stick to just the question and those things directly related. Now, to my question:

The Prop 8 ruling was that California's Prop 8 was unconstitutional, violating the federal constitution. The DOMA ruling stated in part that the federal ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional because it interfered with a states right to regulate marriage. Now, it seems, at least on the surface, that the two rulings are in opposition to each other. I think I can see ways to resolve the two rulings, but I am not a lawyer, judge, or a legal expert in any way. Can the two be resolved? If one ruling is right, is the other inherently wrong?

State's powers are lmited by the Federal Constitution. Just because Prop 8 was overturned does not mean that a state does not have the right to regulate marriage. It only means it can't regulate marriage in a way that violates the Federal Constitution. The Federal Government exceeded its authority when it established DOMA because it overstepped the powers allotted to it by the Federal Constitution. That ruling in no way gives states the authority to regulate marriage in a way that would violate the Federal Constitution.

As such, there really isn't any contradiction between the rulings. They both attribute the Federal Constitution as the highest law of the land, over both federal and state governments.
 
Last edited:
an excellent response very well stated.

geo.
 
I find the two rulings complementary, but the way the rulings were formed were based on priority sequence of rights.

State rights are pretty important, so DOMA was tossed out on those grounds. DOMA does violate state sovereignty, but with Prop 8 I believe SCOTUS will rule on similar grounds as CA did in that it violates equal protection. I think if each state started creating their own versions of DOMA, challenges that make it to SCOTUS would also result in them being tossed out since the State sovereignty issue has already been addressed, and it moves into the civil rights realms.

If individual states can't create things like slavery laws, or laws against women, then they will be hard pressed to demonstrate why 'separate but equal' should apply to same-sex marriages. DOMA was from the top down (from Fed to State) in its power structure. Prop 8 is from the bottom up (from State to Fed) in its litigation. Gays can't have equality in one state but not in another. I think the Fed should just make a blanket ruling on it since it's a clear civil rights and equal protection issue.

If SCOTUS decides to make it a Federal issue, then I think we will see anti-GM laws being overturned nationwide in a mere couple of years. Even if not, full faith and credit will require all states to acknowledge CA's same-sex marriages. It's win-win in my eyes.
 
Last edited:
If SCOTUS decides to make it a Federal issue, then I think we will see anti-GM laws being overturned nationwide in a mere couple of years. Even if not, full faith and credit will require all states to acknowledge CA's same-sex marriages. It's win-win in my eyes.

i'll be surprised if SCOTUS takes it on. I am certain that the 9th circuit will pass if it arrives as is. I think SCOTUS will leave 'marriage' ( an nebulous thing anyway) alone as long as those legal provisions that 'marriage' provides are not denied.

but... i will be interested to see. I have some friends who are STILL dancing in the streets.

geo.
 
i'll be surprised if SCOTUS takes it on. I am certain that the 9th circuit will pass if it arrives as is. I think SCOTUS will leave 'marriage' ( an nebulous thing anyway) alone as long as those legal provisions that 'marriage' provides are not denied.

but... i will be interested to see. I have some friends who are STILL dancing in the streets.

geo.

It only takes four of the SCOTUS judges to put a case on the schedule.
 
Back
Top Bottom