• 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

Papa bull said:
That's my take on it, too. It's the right call even when you don't agree with same sex marriage. The rest of DOMA, however, is not so questionable.
Click to expand...

If I had to guess, that part will be next. Seems to me that this provision violates the reciprocity rule among states.
 
This decision makes it even less desirable to live in the barbaric states that don't allow SSM. Definitely getting out of here after degree is finished.
 
chromium said:
This decision makes it even less desirable to live in the barbaric states that don't allow SSM. Definitely getting out of here after degree is finished.
Click to expand...

We won't miss you...
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

nota bene said:
Clarification: Only part of DOMA has been struck down. In the 11 states that recognize same-sex marriage, it will no longer apply. The example offered by Judge Napolitano on Fox just now was that if you marry in New York but move to Texas, Texas is free not to recognize your marriage...but the federal government no longer is.
Click to expand...

With precedent in place, only a matter of days before anti-marriage recognition laws are sued out of existence.
 
mac said:
If I had to guess, that part will be next. Seems to me that this provision violates the reciprocity rule among states.
Click to expand...

Reciprocity is not a constitutional rule but an interstate agreement and one that is not absolute. I don't see the constitutional issue with section 2 even though it seemed there was a clear constitutional issue with section 3.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

CaptainCourtesy said:
You have shown that don't know what either of these words mean, so your point is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've shown you, you just don't like it. If I were a fag I wouldn't like it either.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

solletica said:
With precedent in place, only a matter of days before anti-marriage recognition laws are sued out of existence.
Click to expand...

Sure wish I could bet you everything you own on that. It's going to be quite a while before all 50 states have laws on their books changing the definition of marriage to incorporate any two people of legal age.
 
chromium said:
This decision makes it even less desirable to live in the barbaric states that don't allow SSM. Definitely getting out of here after degree is finished.
Click to expand...

California is calling you. Have a nice trip.
 
AGENT J said:
I agree 100% with your assessment of his "logic" and im sure thats what he was trying to say

but that just leaves me with one question

what state rights will be trampled?
Click to expand...

They are just too dumb witted to realize that DOMA was a federal law that violated "state's rights," not to mention the Constitution. Not that states have or deserve any rights (see: civil war).
 
Papa bull said:
Reciprocity is not a constitutional rule but an interstate agreement and one that is not absolute. I don't see the constitutional issue with section 2 even though it seemed there was a clear constitutional issue with section 3.
Click to expand...

I think it's covered under the Full faith and Credit clause.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Not morally.
Click to expand...

Keep your morals to yourself. This country was founded on selling drugs, running guns, and ****ing the law. Morality had nothing to do with it.
 
mac said:
I think it's covered under the Full faith and Credit clause.
Click to expand...

And I think when the Supreme Court evaluates this, as it no doubt will have to do, it will find in favor of states' rights that all states are not going to be held to accomodate the lowest common denominator of marriage law, i.e. that any single state can dictate marriage law for all 50. Just because Vermont decides that sisters and brothers should be allowed to marry does not mean that all 50 states must recognize as married any brother and sister that went to Vermont to be wed.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

Texmex said:
Yes, I've shown you, you just don't like it. If I were a fag I wouldn't like it either.
Click to expand...

You've shown that you don't understand them. I've shown you the accurate definitions. And you've shown that you refuse to learn the correct definitions. It's not my fault that you choose to remain ignorant of the accurate definitions of the words.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

brothern said:
There is a precedence?
Click to expand...

The justices who voted to strike down DOMA argued primarily that DOMA violated the EPC of the 5th Amendment, so all state laws that selectively fail to recognize same-sex marriages are also invalid under that precedent. The justices disagreed on whether that precedent could be interpreted as inequal treatment of the states by the feds or a inequal treatment of individuals under the law. But it's a no-brainer that someone in some state where SS marriage is banned is going to successfully sue to strike down that ban, citing the SCOTUS's ruling.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

solletica said:
The justices who voted to strike down DOMA argued primarily that DOMA violated the EPC of the 5th Amendment, so all state laws that selectively fail to recognize same-sex marriages are also invalid under that precedent. The justices disagreed on whether that precedent could be interpreted as inequal treatment of the states by the feds or a inequal treatment of individuals under the law. But it's a no-brainer that someone in some state where SS marriage is banned is going to successfully sue to strike down that ban, citing the SCOTUS's ruling.
Click to expand...

DOMA was not struck down, only one section was. Section 2 still stands...
 
Papa bull said:
And I think when the Supreme Court evaluates this, as it no doubt will have to do, it will find in favor of states' rights that all states are not going to be held to accomodate the lowest common denominator of marriage law, i.e. that any single state can dictate marriage law for all 50. Just because Vermont decides that sisters and brothers should be allowed to marry does not mean that all 50 states must recognize as married any brother and sister that went to Vermont to be wed.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS cited the 5th Amendment as the rationale for its ruling, so anyone trying to sue his/her state for having a SS marriage ban is going to have that legal precedent working for him/her.
 
solletica said:
The SCOTUS cited the 5th Amendment as the rationale for its ruling, so anyone trying to sue his/her state for having a SS marriage ban is going to have that legal precedent working for him/her.
Click to expand...

They only ruled as to federal recognition, and decided to let the States continue as is...
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

AlabamaPaul said:
DOMA was not struck down, only one section was. Section 2 still stands...
Click to expand...

That will be struck down as soon as someone who was negatively impacted by Section 2 sues, citing this ruling's rationale.
 
Dapper Andy said:
My reply isn't "conservative" BS.
Click to expand...

Just like my previous posts have not been liberal BS. Again, you see how easy and cheap name-calling is? All you're doing is revealing that these are your biggest intellectual guns...belied further by the fact that you didn't respond substantively at all.

Dapper Andy said:
We wouldn't be having this conversation if gays weren't an extreme liberal group.
Click to expand...

I think we'd be having this conversation in any possible world in which the Supreme Court struck down DOMA, even in one where gays were an extreme conservative group, or any other kind of group.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

solletica said:
That will be struck down as soon as someone who was negatively impacted by Section 2 sues, citing this ruling's rationale.
Click to expand...

Will that also mean I get to carry my weapon in whichever State I might choose as well?
 
Papa bull said:
And I think when the Supreme Court evaluates this, as it no doubt will have to do, it will find in favor of states' rights that all states are not going to be held to accomodate the lowest common denominator of marriage law, i.e. that any single state can dictate marriage law for all 50. Just because Vermont decides that sisters and brothers should be allowed to marry does not mean that all 50 states must recognize as married any brother and sister that went to Vermont to be wed.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, it's not been used in a challenge to date. We'll see.
 
Papa bull said:
California is calling you. Have a nice trip.
Click to expand...

Yep, atavistic states will slowly sink into their biased unproductive views, while California and other progressive states will continue to get talented, intelligent people, attracted by their tolerant laws and acceptance of difference.

The poor South: it's going back to 1880 fast.
 
Papa bull said:
They can't unless they CHOOSE to have heterosexual intercourse; which hamstrings the "no choice" argument.
Click to expand...

A lot of my heterosexual friends have had kids through methods other than heterosexual sex.

There are a LOT of methods of reproduction other than heterosexual intercourse.

Surely you know that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom