• 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

CanadaJohn said:
It's not that surprising, if you take it as an intent to limit the expansion of government involvement into marriage.
Click to expand...

Except DOMA was a huge federal step towards government intervening in the legal and social definition of marriage that limited rights.
 
employmentatty said:
Except DOMA was a huge federal step towards government intervening in the legal and social definition of marriage that limited rights.
Click to expand...

DOMA still stands with only the section brought before the court struck...
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

Texmex said:
Another victory for the perverts and the sodomites. The devil must be having a party.
Click to expand...

You have shown that don't know what either of these words mean, so your point is irrelevant.
 
head of joaquin said:
Sexual orientation has to do with identity and is basically established by the time you enter puberty. It has a genetic and environmental component. It is no more a choice than saying lefthandedness is.
Click to expand...

We know for a fact that even if sexual orientation isn't always a choice that it can be a choice. We have no proof, however, that it is NOT a choice.
 
stonewall50 said:
Thank God this is over. Now we can get on to important NATIONAL issues. Things like insane debt, war, and federal government corruption.
Click to expand...
What makes you think this is over, and why are you only able to think about one issue at a time?
 
roguenuke said:
So you must be saying that Mr. and Mrs. Loving did not deserve the equal right to marriage as same race couples since they could have chosen to have sex with someone of their own race rather than each other.
Click to expand...

It must have been really awkward trying to type that clumsy attempt to refute the fact that anyone's sexual acts are dependent upon immutable characteristics. The Loving case is not the same because race is an immutable characteristic and because that immutable characteristic is the only thing that barred the loving marriage from being legal in the state of Virginia. In order to have a parallel, homosexuals will have to prove that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. Good luck proving that.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
The court made a very narrow ruling. It appears there is no desire to tread in these waters...
Click to expand...

The courts really don't want to establish a precedence over this because it will create a legal quagmire for other marriage "evolutions" in the future if they do.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
The court made a very narrow ruling. It appears there is no desire to tread in these waters...
Click to expand...

They made a ruling based on the case before them. Only one section was being challenged in this case, so only one section was overturned. However, there was a line in the majority opinion that would allude to homosexuality being a suspect class. That line could become important to further challenges.

These people aren't dumb. They know what suspect classification means.
 
Papa bull said:
It must have been really awkward trying to type that clumsy attempt to refute the fact that anyone's sexual acts are dependent upon immutable characteristics. The Loving case is not the same because race is an immutable characteristic and because that immutable characteristic is the only thing that barred the loving marriage from being legal in the state of Virginia. In order to have a parallel, homosexuals will have to prove that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. Good luck proving that.
Click to expand...
Again, not all of our rights are based in immutability.
 
Papa bull said:
The courts really don't want to establish a precedence over this because it will create a legal quagmire if they do.
Click to expand...

What "legal quagmire" do you think would occur as a result of overturning DOMA entirely? Talk about your wishful thinking.

You guys have already lost this war, you just haven't admitted it to yourselves yet. :lamo
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I'm not here to trumpet for either side, reality is what it is, but you keep going on your merry way...
Click to expand...
Um, I think that is the point, time marches on, challenges come and statutes tumble.
 
Papa bull said:
It must have been really awkward trying to type that clumsy attempt to refute the fact that anyone's sexual acts are dependent upon immutable characteristics. The Loving case is not the same because race is an immutable characteristic and because that immutable characteristic is the only thing that barred the loving marriage from being legal in the state of Virginia. In order to have a parallel, homosexuals will have to prove that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. Good luck proving that.
Click to expand...

Did you ever choose to be straight?

And then can you perhaps explain where "immutable characteristics" are key to the discussion of rights?
 
Gaius46 said:
As I understand it the full faith and credit clause has not ever been applied to marriage. Afaik a state can refuse to acknowledge a marriage that would not be legal in that state - for example if one of the partners is under aged under that state's laws.

Should it apply - i think it should, but based on my limited reading it doesn't appear to.
Click to expand...

That's not 100% accurate. In fact, all states recognize legal marriages performed within the US and in most nations.

Let's say first cousins marry (not allowed in about half the states, allowed in the other half). If they live in a state where it is not allowed, they will not be granted a license to marry. If you move to a state where it IS allowed, they are granted a marriage license and get married. If you move BACK to the original state where they couldn't get married, that state DOES recognize the marriage.

There are 11 states who claim the marriage will be void, but in practice, it generally doesn't happen.

Same with age of consent.

I actually used to think what you posted or took it for granted and finally poked around until I found out some info.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, I think that is the point, time marches on, challenges come and statutes tumble.
Click to expand...

I believe the Court does not want to create another right as was done with abortion in Row v Wade and is content to let the States define marriage as they choose...
 
Redress said:
This is a court case and has exactly jack and **** to do with any of that, and likewise no effect on any of that, nor does it prevent the other branches who actually handle that stuff to do their job.
Click to expand...

It isn't supposed to. Did you not notice how much attention it got during the elections? Apparently doma was more important than the economy. Hell my own party pisses me off when they mention it.
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
That'll have to wait until after the Zimmerman/Martin thing is over.
Click to expand...

Damnit. I forgot about that. I would turn on the news but north west is more important.
 
cpwill said:
Read the blog here.

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

The decision striking down part of DOMA was a good decision in my view. It asserted states rights and disavowed the Federal govt's denial of rights granted by states to it's citizens. You don't have to agree with ssm to see that.
 
mac said:
The decision striking down part of DOMA was a good decision in my view. It asserted states rights and disavowed the Federal govt's denial of rights granted by states to it's citizens. You don't have to agree with ssm to see that.
Click to expand...

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.

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Click to expand...
 
Papa bull said:
They can't unless they CHOOSE to have heterosexual intercourse; which hamstrings the "no choice" argument.
Click to expand...

Reproduction can and does occur without intercourse every day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom