• 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:
They can't unless they CHOOSE to have heterosexual intercourse; which hamstrings the "no choice" argument.
Click to expand...

The 1980's are calling. They would like to introduce you to a ton of new technology...well, new then, pretty much not new now.
 
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...

Ezekiel 16:49 Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.

So it's a victory for greedy conservatives?
 
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...

With respect to legally married couples. What constitutes legally married is the province of the states.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
The law does not equal morality. Homosexuality is immoral.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The law does not equal morality, nor should it. We shouldn't be making federal laws that are infringe on the equal protection clause of our constitution just because it offends the moral beliefs of some people. Moral beliefs are not a basis for law. We have a secular government and it shouldn't be using the moral blueprint of Christianity to make our laws.
 
Gaius46 said:
With respect to legally married couples. What constitutes legally married is the province of the states.
Click to expand...

so long as it does not violate the equal protection guarantees of the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution. That is clearly in the Doma ruling.
 
Gaius46 said:
With respect to legally married couples. What constitutes legally married is the province of the states.
Click to expand...

Well, obviously not completely since the states can't discriminate based on race or religion in marriage laws. You can't have a law that doesn't allow Catholics to marry protestants or blacks to marry whites.

The issue is can they discriminate based on gender/sexual orientation. This will eventually be clarified and conservatives will lose again, as they always have on issues that move this nation forward.
 
head of joaquin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I just got back from the gay rights celebration march in Columbia, SC. Surprisingly there was no opposing protesters there shouting hateful things. One of my favorite signs said: "Key to improving the economy: Gay bridal registries". I thought that was pretty funny. :)
 
vash1012 said:
I just got back from the gay rights celebration march in Columbia, SC. Surprisingly there was no opposing protesters there shouting hateful things. One of my favorite signs said: "Key to improving the economy: Gay bridal registries". I thought that was pretty funny. :)
Click to expand...

Expanding civil rights is good for everybody (except closed minded conservatives and tea party types). The Palm Springs tourist bureau is already promoting PS as a destination stop for marriage. More economic growth for California, less for Alabama!
 
FilmFestGuy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I did a very cursory check and am actually glad I got it wrong.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

AGENT J said:
well the two arguments that have won or are gaining traction are this. If i was gay unfair discrimination and a violation of equality as stated by courts in rulings and the second is the argument of gender discriminaiton not ruled on by courts yet but heard and also stated by courts themselves as possibilities of inequality.

all the deflections aside theres no logical reason to assume forced marriage lol
Click to expand...

The question remains ... what rights don't you have that everyone else does have?
 
head of joaquin said:
Well, obviously not completely since the states can't discriminate based on race or religion in marriage laws. You can't have a law that doesn't allow Catholics to marry protestants or blacks to marry whites.

The issue is can they discriminate based on gender/sexual orientation. This will eventually be clarified and conservatives will lose again, as they always have on issues that move this nation forward.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I'm simply pointing out that the decision - at least in syllabus which is all I read - notes that states regulate marriage and that for purposes of Federal law the government must respect that definition.
 
Gaius46 said:
I agree with you. I'm simply pointing out that the decision - at least in syllabus which is all I read - notes that states regulate marriage and that for purposes of Federal law the government must respect that definition.
Click to expand...

If you're saying, it's a separate issue, I agree. But it's only a matter of time before a good case for an equal protection decision makes its way to the SC and they actually rule on it, and not other issues.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

bubbabgone said:
The question remains ... what rights don't you have that everyone else does have?
Click to expand...

the question has been answered :shrug:
again all the deflections aside theres no logical reason to assume forced marriage lol
 
head of joaquin said:
If you're saying, it's a separate issue, I agree. But it's only a matter of time before a good case for an equal protection decision makes its way to the SC and they actually rule on it, and not other issues.
Click to expand...

We have been waiting since 1868 (the passing of the 14th amendment) for that to happen, or maybe only since 1967 if you consider Loving v. Virginia so broad as to add "sexual orientation" or "strong personal preference" to the things prohibited for use in discrimination under the law.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
We have been waiting since 1868 (the passing of the 14th amendment) for that to happen, or maybe only since 1967 if you consider Loving v. Virginia so broad as to add "sexual orientation" or "strong personal preference" to the things prohibited for use in discrimination under the law.
Click to expand...

Well, take heart. Gays are no longer in the shadows of American society and they will hopefully pursue this to its obvious conclusion -- acceptance of gay rights in every realm, as is appropriate for a great democracy like ours.
 
head of joaquin said:
If you're saying, it's a separate issue, I agree. But it's only a matter of time before a good case for an equal protection decision makes its way to the SC and they actually rule on it, and not other issues.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I'm saying. And I agree with you.
 
Late as ever, I'm just so damned pleased by DOMA's effective demise that I wanted to pop in and say, "Yay!!!!"

:inandout:
 
head of joaquin said:
Well, take heart. Gays are no longer in the shadows of American society and they will hopefully pursue this to its obvious conclusion -- acceptance of gay rights in every realm, as is appropriate for a great democracy like ours.
Click to expand...

What does that even mean? Do you think that this rainbow parade will muster enough popular support for a constitutional amendment including equal protection based on sexual orientation or strong personal preferences or simply add to the number of states that alter their marriage laws to include SSM?
 
DiAnna said:
Late as ever, I'm just so damned pleased by DOMA's effective demise that I wanted to pop in and say, "Yay!!!!"

:inandout:
Click to expand...
You're not the only one! Bye bye doma! And as a Californian I am especially happy to say the same to prop 8.

Even emoticons support marriage equality.
:kissy: <----- clearly homosexuals
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

Lakryte said:
The KKK said the same thing in 1967.
Click to expand...
yep
whats sad is that there are people in this country that feel others having equal rights is sad, hypocrites
 
jmotivator said:
Well sure, but that is why there is no argument that applies to gay marriage that doesn't apply to polygamy.

Another point that can be argued now is whether laws banning gay relatives from marrying is unconstitutional. The laws that forbid family from marrying were grounded in the state's real concern of the high rate of genetic illness in children born of siblings or close relatives. But in a gay marriage that is no concern at all.


I'm not failing in my evaluation. I am assuming they are no less likely to engage in polygamy than gay or heterosexual couples.
Click to expand...

The standards of marriage have been modified to include SS couples and nothing else. Any arguments against polygamy and incest that existed before SSM are still valid now. You are making a strawman argument because you have nothing.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

AGENT J said:
yep
whats sad is that there are people in this country that feel others having equal rights is sad, hypocrites
Click to expand...

Yeah. Whites should be treated equally under the law as well. Which is why affirmative action was/is so unfair and probably unconstitutional!
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

yobarnacle said:
Yeah. Whites should be treated equally under the law as well. Which is why affirmative action was/is so unfair and probably unconstitutional!
Click to expand...

actually AA/EO prevents ALL races from being discriminated against equally :shrug:

if somebody is practicing something that is unfair or doesn't do that they are not practicing AA/EO
but there are already threads here at DP that tackle this issue and prove that
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What does that even mean? Do you think that this rainbow parade will muster enough popular support for a constitutional amendment including equal protection based on sexual orientation or strong personal preferences or simply add to the number of states that alter their marriage laws to include SSM?
Click to expand...

I don't have to worry about such a narrow view of the Constitution. Society evolves and Constitutional hermeneutics with it. There is no way to avoid that. It's clear to me that soon -- probably sooner than we think -- the SC will rule that the equal protection clause applies generally to gays in matters involving legal rights, including marriage. And the nation will be the better for it. The days when homophobes caught pass discriminatory laws with impunity are numbers, despite Scalia's wish to the contrary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom