SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

[cpwill]

Read the blog here.

....[TABLE="width: 491"]
[TR]
[TD="class: chatmsgtime, bgcolor: #F6F6F6"]0:01
[/TD]
[TD="class: chatmsgtext altcaster_text"]Amy Howe:
Here's Lyle with the first opinion. It's DOMA

​

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


[TABLE="width: 491"]
[TR]
[TD="class: chatmsgtime, bgcolor: #F6F6F6"]10:02
[/TD]
[TD="class: chatmsgtext altcaster_text"]Amy Howe:
5-4 per Kennedy.

​

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


[TABLE="width: 491"]
[TR]
[TD="class: chatmsgtime, bgcolor: #F6F6F6"]10:02
[/TD]
[TD="class: chatmsgtext altcaster_text"]Amy Howe:
Roberts dissents. Scalia dissents. Equal protection.

​

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


[TABLE="width: 491"]
[TR]
[TD="class: chatmsgtime, bgcolor: #F6F6F6"]10:02
[/TD]
[TD="class: chatmsgtext altcaster_text"]Amy Howe:
Scalia is joined by Thomas, Chief joins in part.

​

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


[TABLE="width: 491"]
[TR]
[TD="class: chatmsgtime, bgcolor: #F6F6F6"]10:02
[/TD]
[TD="class: chatmsgtext altcaster_text"]Amy Howe:
Alito dissents, joined by Thomas in part.

​

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


[TABLE="width: 491"]
[TR]
[TD="class: chatmsgtime, bgcolor: #F6F6F6"]10:03
[/TD]
[TD="class: chatmsgtext altcaster_text"]Amy Howe:
DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

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

 

[cpwill]

Decision Here

 

[soccerboy22]

Cannot say I am all that surprised DOMA failed. Unless this is another epic screw up on a SC decision by the media.

 

[DAKitty]

DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf

Just like Heller.

Of course, we won't hear anythiong about that from the left.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

This is a tragic day for the morality of the United States.

 

[Fisher]

Not surprising. It sets up the It Is Up To The States argument though MSNBC is full of crap trying to paint this as an Obama single-handed victory

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

Glad to see that this was struck down

Now let's see what happens with Prop 8.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

This is a sad day for the nation.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

This is a tragic day for the morality of the United States.

Nah. It's a great day for this country

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Nah. It's a great day for this country

Not morally.

 

[Josie]

Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

This is a sad day for the nation.

I disagree. I think government should get their hands out of marriage altogether.

 

[Your Star]

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

I disagree. I think government should get their hands out of marriage altogether.

Not gonna happen.

 

[Tucker Case]

Here's my prediction/paraphrase of Scalia's dissent: "Big government bad, unless, of course, it's to keep them pesky fags in their place."

 

[Dapper Andy]

Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

I disagree. I think government should get their hands out of marriage altogether.

But marriage, for the purpose of this conversation, is essentially a government classification.

I don't care if a legislature chooses to change that classification but I see no reason for the courts to arbitrarily change it.

 

[Texmex]

Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

This is a sad day for the nation.

Another victory for the perverts and the sodomites. The devil must be having a party.

 

[Papa bull]

Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

Only the part of DOMA that requires the federal government to treat same-sex marriages different from any other marriage is struck down. States are still not required to honor marriage from any other state and they are still not required to change the definition of marriage to include any two people of any sex.

It was the right decision. If a state like Connecticut agrees that two homosexuals can be a married couple and allow such marriages, the federal government really must treat that marriage the same as any other marriage in that state.

 

[rocket88]

Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

But marriage, for the purpose of this conversation, is essentially a government classification.

I don't care if a legislature chooses to change that classification but I see no reason for the courts to arbitrarily change it.

Constitutionally, it's not a Federal prerogative anyway.


Bet we won't hear anything about that from the right.

 

[nota bene]

Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf

Just like Heller.

Of course, we won't hear anythiong about that from the left.

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.

 

[Wiseone]

Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

Hey maybe now a Soldier's husband or wife will get the same benefits as another Soldier's husband and wife.

 

[DAKitty]

Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

I disagree. I think government should get their hands out of marriage altogether.

Marriange, as a legal institution, necessitates involvment of the state, at every level.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Not morally.

Yes, morally my friend, because we are now one step closer to everyone being seen as equal under the law.

 

[DAKitty]

Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

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.

Correct.
This ruling does nothing in regard to state laws/constitutions.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

But marriage, for the purpose of this conversation, is essentially a government classification.

I don't care if a legislature chooses to change that classification but I see no reason for the courts to arbitrarily change it.

Two points:

1) It's hardly arbitrary. There's a moral issue at stake.

2) The point of allowing courts to declare a law unconstitutional is because legislatures sometimes do things that are unconstitutional.

I think striking it down was the right thing to do.

 

[Texmex]

Nah. It's a great day for this country

Only if you are a sodomite. For God-fearing people it is a sad day indeed, not unexpected, but sad.