- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
So a ruling which says that the federal government has to respect what a state does in terms of marriage is somehow trampling on states rights?
So a ruling which says that the federal government has to respect what a state does in terms of marriage is somehow trampling on states rights?
I don't see where the ruling says "the fed govt has to respect what a state does in terms of marriage"
It says it can't nullify what a state does unless it has a legitimate interest in doing so.
The ruling will not only affect gays in a vacuum
Precedent is precedent
Do you even know why the court took this case? Hint: Tax reasons
First of all - do you really think that this is the end of it?
Second - the ruling pretty much did nothing of the sort. Gay marriage was legitimized with or without this being "struck down". If anything, this was more about PC than any sort of significant legislative move.
If it ends here, I'm fine. What I don't want is the gay lobby to essentially force an anti-DOMA act on the nation that is less tolerant.
I was short cutting it for time. In this case, it says the federal government is not going to trump states rights, which is the exact opposite as being a ruling against states rights. Gipper said something stupid and ignorant, I corrected him.
Hurray for the gays, haha! to the bigots.
Gipper said something stupid and ignorant, I corrected him.
There is no precedent in this ruling that would affect polygamy. If you think otherwise, please feel free to quote the language.
DOMA singles out class of persons deemed by State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty'...
The Constitution's guarantee of equality 'must at the very least mean that a bare con- gressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot' justify disparate treatment of that group
So do you support some sort of act that enforces SSM in a language that brings it to states that want nothing of the sort?
50 bucks says it's coming in your lifetime.
Read what the majority opinion said
Where does the court claim this only applies to gay people?
It did nothing of the sort. It said that the state get's to define marriage, and that the federal government had no justifiable reason to overrule the states in allowing SSM.
Read what the majority opinion said
Where does the court claim this only applies to gay people?
Read what the majority opinion said
Where does the court claim this only applies to gay people?
Next time around, you can swap "federal" and "states". The next step is for Washington to trample a state's rights to not allow for SSM. The federal government has no idea how to not go into overkill.
As I said before, I am perfectly fine as long as this is it. This. Is. It. I just have no faith in D.C. in stopping here and letting 50 states determine what is best for them.
Then we get to have the whole "equal rights" and "full faith and credit" crap being thrown against the faces of red states.
What class of people are those wanting to enter into polygamy?
By the fact that it refers to that it cannot be the single justification by singling a group out. That is not the same thing as saying there can be no justification for any restrictions.
Your paranoid fantasies are interesting, but more appropriate to the conspiracy theory section of the board.
Basically, my thought process is that since they struck DOMA down on the basis of equality, it sets court precedence, and that all laws prohibiting SSM could be seen in the same light.
Many Married Advocates
What do you have against Polygamy? It's not hurting you right? :lol:
You don't think other groups whose identities are defined by their sexual behaviors are not going to run with this precedent? Really?
Unfortunately, even as that ruling and the other one, does not yet provide a sweeping precedent to fully realize equal protection as it relates to marriage, the rulings do create a framework for sustaining and possibly accelerating the trend toward that outcome. Some of the language e.g., the majority opinion's reference to a lack of "legitimate interest" to sustain DOMA will likely mark a starting point for future decisions, each of which will further erode the barriers to marriage equality.
The dissenting view in Proposition 8 is also important, as it does not argue against the substance of the issue. It is purely focused on state rights related to the procedural issue of standing. In terms of the substance of the marriage issue, that dissenting opinion describes the issue of marriage equality as "a realm of controversy where the legal community and society at large are still formulating ideas and approaches to a most difficult subject." In other words, even the dissenting opinion in that case does not reverse the ongoing legal and societal trend toward marriage equality. If anything, that language leaves the door open for a broader ruling at some point in the future, more likely than not making another contribution toward expanding equal protection to marriage.
Both rulings are small but important steps. They provide a foundation for additional progress.
Robert's pulled the mandate as a tax out of his ass at the last minute in order not to rule against the first black President. He did so after the court had met to hash out their positions and he did so after it was agreed the court would rule the other way - he caved to political expediency at the expense of the law and the American people.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?