• 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

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.

That remains to be seen. But the majority of the court recognized a 5th Amendment due process right for gays. This pretty much indicates that a state is not free to discriminate....although there was no definitive ruling on that.
 
It will be interesting if DOMA goes one direction and Prop 8 goes the other, and potentially watching both sides congratulating the court on a correct decision and questioning their legitimacy with another. Hard to get a good handle on any of the rulings with instance analysis since I've not followed either extremely closely. Will be interesting to read some more in depth analysis from both sides shortly

Oh. My. God. That would be so hilarious I sort of want it to happen.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

They declined prop 8. Gay marriage is legal again in California.

Thank God.....prop H8 was a horrible initiative funded in large part by the Mormons with the largest propoganda display in the history of the state that was full of lies and deceit. Its a great day for California.
 
How do you read it so? It looked (admittedly only skimming a sentence or two plus skimming scotusblog) fairly centered on the Federalism angle, which would rather seem to suggest an acceptance on the part of the Court of the States to do as they please.

They ruled based on equal protection. From my understanding that puts sexual orientation on the same level as gender, and race, as far rational basis goes.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

That remains to be seen. But the majority of the court recognized a 5th Amendment due process right for gays. This pretty much indicates that a state is not free to discriminate....although there was no definitive ruling on that.

The right to 5th amendment due process has always applied to everyone. Pop a champagne cork of you want, but gay marriage is still, as it should be, limited to those states that have, for whatever their reasons, decided to allow it in their state.
 
From what I understand, it hinges on the Federal Government's rights to determine rules for it's own processes. :shrug:

If a state passes a law allowing gay marriage, the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to invalidate that recognition. DOMA does that. Scalia will go out of his way to take a big government position on gay marriage because he has the ideological consistency of a grapefruit.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

The right to 5th amendment due process has always applied to everyone. Pop a champagne cork of you want, but gay marriage is still, as it should be, limited to those states that have, for whatever their reasons, decided to allow it in their state.

Wrong. The SCOTUS has never recognized an equal protection claim for gays. This essentially puts one nail in states attempts to restrict gay marriage. Its not dead yet....but it definitely is rapidly on its way.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Merging the two DOMA threads since they're both in their early going. Streamlines the conversation a bit
 
If a state passes a law allowing gay marriage, the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to invalidate that recognition. DOMA does that. Scalia will go out of his way to take a big government position on gay marriage because he has the ideological consistency of a grapefruit.

Yeah, oranges are much more ideologically consistent.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

LOL, more or less what I have been saying all along---no big national rulings on gay marriage. It is a state issue--the same as it has always been.
 
If a state passes a law allowing gay marriage, the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to invalidate that recognition. DOMA does that. Scalia will go out of his way to take a big government position on gay marriage because he has the ideological consistency of a grapefruit.

From skimming the decision, that does not appear to be the heart of the ruling. What persuaded Kennedy(who was the swing vote) was the Equal Protection argument, coupled with states rights.

Justice Kennedy said:
The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity

Supreme Court strikes down federal marriage law in win for gay rights | Reuters
 
They ruled based on equal protection. From my understanding that puts sexual orientation on the same level as gender, and race, as far rational basis goes.

Not necessarily. For example...Gender and Race themselves aren't on the same level in terms of the Equal Protection Clause.
 
From skimming the decision, that does not appear to be the heart of the ruling. What persuaded Kennedy(who was the swing vote) was the Equal Protection argument, coupled with states rights.

That actually fits with what I was saying. Equal protection and State's rights are undermined by DOMA.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

Wrong. The SCOTUS has never recognized an equal protection claim for gays. This essentially puts one nail in states attempts to restrict gay marriage. Its not dead yet....but it definitely is rapidly on its way.

Homosexuals always had the same equal protections anyone else had.
 
Oh, and confirmed, Prop 8 ruling was lack of standing, allowing SSM in California but not effecting other states.

The outcome from all this seems to be that all SSM marriages will be recognized by the federal government and states that do not ban such recognition. California will be a SSM state. Further court cases will be needed to determine whether states can not recognize SSM from other states, and whether states can ban people from SSM in that state.

Big victory for us in favor of SSM, but not a complete victory.
 
That actually fits with what I was saying. Equal protection and State's rights are undermined by DOMA.

If I misunderstood, I am sorry. Been home from 2 days gone about 20 minutes, and trying to get unpacked, laundry going, and read as much as I can on this news, plus some dancing and celebrating the rulings today.
 
So is anyone divorced now because their marriage means nothing?

Anyone?

Anyone.....
 
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf

If I read it right, Hollingsworth v Perry, lack of standing was the ruling. Just got home, so trying to catch up, but that is what it looks like I think. Ruling is linked above.

From what I've been reading, it appears that the ruling on Prop 8 (the choice to dismiss) will have the effect of legalizing gay marriage in California, but will have no effect on other gay marriage bans in the country.
 
Not necessarily. For example...Gender and Race themselves aren't on the same level in terms of the Equal Protection Clause.

But if someone from the states that has a ban on SSM sues their states(which I'm assuming is already being planned :lol:), or if someone is married in one state that allows, and moves to one that bans, and sues, it bodes well for a broad ruling that will make SSM the law of the land.
 
Re: DOMA unconstitutional. 5-4 decision.

Federal government has to recognize the state's recognition of what marriage is, but doesn't remit the state's ability to decide what a marriage is. What a fine line that will be.
 
If I misunderstood, I am sorry. Been home from 2 days gone about 20 minutes, and trying to get unpacked, laundry going, and read as much as I can on this news, plus some dancing and celebrating the rulings today.

No worries. I'm just talking **** about Scalia cause his inconsistency pisses me off :lol:
 
From skimming the decision, that does not appear to be the heart of the ruling. What persuaded Kennedy(who was the swing vote) was the Equal Protection argument, coupled with states rights.

You're right... this quote does sum it up:

The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity

IF THE STATE decides to expand their marriage laws to include homosexuals, then the Federal government may not undermine or negate their decision.
 
Back
Top Bottom