disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
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.
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
They declined prop 8. Gay marriage is legal again in 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.
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.
From what I understand, it hinges on the Federal Government's rights to determine rules for it's own processes. :shrug:
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.
Moderator's Warning: |
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
That actually fits with what I was saying. Equal protection and State's rights are undermined by DOMA.
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.
Not necessarily. For example...Gender and Race themselves aren't on the same level in terms of the Equal Protection Clause.
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.
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.
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.
So is anyone divorced now because their marriage means nothing?
Anyone?
Anyone.....
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?