• 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


I'm not opposed to sanctioning gay marriage, if the government has to be involved - it's only fair - however, I don't see how this ruling leads to your conclusion. If the court ruled that the state's definition of marriage cannot be abrogated by the federal government, how is it that the court would later rule that a state's definition of marriage can be abrogated by another state's definition?
 

There is, but as the people over at SCOTUS blog who I dare say I beleive are FAR more intelligent, educated, and untouched by significant bias in this than the vast majority of those discussing this on this forum...there are significant indications out of these rulings that point in BOTH directions
 
disneydude said:
Well then...thats good. Gay marriage is legal in Ohio then.
Click to expand...


Which means the federal government can't redefine what the state has already defined. You are misinterpreting the decision.
 

Absolutely, I agree - but my original point was related to the practical. In my view, churches will move back and eliminate their involvement in the state sanctioned aspects of performing marriages to ensure that they are not forced to participate in marriages contrary to their faith's teachings. As a result, as a practical consequence, there will likely come a time when religious citizens will have to go through two ceremonies, one in their church and one civilly, in order to be "registered" in both - that is far less practical and far more inconvenient than the situation now.
 

But you have to agree that there are clearly at this time 5 votes for nation-wide gay marriage. That could change...but it is highly unlikely. Kennedy clearly indicated that there is no legitimate basis for a state to limit marriage to straights only. Who else in the 5 could be the swing vote?
 

She's suggesting that un-married straight couples have rights that un-married gay couples do not. Anyone with any sense knows that that isn't true. To believe it is, is victimization.
 
apdst said:
She's suggesting that un-married straight couples have rights that un-married gay couples do not. Anyone with any sense knows that that isn't true. To believe it is, is victimization.
Click to expand...

:roll: She asked if a couple married in a different state would fall under that states' provisions or their state of residence. I've been wondering the same thing (and may even have asked it myself).
 
Samhain said:
Which means the federal government can't redefine what the state has already defined. You are misinterpreting the decision.
Click to expand...

Not at all. The court said that the federal government must recognize what the states have defined....but Kennedy, who is widely recognized as the swing vote, clearly indicated that the 5th amendment requires equal protection and there is no legitimate state interest in restricting marriages to straights only, which certainly invites a challenge and indicates pretty clearly that the Court is likely to strike any restriction in the states to "straight only" marriages as unconstitutional. It remains for another day, but the writing is pretty clearly on the wall. Kennedy is cementing his place in history and he is the only hope for those who favor discrimination in the marriage arena.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
He did tell us actually, repeatedly.
Click to expand...
IMHO He did not tell us, explicitly; but for some reason He would rather whisper
into the ear of a priest who alone is able to tell us what He said.
 
Redress said:
What I read was awhile ago, and my memory at my advanced age is not perfect. I would like YS to clarify what she is asking a bit, and then, well, there are lots of details still needing answers.
Click to expand...

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.
 
cpwill said:
:roll: She asked if a couple married in a different state would fall under that states' provisions or their state of residence. I've been wondering the same thing (and may even have asked it myself).
Click to expand...

That's not what I got from her comments. If I misunderstood, then I'll acquiesce, but I'm just going on my own interpretation of the post.
 

My reply isn't "conservative" BS.

We wouldn't be having this conversation if gays weren't an extreme liberal group.
 

And if anything, the court is likely to get more liberal. If one conservative judge leaves a vacancy within the next 3 years, it will swing to 6-3.
 
Your Star said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't make that jump - what the ruling says, as I understand it, is that the state has the right to define marriage and the federal government has no authority to nullify or alter that definition. The ruling does not say that one state's definition must be accepted by all states or that all states must sanction gay marriage because one or any state does.
 

Hehe, well, last time I checked the federal government legislates from the congress, not the Supreme Court. Good luck trying to get 535 legislators to agree on that. Right now as it stands the federal government does not have a position on gay marriage, or any marriage - as in my opinion, this ruling makes any federal marriage law moot when applied to the states, and anyone not employed by the federal government.


Tim-
 
Your Star said:
And if anything, the court is likely to get more liberal. If one conservative judge leaves a vacancy within the next 3 years, it will swing to 6-3.
Click to expand...

Yes...this is why the last election was so important. I thank God every day that Obama was re-elected to ensure that our Supreme Court does not fall into the hands of the activist Roberts/Scalia/Alito/Thomas agenda.
 

You are correct. However, there is no need to have congressional legislation. There are 5 clear votes on the Supreme Court that there is no legitimate state interest in limiting marriage to "straights only". The days of marriage discrimination are numbered. States can try to continue to discriminate but there will be a ruling in the very near future striking down discrimination for once and all. The writing is clearly on the wall.
 

While his current notion is that, there's no indication how strongly he feels regarding that nor how he weighs his particular view on that in relation to the notion of the states rights to set its marriage laws. Leaning one way or another is one thing, but there's no "slam dunk" type of reading here where all signs point one way or another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…