DOMA and Prop 8 to be challenged in the US Supreme Court
19 replies, posted
[quote]WASHINGTON —The issue of same-sex marriage heads to the U.S. Supreme Court March 26 and 27.
The high court will hear a challenge to California’s ban on gay marriage and will also consider a federal law that defines marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman.
Supporters of gay marriage believe public momentum is on their side as they prepare for two legal showdowns at the Supreme Court.
"We’ve gone from zero states to now nine states plus the District of Columbia, our nation’s capital here in the U.S., and 14 countries on four continents where gay people can now share in the freedom to marry - all up from virtually zero a little more than a decade ago," said Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry.[/quote]
[URL="http://www.voanews.com/content/us-supreme-court-gay-marriage/1626842.html"]Voice of America[/URL]
Hope for the best folks.
As great as this sounds, it's fucking bullshit that it happens in the first place. God fucking damn it, this should be a freedom from the fucking beginning.
Anyone who disagrees with DOMA or supports the concept of Gays Rights should watch the proceedings here here with cautious optimism.
The court, although not beyond external pressure, is not beholden to popular opinion by any means. While there have been recent victories in this land in support of the Gay movement, it is only a little more than two decades ago that Anti-Sodomy laws were upheld as constitutional, only to be struck down recently.
It could be that the Court rules that so long as it is consistent and enforced and does not infringe upon an individual's right to marry, the Federal Government may define what marriage is. Only between a single man, and a single woman. This would be a damning penstroke in the history of Gay Rights and would effectively stall if not dismantle that forward movement all together.
Um, we already knew that DOMA was going to the supreme court for a few months now. They agreed to hear arguments back in December.
All that is happening this week is that oral arguments are happening on the 27th.
Break out the dickheads screaming some stupid shit about HNNGH PROTEKKIN OF MARRAGE
don't forget how shitty so many of the Justices at the SCOTUS are (Scalia)
scalia can eat a fucking dick, ironically.
I find the fact "doma" means "at home" in Czech, ironic.
Even Clinton himself started to regret his decision to sign it.
I am interested to know what argument they will use to declare it unconstitutional.
[QUOTE=The golden;40026945]Probably intrusion on religious freedom or some bullshit like that.[/QUOTE]
Er, I mean the proposition 8 and DOMA. Those are the ones on trial, who may be declared unconstitutional.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;40026862]I am interested to know what argument they will use to declare it unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]
The fact it's based on the religious view of marriage - it's in breach of the First Amendment.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;40026747]I find the fact "doma" means "at home" in Czech, ironic.[/QUOTE]
doma ≈ domestic
Anyone who thinks gays shouldnt be allowed to get married is a moron. but then again, theres a worrying amount of morons in positions of power.
It boils down to who has jurisdiction on the definition of marriage: state or federal? If the SCOTUS rules in favor, that means the federal government will be in charge of marriage, if against, the states remain in charge.
[QUOTE=Coppermoss;40028287]It boils down to who has jurisdiction on the definition of marriage: state or federal? If the SCOTUS rules in favor, that means the federal government will be in charge of marriage, if against, the states remain in charge.[/QUOTE]
If taking a purely constitutional view of things, the federal government should not have powers that can be executed by the state and were not promised to it by the constitution.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;40028435]If taking a purely constitutional view of things, the federal government should not have powers that can be executed by the state and were not promised to it by the constitution.[/QUOTE]
Too late for that one, though. With the exception of a small bit while O'Connor was on the Court, SCOTUS has basically destroyed the 10th amendment (it's a "truism") and states' powers with every federalist decision since 1941. (US v Darby Lumber Co. (1941), Nat. League of Cities v Usery (1976), Garcia v San Antonio Metro (1985)) This has only been broken by one single federalist case, NY v. US (1992) and is the only recent federalist decision by the Court, wherein they (mainly O'Connor and Scalia) state that the states have real power and that Congress cannot force- but merely coerce- states into abiding by federal laws. The federal government is still superior and this decision actually didn't change anything in real action. After this, there hasn't been a "states or federal?" case until potentially these ones, if they choose to focus on federalism. So basically, going with federalism is a tricky strategy that could see negative affects on both sides.
tl;dr SCOTUS is pretty solidly anti-federalism (aka anti-states-rights).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.