DOMA may be struck down. Supreme Court Justices inclined to declare law unconstitutional.
20 replies, posted
[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/27/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-idUSBRE92P04820130327]Rooters[/url]
[quote]Kennedy's states' rights concerns were echoed by two of the liberal members of the bench, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan. "What gives the federal government the right to be concerned at all about what the definition of marriage is?" Sotomayor said.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer also raised concerns about the law.
Ginsburg stressed how important federal recognition is to any person who is legally married.
"It affects every area of life," she said.
Comparing marriage status with types of milk, Ginsburg said that a gay marriage endorsed by a state, but not recognized by the federal government, creates two types of marriage, "full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage."
If the court rules on the states' rights issue, the justices could strike down the law without deciding the bigger question of whether DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.[/quote]
'='
Good riddance.
[sp]now give me ratings[/sp]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Asking for ratings / Spoiler misuse" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
Inclined? More like compelled. Even if you are against gay marriage, it still doesn't take a genius to know that this goes against constitutional rights.
[QUOTE=Coridan;40061198]Inclined? More like compelled. Even if you are against gay marriage, it still doesn't take a genius to know that this goes against constitutional rights.[/QUOTE]
how is it unconstitutional exactly? i'm for gay marriage but i haven't heard any compelling argument that marriage is a constitutional issue, just a human right's issue.
[QUOTE=FrankOfArabia;40061132]Good riddance.
[sp]now give me ratings[/sp][/QUOTE]
implying FP are antigay :v:
[editline]27th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40061274]how is it unconstitutional exactly? i'm for gay marriage but i haven't heard any compelling argument that marriage is a constitutional issue, just a human right's issue.[/QUOTE]
its everyones constitutional right to have land, [I] liberty[/I], and the [I]pursuit of happyness[/I] as long as it doesn't fuck everyone elses rights
The Constitution is literally an outline of what Human Rights are.
The Civil Liberties Act made it so voting laws are not so fucked up and gave the rest of the citizens the right to vote. The same can be argued here.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40061274]how is it unconstitutional exactly? i'm for gay marriage but i haven't heard any compelling argument that marriage is a constitutional issue, just a human right's issue.[/QUOTE]
because heterosexual marriage couples get special tax breaks and this is denied to certain people based on sexual orientation. it's a violation of the 14th amendment.
[QUOTE=J!NX;40061309]implying FP are antigay :v:
[/quote]
Actually I was saying that FP is so gay for gay that we're all gay.
[QUOTE=FrankOfArabia;40061477]Actually I was saying that FP is so gay for gay that we're all gay.[/QUOTE]
What?
From what I understood, the issue isn't whether or not gay marriage is good or evil, but rather that legalizing it on a state level is the wrong approach.
Or am I too thick to understand the problem?
[QUOTE=DrLuckyLuke;40061696]From what I understood, the issue isn't whether or not gay marriage is good or evil, but rather that legalizing it on a state level is the wrong approach.
Or am I too thick to understand the problem?[/QUOTE]
That's what it's come to
but that's also what shit like slavery and separate but equal came to
[QUOTE=J!NX;40061309]
its everyones constitutional right to have land, [I] liberty[/I], and the [I]pursuit of happyness[/I] as long as it doesn't fuck everyone elses rights[/QUOTE]
That's not in the constitution.
And it's life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property).
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];40062183']That's not in the constitution.
And it's life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property).[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness[/url]
fuck my memory
regardless, liberty, and, last I checked, America isn't a christian nation period
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;40061469]because heterosexual marriage couples get special tax breaks and this is denied to certain people based on sexual orientation. it's a violation of the 14th amendment.[/QUOTE]
The Court isn't seeing it as an issue of the 14th, and really, it isn't. The Court has stayed far fucking away from the Equal Protections Clause for a long time and every case that has been argued using it has either lost or been ruled using a different tactic if they could do so. For instance, Employment Division v. Smith, I think it was (I'm drawing a blank, but that case had more than a few issues so I think it was Smith), was turned down because of the argument was based around the Equal Protections Clause.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40061274]how is it unconstitutional exactly? i'm for gay marriage but i haven't heard any compelling argument that marriage is a constitutional issue, just a human right's issue.[/QUOTE]
mixture of the 14th amendment and the full faith and credit clause
for some reason, gay marriages are the only contracts not protected by either of them. it's not a human rights issue, that's just what the primary front is socially. legally it's a financial, contractual, and insurance-related issue.
[QUOTE=J!NX;40062241][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness[/url]
fuck my memory
regardless, liberty, and, last I checked, America isn't a christian nation period[/QUOTE]
And this isn't a religious issue. It's a federalist/states' rights issue.
I'd be prepared to say that it's a violation of the 14th amend., but the Court isn't. So this will be a decision based on if states can determine marriage for themselves. If the Court doesn't boot it, then the answer will probably be yes. Which means that states can and will ban gay marriage. On the other hand, they could say that it's not a federalist issue, and the national government can and will ban gay marriage. It's a lose-lose.
[editline]27th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Unisath;40062424]mixture of the 14th amendment and the full faith and credit clause
for some reason, gay marriages are the only contracts not protected by either of them. it's not a human rights issue, that's just what the primary front is socially. legally it's a financial, contractual, and insurance-related issue.[/QUOTE]
I don't see how this could work with full faith and credit, FF&C is specifically that states must recognize the legal status of laws in other states. All that states would have to do to recognize a state homosexual marriage- recognize that they were married in that state. They don't have to extend the same benefits or offer the same marriage opportunities within their own states, or even recognize it, so long as they recognize that they have a right to marry in another state.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;40061469]because heterosexual marriage couples get special tax breaks and this is denied to certain people based on sexual orientation. it's a violation of the 14th amendment.[/QUOTE]
then marriage itself is unconstitutional by the same measure.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;40061469]because heterosexual marriage couples get special tax breaks and this is denied to certain people based on sexual orientation. it's a violation of the 14th amendment.[/QUOTE]
it isn't even just about tax breaks, there's a lot of shit that strikes a lot harder than you think. You can be denied visitation rights to your partner in hospitals because you're not considered a direct family member, and unless you're explicity put into a will, if they suddenly die you don't have spousal priority over their assets, meaning you don't get any compensation, can't speak for them in court, don't have claim to their money (not sure if this counts for joint bank accounts), you could lose your house/car if it was under their name, and tons of other morbid, stomach dropping situations that would only kick you while you're down
this isn't about being able to stand at a chapel (though for many, the ceremony is still a huge thing), and this isn't just about saving a few dollars in taxes. the legal differences completely unrelated to religion are a HUGE issue regarding rights given to people, it's the difference between being seen legally as a family or just two acquantances who share some mild benefits, which can lead to awful situations for no real reason other than people you don't know are upset with the idea that you like a certain person to the point they will go out and be assholes about it
While I agree, this isn't the Court's focus.
They do seem to be taking these into account when they talk about how many federal laws are effected, but I don't see a good way out of this, honestly.
Either the federal gov't can ban gay marriage (DOMA) or the states can (Prop 8). It's one or the other. Gay marriage is getting screwed either way, just differently.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];40062644']While I agree, this isn't the Court's focus.
They do seem to be taking these into account when they talk about how many federal laws are effected, but I don't see a good way out of this, honestly.
Either the federal gov't can ban gay marriage (DOMA) or the states can (Prop 8). It's one or the other. Gay marriage is getting screwed either way, just differently.[/QUOTE]
i actually think that you can't screw gay marriage if you try. if the supreme court doesn't rule in favor of gay marriage it will only incite more activism and civil unrest regarding gay rights. this is too big of an issue now to ignore, and it will only grow until each state recognizes gay marriage.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40062687]i actually think that you can't screw gay marriage if you try. if the supreme court doesn't rule in favor of gay marriage it will only incite more activism and civil unrest regarding gay rights. this is too big of an issue now to ignore, and it will only grow until each state recognizes gay marriage.[/QUOTE]
It feels vaguely reminiscent of the civil rights movement of the late 50s and early 60s to me. Even some defeats were victories in the long term.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.