Defense of Marriage Act goes to the Supreme Court - Polidicks

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/us/an-unexpected-alliance-in-a-same-sex-marriage-case.html[/url] [quote=The New York Times]The day after the Supreme Court announced its decision upholding President Obama’s health care law, the next constitutional blockbuster arrived at the court. It is a rematch between the main lawyers in the health care case, and it replays some of the same themes. But now the issue is same-sex marriage. The question, again, is whether a federal law — this time the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA — passes constitutional muster. The law says the federal government must deny benefits to gay couples who are married in states that allow such unions. The law excludes same-sex spouses from benefits like Social Security payments, health insurance and burial services. “Until DOMA is repealed or invalidated,” explained Walter Dellinger, who was acting United States solicitor general in the Clinton administration, “no gay couple is fully married.” (It is worth pausing to point out what the new case is not about. It does not concern the law’s other main part, the one that says states need not recognize same-sex marriages from other states. It is also not about the more ambitious arguments made in a suit filed in California by Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, which seeks to establish a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.) The federal appeals court in Boston on May 31 struck down the part of the marriage law that concerns federal benefits, saying there was no good reason to treat some married couples differently from others. On June 29, Paul D. Clement, who had learned the day before that he had largely lost the health care case, was back at the Supreme Court. He asked the justices to hear an appeal from the Boston decision and uphold the marriage law. Four days later, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who had successfully defended the health care law, agreed that the new case warranted review. But he said the justices should strike down the marriage law. The appeals court ruling in Boston was largely based on equal protection principles. But there was a dash of federalism in it, too, one reminiscent of arguments in the health care case. Marriages have traditionally been governed by state law, Judge Michael Boudin wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel of the appeals court, raising federalism concerns that warranted a close look at whether the marriage law was justified. The trial judge, Joseph L. Tauro, had gone further, saying the marriage law overstepped Congress’s power to attach conditions to federal grants to states. For instance, Judge Tauro wrote, the Department of Veterans Affairs had threatened to take back some $19 million from Massachusetts if it allowed the burial of a veteran’s same-sex spouse in a cemetery that had been built and maintained with federal money. Most people did not take that part of Judge Tauro’s opinion very seriously, and the appeals court rejected it. But that was a month before the Supreme Court limited the health care law’s Medicaid expansion along similar lines. The important point about federalism, said Mr. Dellinger, the former Clinton administration lawyer, is that two interests that are sometimes at odds in cases about same-sex marriage line up here. “Gay rights and states’ rights are on the same side of the case,” he said. Mr. Verrilli, for his part, finds himself in an awkward position. It is ordinarily the job of the executive branch to defend laws enacted by Congress, and the Justice Department did defend the marriage law early in the Obama administration. Last year, though, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced an about-face, saying he and President Obama had concluded that the law was unconstitutional. The administration would continue to enforce the law, Mr. Holder said, but would no longer defend it in court. After the administration’s move, House Republicans intervened in the case to defend the law. They turned to Mr. Clement, who sometimes seems to be handling every important case on the Supreme Court docket. In his Supreme Court petition, Mr. Clement wrote that the justices should hear the case because legislators were not equipped to litigate. “The House has been forced into the position of defending numerous lawsuits challenging DOMA across the nation,” he said. “That is a role for which the Justice Department — not the House — is institutionally designed.” The seven same-sex couples and three surviving spouses actually challenging the law have yet to be heard from, and they will presumably urge the Supreme Court to deny review. But there is every reason to think the court will agree to hear the case, or a similar one from California, shortly after the justices return from their summer break, with arguments around January and a decision by June. Both sides will be looking for support in the principles that animated the health care decision. In his petition, Mr. Clement quoted an observation from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., one of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s touchstones, that “judging the constitutionality of an act of Congress is the gravest and most delicate duty that this court is called on to perform.” Mr. Verrilli went his adversary one better, actually citing the five-day-old health care decision, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, in what was probably its first appearance in a Supreme Court brief. In the health care case, Mr. Verrilli reminded the justices, they appointed lawyers to argue positions that neither party had embraced. In the marriage case, where both the plaintiffs and the Justice Department now agree that the law is unconstitutional, Mr. Verrilli said, it would similarly be sensible to allow Mr. Clement to have his say.[/quote] They are going to examine the constitutionality of Section 3, which added this provision to the United States Code: [quote=United States Code, Title 1, Chapter 1][B]Section 7. Definition of "marriage" and "spouse"[/B] In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.[/quote] If it's struck down, married gay couples will get all the tax benefits and shit afforded to straight couples. In fact the federal government will make no distinction between straight and gay marriages Section 2 (the only other section in the law) is not up for review. It says that no state shall be required to recognise gay marriages performed in another state. [url=http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/DOMA-House-GOP-petition-6-29-121.pdf]Here's the actual court filing shit[/url] if anyone wants to read it.

So I guess the verdict will come in 6 months to a year?

Finally. At least three smaller courts already ruled it out. [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] additionally, sometime soon prop 8 is likely to be appealed to the supreme court

If Gay Marriage gets Federally legalized, the path the states are on to legalizing it will be on the fast track. It is unfortunate though, that the court can't simply say "Homosexuals are human, therefore they are entitled to the basic human rights that everyone else receives."

I still don't get the logic behind religious fanatics opposing gay marriage. God is supposed to be the only one able to judge men, by that logic we should make it legal and let "them" face God's judgement, right? Not trying to start anything here, just wondering.

[quote] The last four courts to consider the question have all found Section 3 of DOMA—which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex couples’ valid marriages—to be unconstitutional.[/quote] [url]http://lambdalegal.org/blog/doj-asks-scotus-to-hear-doma-challenge[/url]

[QUOTE=-Get_A_Life-;36756429]I still don't get the logic behind religious fanatics opposing gay marriage. God is supposed to be the only one able to judge men, by that logic we should make it legal and let "them" face God's judgement, right? Not trying to start anything here, just wondering.[/QUOTE] Cause they're fanatics, they abandon logic, they want the kingdom of God on Earth and to do that they'll try and bend the world to their twisted views. And it's too late man, the mention of any religion stands a good chance at summoning a shit storm :smith:

[QUOTE=-Get_A_Life-;36756429]I still don't get the logic behind religious fanatics opposing gay marriage. God is supposed to be the only one able to judge men, by that logic we should make it legal and let "them" face God's judgement, right? Not trying to start anything here, just wondering.[/QUOTE] Well, these professional moralizers consider themselves extensions of God's judgement, so...

[QUOTE=-Get_A_Life-;36756429]I still don't get the logic behind religious fanatics opposing gay marriage. God is supposed to be the only one able to judge men, by that logic we should make it legal and let "them" face God's judgement, right? Not trying to start anything here, just wondering.[/QUOTE] IF they thought about things like this, they wouldn't have those opinions. Reminds me of a quote (I think it was Dawkins?) "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people."

[QUOTE=-Get_A_Life-;36756429]I still don't get the logic behind religious fanatics opposing gay marriage. God is supposed to be the only one able to judge men, by that logic we should make it legal and let "them" face God's judgement, right? Not trying to start anything here, just wondering.[/QUOTE] Because the bible states multiple times that a man fuckin' a man is to be put to death, his blood on his own hands.

I don't know why you guys think religious people hate gays because they are religious they hate gays because they are thoroughly disgusted by them and don't want them gaining any power such as this in society, plenty of nonreligious people still hate gays.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;36757384]I don't know why you guys think religious people hate gays because they are religious they hate gays because they are thoroughly disgusted by them and don't want them gaining any power such as this in society, plenty of nonreligious people still hate gays.[/QUOTE] Yeah but the point is that religious fanatics hate them because of what their scripture says, or that they use scripture to justify their prejudices.

[QUOTE=-Get_A_Life-;36756429]I still don't get the logic behind religious fanatics opposing gay marriage. God is supposed to be the only one able to judge men, by that logic we should make it legal and let "them" face God's judgement, right? Not trying to start anything here, just wondering.[/QUOTE] Hell, the Bible even protest this kind of thing. It's considered oppressive and cruel even in their sense, and while being gay is a "sin" according to the Bible, being discriminatory towards homosexuals (or anyone, for that matter) is a far worse sin. So yeah, people are just stupid. They don't even get their source material right!

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;36757384]I don't know why you guys think religious people hate gays because they are religious they hate gays because they are thoroughly disgusted by them and don't want them gaining any power such as this in society, plenty of nonreligious people still hate gays.[/QUOTE] never heard of a nonreligious person who hates gays, not personally or in the media. the hate for homosexuals seems to come solely from the religious perspective. any examples? im asking for examples not stating they dont exist

It's funny how states don't want the feds to have the power to force the states to recognize marriages allowed in other states. But they DO want the feds to have the power to tell all states what 'marriage' is legally.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;36756318]So I guess the verdict will come in 6 months to a year?[/QUOTE] Roundabouts that, yeah. Also the Supreme Court is going to have a historical field day with the proposition of Civil Unions, aka Separate But Equal. You guys know that excitement watching the last battle in Battlestar Galactica, where everything is hitting the fan and ramming speed and FTL Jumps inside of the gods damn ship? this is probably going to be the legal equivalent of that. [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;36757253]Because the bible states multiple times that a man fuckin' a man is to be put to death, his blood on his own hands.[/QUOTE] the bible also says people who touch the skin of swine, cut their hair or have tattoos should be put to death in the same book the bible says a lot of things, most of which christians don't give two fucks about.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;36758065]never heard of a nonreligious person who hates gays, not personally or in the media. the hate for homosexuals seems to come solely from the religious perspective. any examples?[/QUOTE] there are a decent number of people who don't want gays getting married for the reasoning that basically boils down to "it's icky and makes me uncomfortable."

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;36758027]Hell, the Bible even protest this kind of thing. It's considered oppressive and cruel even in their sense, and while being gay is a "sin" according to the Bible, being discriminatory towards homosexuals (or anyone, for that matter) is a far worse sin. So yeah, people are just stupid. They don't even get their source material right![/QUOTE] They pick and choose. Have been for ages.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;36758065]never heard of a nonreligious person who hates gays, not personally or in the media. the hate for homosexuals seems to come solely from the religious perspective. any examples?[/QUOTE] This woman [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2SqviP1d04#t=3m22s[/url]

omg i cant believe people are still debating this >__> honestly its a waste of time. the answer is clear, just legalize it, and if u dissagree stop thinking about it! We're trying to be an equal community here. I dont care how "icky" you think it is, at one point in time, we thought that interracial couples were icky. But we still got through that and its normal now. THE SAME THING WILL HAPPEN WITH THIS EVENTUALLY. keep religion out of polotics people. >_>

[QUOTE=ambykun;36758641]omg i cant believe people are still debating this >__> honestly its a waste of time. the answer is clear, just legalize it, and if u dissagree stop thinking about it! We're trying to be an equal community here. I dont care how "icky" you think it is, at one point in time, we thought that interracial couples were icky. But we still got through that and its normal now. THE SAME THING WILL HAPPEN WITH THIS EVENTUALLY. keep religion out of polotics people. >_>[/QUOTE] Welcome to facepunch, please leave your dumb anime smileys at the door.

[QUOTE=ambykun;36758641]omg i cant believe people are still debating this >__> honestly its a waste of time. the answer is clear, just legalize it, and if u dissagree stop thinking about it! We're trying to be an equal community here. I dont care how "icky" you think it is, at one point in time, we thought that interracial couples were icky. But we still got through that and its normal now. THE SAME THING WILL HAPPEN WITH THIS EVENTUALLY. keep religion out of polotics people. >_>[/QUOTE] fucking cheap shit poloticians

[QUOTE=ambykun;36758641]omg i cant believe people are still debating this >__> honestly its a waste of time. the answer is clear, just legalize it, and if u dissagree stop thinking about it! We're trying to be an equal community here. I dont care how "icky" you think it is, at one point in time, we thought that interracial couples were icky. But we still got through that and its normal now. THE SAME THING WILL HAPPEN WITH THIS EVENTUALLY. keep religion out of polotics people. >_>[/QUOTE] Go away

[QUOTE=ambykun;36758641]omg i cant believe people are still debating this >__> honestly its a waste of time. the answer is clear, just legalize it, and if u dissagree stop thinking about it! We're trying to be an equal community here. I dont care how "icky" you think it is, at one point in time, we thought that interracial couples were icky. But we still got through that and its normal now. THE SAME THING WILL HAPPEN WITH THIS EVENTUALLY. keep religion out of polotics people. >_>[/QUOTE] don't listen to them i think you are very articulate

Here's hoping it's shot down.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;36758065]never heard of a nonreligious person who hates gays, not personally or in the media. the hate for homosexuals seems to come solely from the religious perspective. any examples?[/QUOTE] People throughout Eastern Europe to this day, secular countries in Western Europe throughout the 20th century. I mean Nazi Germany was fairly secular and their stance on gays was pretty clear. I can think of a lot of reasons to hate the religious but this is a pretty weak one.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;36759344]People throughout Eastern Europe to this day, secular countries in Western Europe throughout the 20th century. I mean Nazi Germany was fairly secular and their stance on gays was pretty clear. I can think of a lot of reasons to hate the religious but this is a pretty weak one.[/QUOTE] i havent said anything against the religious in this thread and my post wasnt meant to imply that. i was genuinely asking for examples, so i appreciate the replies everyone.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;36759344]I mean Nazi Germany was fairly secular[/QUOTE] that couldn't be further from the truth

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;36759344]I mean Nazi Germany was fairly secular[/QUOTE] Not in the slightest. Hitler was Roman Catholic. The Third Reich was endorsed by the Vatican. They were extremely Catholic. Whoever told you Nazi Germany was secular lied to you.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;36759827]i havent said anything against the religious in this thread and my post wasnt meant to imply that.[/QUOTE] Yeah I know, I did though. [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;36759997]Not in the slightest. Hitler was Roman Catholic. The Third Reich was endorsed by the Vatican. They were extremely Catholic. Whoever told you Nazi Germany was secular lied to you.[/QUOTE] Ok you can literally replace it with any other western nation the only difference is they didn't gas gays they just didn't like them whatever. Eastern Europe is the strongest example because even non-religious people were bigoted.