DOMA and Prop 8 of California struck down!

The Supreme Court of the United States has declared the Defense of Marraige Act, which openly discriminated against LGBT people and denied them marriage unconstitutional. Also, they said that the proponents of Proposition 8 to the constitution of California which banned same sex marriage had no right to represent it, effectively striking the law down. This is a great advancement in civil rights in the United States and I am ecstatic.

:muffin: :muffin: :muffin: :muffin: :muffin: :muffin:
 
Don't jump for joy quite yet. Only one section of DOMA was struck down, and Prop 8 can still be re-heard and upheld if any complainant with standing decides to demand a re-hearing or someone decides to simply demand a rehearing.

What the two SCOTUS decisions actually did was to re-affirm States Rights in determining issues legally or within their state constitutions. That means, since the US Federal Government has no ability to define marriage at all because the Constitution does not delegate that authority to the Federal Government (See 9th and 10th Amendments). It also means that without a US Constitutional Amendment, the Federal Government cannot compel by a law a specific definition of marriage on the states. Had the original drafters of DOMA understood this point, DOMA would never have been written because it would have been fairly obvious that it could be struck down for any number of constitutional reason should it be challenged.

That said, under this decision, a same-sex couple who moves to a state where marriage is clearly defined by State Constitution or State Law would immediately have no claim to federal benefits (which is the only thing covered by this decision). "Full Faith in Credit" theory doesn't apply here because if it did, anyone who was a citizen of a state that permitted the carrying of a sidearm without any licensing or permits would be able to carry a handgun in any state regardless of that other state's law.

The decision is actually a victory in the field of striking down federal over-reach in terms of federal law designed to over-step the federal Constitution or impose upon the States and the People, respectively.

What no one has noticed is that by saying the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to define marriage as a state which only exists between two people of the opposite sex, it effectively nullifies any and all Federal Laws that prohibit polygamy, polyandry or polyamorous arrangements as having the legal weight of 'marriage'.

So, essentially, one person can marry as many people as they possibly might desire and that is not prohibited under federal law, but only if a state permits it. Incestuous marriages cannot even be prohibited by federal law given this court decision. Crap, you could marry a tree or a John Deere tractor if a given state permits it.

Either way one looks at it, the decision results in the federal government being stripped of powers that by all constitutional means belong to the States and the People, respectively. It also says that the federal government can be easily stripped of powers that it stole from the States and simply 'assumed' without any constitutional basis simply because no one challenged it. As a constitutional "Strict Constuctionist" and advocate of "States Rights" of the most conservative bent, I applaud the SCOTUS decision in this matter.
 
Funkadelia:
The Supreme Court of the United States has declared the Defense of Marraige Act, which openly discriminated against LGBT people and denied them marriage unconstitutional. Also, they said that the proponents of Proposition 8 to the constitution of California which banned same sex marriage had no right to represent it, effectively striking the law down. This is a great advancement in civil rights in the United States and I am ecstatic.

:muffin: :muffin: :muffin: :muffin: :muffin: :muffin:
I am ecstatic too! This means same-sex couples can marry again in California (my home state) :clap:

:cheese: :cheese: :cheese: :cheese: :cheese:
 
Romanoffia, the point is that now federal marriage benefits can now be applied to legal gay marriages, from what I understand. Living in Massachusetts, I believe I could get married with the same federal and state marriage benefits as a straight couple.
 
State? Yes. Federal? Aw hell naw. This is just like the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, in many respects. Yes, repealing DADT meant that gays could serve openly in the military, but it in no way entitled the partner of that member to receive the federal military benefits all spouses get, even if the couple are legally married. Additionally, the serving military member also doesn't receive their associated benefits for being married (such as separation pay and a shit ton of other monetary benefits). In the eyes of the military, and thus the federal government, that member is effectively single. Oh, and this somehow includes the National Guards of States that allow gay marriage. Don't ask how that works, no one wants to touch that and would rather you shut up and stop asking about it.

While we're on the subject of gays in the military, did you know sodomy is a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice? Food for thought.
 
Blue Wolf II:
State? Yes. Federal? Aw hell naw. This is just like the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, in many respects. Yes, repealing DADT meant that gays could serve openly in the military, but it in no way entitled the partner of that member to receive the federal military benefits all spouses get, even if the couple are legally married. Additionally, the serving military member also doesn't receive their associated benefits for being married (such as separation pay and a shit ton of other monetary benefits). In the eyes of the military, and thus the federal government, that member is effectively single. Oh, and this somehow includes the National Guards of States that allow gay marriage. Don't ask how that works, no one wants to touch that and would rather you shut up and stop asking about it.

While we're on the subject of gays in the military, did you know sodomy is a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice? Food for thought.
I sense you're indignant, BW. >|P ::Cackles:: ::Raises right hand:: Let the hate flow through you.
 
Even though none of this effects me directly, I'm annoyed that this sort of stupidity has been allowed go on for so long and to be honest, I can only see it continuing (see Roman's post), despite the SCOTUS ruling. It's blind bigotry and nothing more.
 
I agree with the Supreme Court's rulings on gay marriage, but how will gay marriage get legalized in the 38 states where it is not legal? Rednecks and religious nutbars in places like the deep South and Utah will never legalize it on their own until the Supreme Court strikes down all anti gay marriage laws like they did with sodomy laws in the Lawrence vs Texas ruling around 2003.
 
schweizweld:
I agree with the Supreme Court's rulings on gay marriage, but how will gay marriage get legalized in the 38 states where it is not legal? Rednecks and religious nutbars in places like the deep South and Utah will never legalize it on their own until the Supreme Court strikes down all anti gay marriage laws like they did with sodomy laws in the Lawrence vs Texas ruling around 2003.
Well I know and I feel bad for them and I hope they can fight the good fight but I think many places in the West Coast and midwest will be soon adopting gay marriage laws. It's quite popular in moderate to liberal areas.
 
Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia is a real extremist just like Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann, someone like him doesn't belong on the court, he's 77 so let's hope he'll retire in the not too distant future. In Canada, Supreme Court judges must retire at 75. I think the U.S. should have a retirement age for judges too.
 
Ash:
Blue Wolf II:
State? Yes. Federal? Aw hell naw. This is just like the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, in many respects. Yes, repealing DADT meant that gays could serve openly in the military, but it in no way entitled the partner of that member to receive the federal military benefits all spouses get, even if the couple are legally married. Additionally, the serving military member also doesn't receive their associated benefits for being married (such as separation pay and a shit ton of other monetary benefits). In the eyes of the military, and thus the federal government, that member is effectively single. Oh, and this somehow includes the National Guards of States that allow gay marriage. Don't ask how that works, no one wants to touch that and would rather you shut up and stop asking about it.

While we're on the subject of gays in the military, did you know sodomy is a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice? Food for thought.
I sense you're indignant, BW. >|P ::Cackles:: ::Raises right hand:: Let the hate flow through you.

You missed BW's point, in fact I think you entirely misinterpreted it. The point is that this SCOTUS decision will lead to a veritable constitutional and legal clusterfuck with all the bells and whistles.

How far does this decision go and what are the unintended consequences? Can religious houses of worship be forced by law to be required to officiate same-sex marriages in spite of their religious doctrine? Can religious tracts like the Bible be censored as "Hate Crimes" because the Bible considers homosexuality a sin? Can the government dictate to religious groups or private groups their particular beliefs? This type of stuff is already going on and a lot more in the works.

Then there's the issue of the SCOTUS disenfranchising an electoral majority in a state (California) on a legalistic technicality that over-rides the constitutional right of the people to amend their state constitutions as they see fit. Since the US Federal government cannot make a legal determination on the definition of 'marriage' constitutionally, how can they deny that reserved right (10th Amendment) to the states? Remember, we have the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution detailing enumerated and reserved rights.

If the US federal government wants to extend marriage benefits, etc., to same sex couples, more power to them. It is well under the purvey of enumerated and reserved rights under the US Constitution. What the US Government cannot do is force individual states to permit same sex marriages.

What we have here is a severe misunderstanding of the very definition of "Rights". All rights exist prior to government. The Government cannot give you any rights because you already have those rights regardless of whether or not the government 'grants' you rights. Government cannot give you anything which it has not already taken from you.

Also, in California, you have a situation where the Governor and AG is required under their State Constitution to uphold and defend the law, which in the case of Prop 8 they did not do and that puts them in total violation of their state Constitution and therefore abdicating government. And the SCOTUS upon further examination on this matter has legislated from the bench and somehow given the Executive Branch of the government the authority to totally ignore their constitutional duty that requires them to uphold the law under their state's Constitution. This is not a power delegated to government and is therefore a scotched decision that is meaningless in the long run.



schweizweld:
I agree with the Supreme Court's rulings on gay marriage, but how will gay marriage get legalized in the 38 states where it is not legal? Rednecks and religious nutbars in places like the deep South and Utah will never legalize it on their own until the Supreme Court strikes down all anti gay marriage laws like they did with sodomy laws in the Lawrence vs Texas ruling around 2003.

The SCOTUS cannot strike down state laws concerning state legal and constitutional definitions of marriage as the US Constitution does in no way permit the federal government to define marriage except in some very narrow areas as it pertains to the federal government itself. Again, the principle of "Full Faith and Credit" principle doesn't apply here for the following reason which I stated before:

I have in my state a license and permit to carry a concealed firearm. Under full faith and credit, should not my permit to do so in my state allow me to carry a concealed firearm in another state that prohibits such behavior? What if someone comes in from East Bumfuckistan where it is legal to have a million wives? Should every state be required to recognize polygamy despite their state constitutions and legal codes because the US Constitution is silent on the issue?

This SCOTUS decision is going to be a lesson in unintended consequence like never seen before. I do have to applaud the decision because it reaffirms States Rights under all situations where the federal government is powerless to do anything which is is not specifically granted in detail under the Constitution. I applaud the decision because it now affirms a state's right to secede from the Union because the US Constitution in its specific articles has no granted privilege to prevent. It also allows people the right to move to a state in which the laws accommodate their style of living if they don't liek the laws in the state in which they live.



schweizweld:
Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia is a real extremist just like Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann, someone like him doesn't belong on the court, he's 77 so let's hope he'll retire in the not too distant future. In Canada, Supreme Court judges must retire at 75. I think the U.S. should have a retirement age for judges too.

I know a few Liberal justices that would be removed under the Canadian rules too. But I agree, not on a maximum age limit of judges but on length of terms. I believe that appointing judges for life is just asking for trouble because it allows a given President to commit mischief long beyond his term of office.

I know, the idea of life time appointments for SCOTUS justices is designed to remove them from political interests but it in no way removes them from being the tools of political interests, if you catch my drift.

Here's an interesting take on this in keeping with Common Law theory:

Since Marriage is a civil issue and governed by law, one doesn't have the right to marry anyone. Marriage is a civil function, it is not a right. If it was a right, you could simply declare yourself married to anyone you like and the government would have to automatically recognize that marriage. But there are laws pertaining to marriage regulating it is as a social interest. Marriage is a statutory construct. If you lived on a desert island, not government, marriage would not exist. It would happen, but legally it would not exist because there were no laws. And remember, government can be defined as any state in which one person exerts their will over another.

Even back in the reformation, one big dispute in the Catholic/Protestant conflict was whether or not marriage was a 'sacrament'. The Papacy said yes; protestant and reformation forces said no: it was a civil matter independent of the church. And we had wars over it. Can you say King Henry VIII?

But going back to what BW said, we have a situation where a certain legal status is permitted yet the associated activities to such a status are illegal, it leads to a legal clusterfuck with a bunch of unintended consequences detrimental to the very people now celebrating the SCOTUS decision.

I think the next case that should be brought before the SCOTUS is Polygamy, Incestuous Marriages, and marrying inanimate objects. You know, just because I like anarchy!


But here's the crux of the issue:


If marriage of any kind or description offered no government goodies or benefits like tax deductions, etc., would same-sex marriage even be an issue?

Using the same logic as the SCOTUS in this recent decision:

Let's abolish all special benefits to all married couples of any configuration because it is unfair and unconstitutional to give special benefits to one class of people (married) and not give it to another class of people (Unmarried) because that would constitutionally be discrimination and preferential treatment because of social status!


Old cowboy saying: "I would marry my horse but I cannot afford the bridal". :P
 
Roman, I was trying to lighten up the seriousness. People are obviously very passionate about this issue, on all sides. Your legal arguments are valid, but the U.S. legal system is and always has been a clusterfuck. That's not something to be scared of, it just takes a long time to iron out the wrinkles. And of course marriage would still be an issue for same-sex couples if benefits weren't part of the equation. Marriage encompasses much more than just a piece of paper issued by the government that entitles you to a tax break. Same-sex couples want to get married because they love each other.

"The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice."
 
The Boy Scouts reversed their ban on openly gay members. What is the status of gay teachers and adoption rights for gays? I remember in the 1980s, teachers had to remain quiet about their sexuality or they could be fired. It's a shame that the recent rulings were 5-4 and not unanimous like Brown vs Board of Education in 1954 or Loving vs Virginia in 1967. Nowadays it seems that the judges vote along party lines instead of voting for what is morally right.
 
See? This is why we need a serious third party in America. In a country based around competition, the main two parties sure do everything in their power to prevent it.
 
Blue Wolf II:
See? This is why we need a serious third party in America. In a country based around competition, the main two parties sure do everything in their power to prevent it.
Hell, yeah!

Her in North Carolina, as far as State Elections go, you are only permitted three political party designations on the ballot:


Republican (Republocrats)

Democrat (Demicans)

Independent (Everyone who isn't a Democrat or Republican regardless of political philosophy).



This is just a carry-over from the Reconstruction Era designed to prevent any competition from anyone but the usual suspects.

For instance, a good friend of mine, Heath Schuler, wanted to run against Charles Taylor for the Republican congressional candidate in the primaries. The Republican Party said, "sure you can run, but you won't get any party funds to run against Taylor". So, Shuler ran as Democrat and won the election for our congressional district handily (because 90% of the Republicans crossed lines to vote for Shuler, and the Democrats voted for him just because he was a Democrat).

Then when the Democrats found out that Shuler wasn't going to play the 'Good Ol' Boy' game and vote the way the Democrat Party biggies wanted him to vote, the Democrat Party harassed him mercilessly. And, out of fairness, the Republicans would have done the same thing to him if he didn't play the same game. As a result, Shuler served one term and didn't go for reelection in the last election. He also sent out a scathing letter to most of his constituents essentially totally deriding the whole two party system as corrupt because it forces everyone to toe their party's line or be forced out.

While the idea of a myriad of political parties and 'coalitions' that force disparate parties to collude is just as bad, I do think that we need to develop a viable third and even fourth party in the US. The two party system tends to stifle competition in the market place of ideas.

Frankly, I would like to see a 'Strict Constructionist/Constitutionalist' Party to run a platform that forces the Federal Government back into its constitutional cage and restores constitutional rule.

I'd also like to see specific terms for SCOTUS judges (and all federal judges) because having people serve as a judge for life (or as long as they want) has shown itself to be a recipe for judicial bullshit and legislation from the bench in violation of the separation of powers clauses of the Constitution.

But the problem is that "We The People" has turned into "We the Sheeple" especially once people figure out they can vote themselves more and more 'Government Cheese' and that politicians are willing to steal from one class of people and give it to another class of people with the primary and only goal in getting re-elected and affording themselves more votes from people dependent upon the government teat.
 
Back
Top