Federal Judge Rules Portion of DOMA (gay marriage ban statute) Unconstitutional

[AsburySkinsFan]

All 40 year olds know it refer to twa last post

And as a result many of them decide to make it less and less true.

---------- Post added March-27th-2013 at 08:18 AM ----------

Pay no mind to twa and MH's snark.

Good for your boy, not reversing himself. It would be refreshing if more adults understood that there can be a division between the rules you follow that govern yourself and the rules that you seek to impose on others.

Exactly, it's like someone who took the Nazarite vows then imposing those commitments upon others.

[twa]

Pay no mind to twa and MH's snark.

Good for your boy, not reversing himself. It would be refreshing if more adults understood (and practiced) that there can be a division between the rules you follow that govern yourself and the rules that you seek to impose on others.

not snark, it is reality

I'm all for making less rules/laws....carving out a limited exception is simply adding more

[The 12th Commandment]

not snark, it is reality

I'm all for making less rules/laws....carving out a limited exception is simply adding more

They've been carved out as an exception and maybe we'll get rid of that bit of archaic lack of freedom.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Not only do I support gay marriage, I support gay divorce.

[twa]

They've been carved out as an exception and maybe we'll get rid of that bit of archaic lack of freedom.

maybe so, but restrictions will remain regardless....it is what we do

[AsburySkinsFan]

maybe so, but restrictions will remain regardless....it is what we do

So why not do more of it....is this what you're saying?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

What an absolute cop out that would be, if you're on the court you vote that's why you're there.

That said SCOTUS is hearing both Prop 8 and DOMA, are they going to be combined into one ruling? If so I might see a judge abstaining, but on two votes...I dunno.

Either way I think it is a robbery for both sides to get all the way to SCOTUS only to have it rendered pointless, why even accept the case if there won't be an actual decision?!

No one is going to abstain. These weird decisions happen when justices decide that a party lacks standing or decide a case on differing grounds.

[twa]

So why not do more of it....is this what you're saying?

No

If we are going to go to the trouble of changing definitions/restrictions in the name of freedom and love,we should make it as open as possible to avoid the need for the next aggrieved group to repeat the process.

freedom

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Anyway, my prediction is that they are going to overrule DOMA and punt on Prop 8, essentially leaving it in place as the California Supremes and Chief Justice Predicto already upheld it.

[AsburySkinsFan]

No one is going to abstain. These weird decisions happen when justices decide that a party lacks standing or decide a case on differing grounds.

Which typically doesn't end the problem.

---------- Post added March-27th-2013 at 09:20 AM ----------

Anyway' date=' my prediction is that they are going to overrule DOMA and punt on Prop 8, essentially leaving it in place as the California Supremes and Chief Justice Predicto already upheld it.[/quote']

Agreed, I don't think we're going to see a Roe type decision here.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Question: I have little understanding of the California proposition system. What would it take to put a proposition overruling Prop 8 on the ballot? There has been such a massive sea change on this issue among Black and Hispanic voters since 2008 and such a massive loss of momentum by gay marriage opponents, that I'm fairly certain the voting would be very different today.

---------- Post added March-27th-2013 at 08:26 AM ----------

Agreed, I don't think we're going to see a Roe type decision here.

Well, either way, this is not going to be Roe v. Wade. This is likely going to be a non-issue in 40 years whereas abortion is still going to be divisive 40 years from now. Lawrence v. Texas is a more apt comparison to Roe, and there is virtually no controversy around that case now.

[The Evil Genius]

More proof that lifetime SCOTUS appointments are a failure.

Why have judges who are older than the Pope and whose mentality is still stuck back in the 1960s? Times change, laws change, but SCOTUS judge opinions never change.

History is going to be very unkind to justices like Scalia and silent Clarence. Personally, I hope it's vicious.

---------- Post added March-27th-2013 at 07:32 AM ----------

Question: I have little understanding of the California proposition system. What would it take to put a proposition overruling Prop 8 on the ballot? There has been such a massive sea change on this issue among Black and Hispanic voters since 2008 and such a massive loss of momentum by gay marriage opponents' date=' that I'm fairly certain the voting would be very different today.

[/quote']

8% of the registered voters have to sign a petition in order for a constitutional amendment proposition to be placed on the ballot. It's really more than that though because of the high number of contested and invalid signatures.

[Bliz]

not snark, it is reality

I'm all for making less rules/laws....carving out a limited exception is simply adding more

of course it was snark.

ASF told a story about an 11 yr old, without having talked about it at home, who basically a took a live and let live position, then stuck to it even after his dad pointed out that it was contrary to his religious beliefs, which was allegory for the problems both the GOP and the church are facing for being too inflexible. And you focused in on the least relevant thing he said to deliver the important life lesson that maybe it's not that free a country after all. Indeed, in the current state, some restrictions may apply. But with more people growing up the way ASF's son is, some of those restrictions will start to fade away and die their long overdue death.

Prop 8 and DOMA are only more rules and laws that force an exception that says we must treat these people differently. Doing away with them would advance the causes of freedom, independence and equality, while also giving us less laws, not more. Pretty cool.

[DjTj]

Question: I have little understanding of the California proposition system. What would it take to put a proposition overruling Prop 8 on the ballot? There has been such a massive sea change on this issue among Black and Hispanic voters since 2008 and such a massive loss of momentum by gay marriage opponents' date=' that I'm fairly certain the voting would be very different today.[/quote']I think it would be pretty easy to pass a new proposition overturning Prop 8 now. But I think that the gay marriage movement realizes that they have a chance to legalize gay marriage all over the country through the Supreme Court, so they are sticking with the court case rather than proposing a new proposition right now. The NAACP took this strategy back in the 50s and 60s of going through the courts rather than the ballot box, and it worked for them...

But if they somehow lose this case, I would expect a new proposition to be on the 2014 ballot in California.

[Major Harris]

Pay no mind to twa and MH's snark.

.

My initial comment was kind of tongue in cheek. I work with middle school kids...."it's a free country" is a common statement made by that age group when told they can't do something.

And as a result many of them decide to make it less and less true.

there is truth in your statement

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think it would be pretty easy to pass a new proposition overturning Prop 8 now. But I think that the gay marriage movement realizes that they have a chance to legalize gay marriage all over the country through the Supreme Court, so they are sticking with the court case rather than proposing a new proposition right now. The NAACP took this strategy back in the 50s and 60s of going through the courts rather than the ballot box, and it worked for them...

Oh, this is obviosuly an attempt to win a sweeping victory on gay marriage. I was just thinking in terms of Plan B.

Also, that's not an entirely accurate depiction of NAACP strategy. They chose the courts because the ballot box was literally cut off for them in a lot of instances.

Personally, I don't think fundamental rights should ever be decided by popular vote. But that's where we seem to be right now.

[twa]

Personally' date=' I don't think fundamental rights should ever be decided by popular vote. But that's where we seem to be right now.[/quote']

It has not been found to be a fundamental right....the court doing so would simplify things

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

It has not been found to be a fundamental right....the court doing so would simplify things

That is a succinct and accurate statement.

Who hacked into twa's account?

[AsburySkinsFan]

That is a succinct and accurate statement.

Who hacked into twa's account?

I that was funny stuff!

[Jumbo]

That is a succinct and accurate statement.

Who hacked into twa's account?

People often underestimate twa.

Understandably.

(no way in hell I can pass such opportunity by simply because of my affections)

[Larry]

It has not been found to be a fundamental right....the court doing so would simplify things

Yes, it has.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Full decision.

As is the right not to be discriminated against.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

But keep pushing that untrue talking point.

[Predicto]

But not a single other justice was making that argument. Of those other eight people, there was precisely no one who would have been telling Roberts that Obamacare should be upheld because it was a tax, and therefore constitutional. I respect your experience, but have you ever had the specific experience of drafting that kind of opinion?

Also, the speculation I'm offering is simply a repetition of speculation I've heard from a few other lawyers who had some pretty damn impressive resumes of their own, including impressive clerkships.

But it is still nothing but speculation. It is just as possible that Roberts thought he had come up with something brilliant, the unified field theory as it were, and he was totally surprised when no one else went along and decided to stick to his guns. Speculation is fun, but it is also kind of empty.

[twa]

(no way in hell I can pass such opportunity by simply because of my affections)

It was the sequins wasn't it?

[Larry]

Speculation is fun, but it is also kind of empty.

But very Tailgate.

[twa]

Yes, it has. .

No, but keep spinning

SSM has in at least one state,but only under the state constitution.