Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

CNN: Section 3 of DOMA overruled by Supreme Court, 5-4

Sticksboi05

By Sticksboi05
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

"Dogs and cats, living together. Mass hysteria!"

5-4 decision. No doubt it will be ironic to see the "small government", "state's rights" justices' reasoning on the federal authority to declare state's marriage rules irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bliz

Bliz

Posted
Posted

"Dogs and cats, living together. Mass hysteria!"

5-4 decision. No doubt it will be ironic to see the "small government", "state's rights" justices' reasoning on the federal authority to declare state's marriage rules irrelevant.

 

Even moreso the jeering of Republicans against a pro-states rights, pro-individual freedoms decision that also has the direct effect of causing the Plaintiff to pay $0 in "death taxes", instead of $350,000 (which she had to pay b/c the feds didn't recognize her marriage, which is what gave her standing in the first place).

 

Not that we needed another reminder of the contemptible hyprocrisy of all politicians.  But this will be a shining example.

 

All in all, a great day for freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

"Dogs and cats, living together. Mass hysteria!"

5-4 decision. No doubt it will be ironic to see the "small government", "state's rights" justices' reasoning on the federal authority to declare state's marriage rules irrelevant.

How will the supremacy clause folks see it?......glad to see it does not apply :)

 

States Rights rule B)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tulane Skins Fan

Tulane Skins Fan

Posted
Posted

"Dogs and cats, living together. Mass hysteria!"

5-4 decision. No doubt it will be ironic to see the "small government", "state's rights" justices' reasoning on the federal authority to declare state's marriage rules irrelevant.

How will the supremacy clause folks see it?......glad to see it does not apply :)

 

States Rights rule B)  

 

It wasn't a supremacy clause issue.  From what I've read.  It was an equal protection issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

From the blog in the OP:

The opinion about Proposition 8 was written by Chief Justice Roberts who was joined by Justice Scalia, a conservative, and three liberals – Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan.

[updated at 10:35 a.m. ET] Same-sex marriage can resume in California - that's the result of the Supreme Court ruling just in that dismisses an appeal regarding California's Proposition 8.

From our colleague Bill Mears:

The Supreme Court has dismissed a closely-watched appeal over same-sex marriage on jurisdictional grounds, ruling Wednesday private parties do not have "standing" to defend California's voter-approved ballot measure barring gay and lesbians couples from state-sanctioned wedlock. The ruling permits same-sex couples in California to legally marry. The 5-4 decision avoids for now a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutionally-protected "equal protection" right that would apply to all states. The case is Hollingsworth v. Perry (12-144).

Edit: I'm wondering if what happened, here, is that the court found an excuse to avoid ruling on whether the 14th amendment actually prohibits all legal discrimination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LadySkinsFan

LadySkinsFan

Posted
Posted

I'm more apt to think that the Full and Credit clause will hold more weight, now that DOMA has been struck down, at least the Federal benefits part.  Plus, marriages in other states are recognized by all the other states, regardless of that state's laws regarding marriage.  For instance, some states allow first cousins to marry and some don't.  If a couple of first cousins marry in a state that allows it and then moves to another state, the second state will recognize that marriage.  Same should hold true for same sex marriages.

 

Article IV

Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public
Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the
Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,
Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.


Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and
Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnyderShrugged

SnyderShrugged

Posted
Posted

I'm glad they overturned it.   Get the darned feds out of the marriage business!  

 

Yes, but notice how four "conservative" judges dissented.  

In my opinion, there is no real difference in so called "conservatives" and "liberals" in most of our government.   Not sure it matters who dissented and who didnt in my mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Forehead

Forehead

Posted
Posted

It's public information, but a combination of whitepages and Google Maps will show that justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy live right down the street from each other.  Someone isn't getting invited to the 4th of July barbeque. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

Wouldn't surprise me if that were the case, Larry. A full ruling on Prop 8 could have had a pretty radical impact. I can somewhat understand their reasoning but I still wish they hadn't punted it.

yeah, I'd like a clear ruling there 

 

LSF....it is certainly a full faith and credit thing, but now you have the issue of states reciprocation

 

TSF.....it will be interesting to see states bend the feds to their will

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bliz

Bliz

Posted
Posted

I'm more apt to think that the Full and Credit clause will hold more weight, now that DOMA has been struck down, at least the Federal benefits part.  Plus, marriages in other states are recognized by all the other states, regardless of that state's laws regarding marriage.  For instance, some states allow first cousins to marry and some don't.  If a couple of first cousins marry in a state that allows it and then moves to another state, the second state will recognize that marriage.  Same should hold true for same sex marriages.

 

Article IV

Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public

Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the

Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts,

Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and

Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

Perhaps.  But that will be a Supreme Court case for another day.  It's virtually guaranteed.  Shortly, a state will pass a law expressly saying they won't recognize these marriages (which marriages should be given FF&C, absent such a law), someone will challenge it, and here we go...

 

Personally, I would expect such a law to be upheld, with Kennedy sticking to his reliance on states' rights to swing the majority back in the other direction.  You could, however, I think, travel to another state, get married, go back to your home state, and be recognized as married by the Feds but not your home state.

 

The 2nd most important part of the decision will be completely overlooked by the media: not saying exactly what scrutiny level applies when reviewing statutes that divide people on the basis of sexual orientation, but it's something higher than rational basis (the easiest standard to satisfy  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review).  It's a little too "inside baseball" to communicate to a broad readership, so they won't.  But it is a very significant aspect of the holding that is likely to play a big role in how future Supreme Court cases on these issues play out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

And I think it's a safe bet that the question of "Does the 14th Amendment prohibit states from passing discriminatory laws simply to make disliked minorities feel inferior" will wind up there, again.

Some other state will pass a discriminatory law (or one already has). And it will be challenged by some other guy, citing this same "the 14th says you can't do that" claim. And some other court will rule that the 14th doesn't apply to gays. (Despite the fact that it's first two words are "all people".)

And then somebody will go to the USSC with a "we have two opposing rulings from two lower courts, on this issue" case. And, from what I understand, the SC pretty much has to take those cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

Well, they can attempt to re-appeal.

All they have to do, is to find somebody who is harmed by gays getting married.

:)

what the court said is it is the states duty to appeal and no private parties by precedent

 

harm by gays getting married was not the issue ruled on

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

Perhaps.  But that will be a Supreme Court case for another day.  It's virtually guaranteed.  Shortly, a state will pass a law expressly saying they won't recognize these marriages (which marriages should be given FF&C, absent such a law), someone will challenge it, and here we go...

Suspect you're right. At least I'm not going to vote against your scenario. (Heck, I can visualize the GOP drawing up the legislation, right now, with plans of using it as their "get out the Republican vote" tool for the next election.)

Does kinda make me wonder, if the states could do this, exactly what good the FF&C clause actually serves.

But, that's another debate. (Or, maybe, "another gay marriage debate".)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...