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

[LadySkinsFan]

There are a bunch of states that have passed state Constitutional amendments that define marriage as between a man and a woman to try to circumvent the reciprocation of Full, Faith and Credit.  But the US Constitution trumps state constitutions.  Plus, Virginia has passed laws that ban gays and lesbians from executing any kind of contracts that look like marriage like wills, living wills, and so on.

 

Also, if a gay or lesbian couple marry in a state that "allows" same sex marriage and then they move to another state that doesn't, that state won't recognize their marriage for state purposes, which will play hell with intestate laws, estate laws, state taxation and so on.  So even if they get Federal rights for items such as taxation, estates and so on, it is still messed up because a lot of the Fed laws key off of state laws.

 

[Edited to add]  Additionally, couples who legally marry in one state and then move to another state that doesn't recognize their marriage won't be able to get a divorce in their new state, leaving them in legal limbo.

 

Full, Faith and Credit must prevail, and thus same sex marriage will prevail in all states.  The unfairness of the states that continue to try to discriminate against same sex couples is just ridiculous when considering Article IV.

[Special K]

It's gonna be CRAAAAZZZZY in SF this weekend for Gay Pride.  Maybe I'll post pics of the insanity...as it pertains to the DOMA ruling, of course

[LadySkinsFan]

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

 

 

Correct, and the California Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of same sex marriage.  The point is moot.

[Larry]

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

 

All a person has to have, to have standing, is to show that they have suffered harm.

 

I think the wording is along the lines that they have to have suffered some harm which is bigger than whatever harm the average citizen may have suffered, as a result of legislation.

So, if Congress raises your taxes, you can't go to court and challenge the law, unless they raised your taxes more than other people. If they raise everybody's taxes, you don't have standing.

 

At least as I understand it, harm is the only criteria which is considered, for the issue of standing.

[LadySkinsFan]

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

 

All a person has to have, to have standing, is to show that they have suffered harm.

 

I think the wording is along the lines that they have to have suffered some harm which is bigger than whatever harm the average citizen may have suffered, as a result of legislation.

So, if Congress raises your taxes, you can't go to court and challenge the law, unless they raised your taxes more than other people. If they raise everybody's taxes, you don't have standing.

 

At least as I understand it, harm is the only criteria which is considered, for the issue of standing.

 

Right, and no heterosexual marriage is harmed by a same sex marriage.  Just like any other heterosexual marriage is not harmed by any other heterosexual marriage.  Like if a couple of heterosexuals are appalled at first cousin marriage, but that first cousin marriage doesn't directly harm their non-first cousin heterosexual marriage.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

 

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

 

There are differences.  Conservatives are willing to give government power to tell you about your personal life, and to let government restrict civil liberties such as speech, religion, due process.  But, conservatives don't want the government to tax you or spend money on you.  Liberals don't want government telling you what your personal life should entail, or to encroach on an individual's civil liberties, but like the idea of the government taxing and providing for individuals.

 

Are these generalizations?  Yes.

 

Are they generally true and reflective of party philosophy?  Yes.

 

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

 

Huh?  

 

As I understand this case, it was about whether a gay woman could be denied federal benefits, right?  Not sure I get your point.

[twa]

 

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

 

 

Correct, and the California Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of same sex marriage.  The point is moot.

the same California supreme court ruled the private party had standing to appeal

 

this is gonna be a mess

[LadySkinsFan]

The local Federal District Court ruled that they had no legal standing.  End of case.  District Court ruling stands.

 

No mess.

[Larry]

the same California supreme court ruled the private party had standing to appeal

 

Really? The California Supreme Court gets to rule on who is and isn't allowed to appeal to the US Supreme Court?

[Botched]

This was just the first step in an insidious liberal plot to make everyone gay.

 

As soon as the ruling came out, I had the urge to eat a scone.

[QBkilla56]

This was just the first step in an insidious liberal plot to make everyone gay.

 

As soon as the ruling came out, I had the urge to eat a scone.

 

 

How do you think the dinosaurs died out? Its because they all chose to become gay. 

[Larry]

This was just the first step in an insidious liberal plot to make everyone gay.

As soon as the ruling came out, I had the urge to eat a scone.

Don't worry. Less than a month to training camp.

[thebluefood]

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

Couldn't agree more. DOMA never should have been signed to begin with. Glad it's gone.

[twa]

the same California supreme court ruled the private party had standing to appeal

 

Really? The California Supreme Court gets to rule on who is and isn't allowed to appeal to the US Supreme Court?

they seemed to think so obviously....but it is Cali lol

 

add

 odd you think they can say who can marry,but not rule on standing

[Larry]

they seemed to think so obviously....but it is Cali lol

Don't suppose you have some kind of a link to where they ruled on that?

[twa]

they seemed to think so obviously....but it is Cali lol

Don't suppose you have some kind of a link to where they ruled on that?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/73038675/Court-ruling-Prop-8-defense

 

add

 

is the district court ruling and appeal they had standing in now void? ...how could it not be

[Larry]

Wow. Rather surprised.

Just read the opening paragraphs, but yeah, it looked like the Cali SC did, in fact, rule that, as far as California law is concerned, the sponsors of an initiative have standing to argue on behalf of the initiative.

And I'll admit that I assumed you were making it up.

[twa]

did ya see my add

[twa]

let me try again on prop 8

how can the district court ruling(Judge Vaughn) not be vacated since the only defendant had no standing under the ruling?

Do they now have to have another hearing?....someone has to be the defendant

[Riggo-toni]

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.

Even though I'm fine w/ same sex marriage and felt certain DOMA was unconstitutional, I'm somewhat relieved the full ruling on Prop 8 was not made. Let the situation develop a few more years, let states make the move, and when the results show things are not equal, then maybe the court steps in. Looking at how much havoc a sweeping rule on abortion has created, I'd rather not create a 2nd litmus test for future scotus justices.

I realize it may be unfair to delay such rights for some gay couples, but the backlash of the court essentially writing the law would be worse longterm (I think).

[Riggo-toni]

Like if a couple of heterosexuals are appalled at first cousin marriage, but that first cousin marriage doesn't directly harm their non-first cousin heterosexual marriage.

Sorry to strongly disagree with you here, but any marriage that produces more Cowboy fans harms all of the rest of us who don't live in trailer parks.

[Larry]

Even though I'm fine w/ same sex marriage and felt certain DOMA was unconstitutional, I'm somewhat relieved the full ruling on Prop 8 was not made. Let the situation develop a few more years, let states make the move, and when the results show things are not equal, then maybe the court steps in. Looking at how much havoc a sweeping rule on abortion has created, I'd rather not create a 2nd litmus test for future scotus justices.

I realize it may be unfair to delay such rights for some gay couples, but the backlash of the court essentially writing the law would be worse longterm (I think).

 

I'm rather glad they punted, but for a different reason.

IMO, if this court had ruled, they would have ruled that the words ". . . nor shall any State . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." doesn't apply to gays.

Remember, this is a court where 4 justices found that a federal decision to ignore state marriages performed on icky minorities to be constitutional.

Just my gut feeling, but I'm pretty confinced that if this court had ruled on the matter, we'd have another one of those decisions like Dredd Scott or Korematsu, that we'll be ashamed of 100 years from now.

[Bliz]

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.

Even though I'm fine w/ same sex marriage and felt certain DOMA was unconstitutional, I'm somewhat relieved the full ruling on Prop 8 was not made. Let the situation develop a few more years, let states make the move, and when the results show things are not equal, then maybe the court steps in. Looking at how much havoc a sweeping rule on abortion has created, I'd rather not create a 2nd litmus test for future scotus justices.

I realize it may be unfair to delay such rights for some gay couples, but the backlash of the court essentially writing the law would be worse longterm (I think).

 

 

I wouldn't say they punted.

 

The doctrine of judicial restraint provides that you should always strive to make a decision on the narrowest ground possible.  True judicial activistm - not the buzzword phrase that's thrown around by pundits, but real judicial activism - is the practice of rendering a decision much broader than what would be required to dispose of the case.  So instead of saying the Prop 8 petitioners have no standing therefore Prop 8 is thrown out, you say  they don't have standing, but in any event we take this opportunity to proclaim gay people are people, and true equality for all. 

 

While I would very much be in favor of the ultimate result, I would have said that the decision was completely inappropriate and an overreach.

 

That question will reach the Court in time.  BUt this case was not the proper vehicle for it. 

[Riggo-toni]

Bliz,

Thank you for articulating the actual point I had poorly tried to make in a more lucid and eloquent manner.

[Ellis]