5-4 DOMA unconstitutional

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    5-4 DOMA unconstitutional

    I agree. Thoughts?

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: 5-4 DOMA unconstitutional

    Agreed

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: 5-4 DOMA unconstitutional

    This was along what most consider "party lines" the Prop 8 vacate was not.

     


    Joining Kennedy in the majority on the Defense of Marriage Act ruling were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

    Dissenting were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: 5-4 DOMA unconstitutional

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Also Scalia's opinion is deliberately intellectually dishonest unless I'm completely blanking.

     

    He says the court has no jurisdiction because there is no 'case and controversy', that, because the government and plaintiff agree that the lower court decision striking DOMA should be affirmed.


    OK, But.....    weren't there other lower court decisions upholding DOMA? One of the key reasons the Supreme Court will take a case is to resolve a conflict amongst the lower courts.

     

    It's no good to have some courts saying nationwide legislation is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced....and others saying it's dandy. Which is it?



    we're the other federal courts?

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from RSF4Life234. Show RSF4Life234's posts

    Re: 5-4 DOMA unconstitutional

    Getting rid of institutionalized discrimination can only be a good thing.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: 5-4 DOMA unconstitutional

    It was a good decision I think. Everyone should be treated equally and blindly by the government.

     

    --

    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: 5-4 DOMA unconstitutional

    So far we are all in in agreement. Great decision, even if only by a 5-4 vote AND on the same day SCOTUS dismisses Prop. 8 ban, also by a 5-4 vote.

    Below a little history of this civil rights saga mixed in with the rulings today.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday handed a significant victory to gay rights advocates by recognizing that married gay men and women are eligible for federal benefits and paving the way for same-sex marriage in California. 

    The court, however, fell short of a landmark ruling endorsing a fundamental right for gay people to marry.

    The two cases, both decided on 5-4 votes, concerned the constitutionality of a key part of a federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), that denied benefits to same-sex married couples and a California state law enacted in 2008, called Proposition 8, that banned gay marriage.

    The court struck down the federal law as a violation of the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law but ducked a ruling on Proposition 8 by finding that supporters of the law did not have standing to appeal a federal district court ruling that struck the law down

    In the DOMA case, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority that the federal law, as passed by Congress in 1996, violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.

    "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity," Kennedy wrote.

    Kennedy, often the court's swing vote in close decisions, also said the law imposes "a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the states."

    Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia both wrote dissenting opinions.

    Roberts himself wrote the Proposition 8 opinion, ruling along procedural lines with the court split in an unusual way.

    Twelve of the 50 states and the District of Columbia recognize gay marriage. Three of those dozen - Delaware, Minnesota and Rhode Island - legalized gay marriage this year.

    Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act limited the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman for the purposes of federal benefits. By striking down Section 3, the court cleared the way to more than 1,100 federal benefits, rights and burdens linked to marriage status.

    As a result of Wednesday's ruling, Edith Windsor of New York, who was married to a woman and sued the government to get the federal estate tax deduction available to heterosexuals when their spouses pass away, will be able to claim a $363,000 tax refund.

    President Barack Obama is the first sitting U.S. president to endorse gay marriage but he had long asserted that same-sex marriage was a matter for the states to handle. At the last minute, however, his administration decided to enter the California dispute and argue that federal guarantees of constitutional equality forbid states from limiting marriage to heterosexuals.

    Numerous public figures including former President Bill Clinton, who in 1996 signed the DOMA law, and prominent groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics have come out this year in support of same-sex marriage and gay civil rights.

    Individual members of Congress - Democrats and Republicans - also voiced new support for gay marriage.

    While more developments lie ahead, the legal fight over gay marriage already constitutes one of the most concentrated civil rights sagas in U.S. history. Just 20 years ago the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that its state constitution could allow gay marriage, prompting a nationwide backlash and spurring Congress and a majority of states, including Hawaii, to pass laws defining marriage as between only a man and woman.

    In 2003, when the top court of Massachusetts established a right to same-sex marriage under its constitution, the action triggered another backlash as states then adopted constitutional amendments against such unions. Five years later, the tide began to reverse, and states slowly began joining Massachusetts in permitting gays to marry.

     



                                                                

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: 5-4 DOMA unconstitutional

    The decision to overturn DOMA changes the landscape in many many ways. Some of the changes include the the income tax situation for same sex couples. Another is the right to be on your spouse's heath insurance...the same right heterosexual married couples enjoy. Also if your spouse dies, the right to be exclude from paying any estate tax to the government.

    The decision also impacted the current debate on immigration reform. The GOP were esp. stuck on the issue of a gay citizen sponsering a foreign-born spouse for a green card. With DOMA no longer being the law of the land, that issue is moot.

     

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     The Supreme Court’s decision Wednesday to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act settles a major unresolved issue in the immigration reform debate by clearing the way for gay U.S. citizens to sponsor foreign-born spouses for green cards.

    The debate over including protections for gay couples had been one of the lingering tension points as the Senate nears passage of the landmark immigration bill. The federal law prohibited American citizens in same-sex marriages from receiving immigration benefits.



                                               

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: 5-4 DOMA unconstitutional


    Lets give credit where it's due and that is to the people not either side of the political isle!

    President Obama sent a congratulatory email as soon as the vote was cast saying he and his party will continue to fight like hell.

    Funny, that’s not how I remember it. Although “marry the person they love” is a talking point, it’s also a noble sentiment. But “fight like hell” is not what Barack Obama or his political party did on this issue. Quite the contrary: “Headed for the hills” is a more apt description.

    The political battle over gay marriage became a national issue during Bill Clinton’s first term. It’s a matter of historical record that President Clinton’s response consisted of doing nothing for gays and lesbians that might cost him a second term. It was, in the main, the response of Clinton’s political party, too.

    Yes, there was always something Orwellian about thrice-married Republican Rep. Bob Barr naming his hurriedly cobbled together 1996 bill the Defense of Marriage Act. It came in response to the belief that Hawaii’s state Supreme Court was on the verge of requiring state officials to allow same-sex marriage.

    This led to panic in some circles, as social conservatives deduced that the U.S. Constitution’s “full faith and credit clause” would require every other state to honor the decision in far-off Hawaii. As a concept, same-sex marriage was considered by most Americans either unsavory or abstruse, and it did not poll well. And Bill Clinton, who was up for re-election that year, read public opinion surveys quite carefully. So did his fellow Democrats in Congress.

    Both houses of the 104th Congress were controlled by Republicans, but DOMA passed with huge majorities in both parties: The vote was 342-67 in the House, and 85-14 in the Senate.

    Every Senate Republican in the upper chamber supported DOMA. The Democratic tandems in four deep “blue” states (Hawaii, California, Illinois, and Massachusetts) opposed it. Those eight “nay” votes were supplemented by six others, but 32 Democrats supported it, including Joe Biden, and two future Senate majority leaders, Tom Daschle and Harry Reid.

    It was signed into law by Clinton, who recanted -- sort of -- earlier this year in a Washington Post op-ed. Clinton being Clinton, he didn’t cite the mealy-mouthed explanation favored by Biden and Obama. He didn’t say his thinking had “evolved.” No, the former president cited a line from a friend-of-the-court brief filed in March by four ex-senators, including Daschle.

    One reason for voting for DOMA, the four claimed in their appeal to the Supreme Court, was that it forestalled any move to pass a constitutional amendment codifying marriage as being between a man and a woman, “which would have ended the debate for a generation or more.”

    This is gibberish. That amicus brief (its authors were Daschle, Chris Dodd, Bill Bradley, and Alan Simpson) mentions several other rationales for voting for DOMA. They range from restrained views of federalism to concern for traditional marriage to outright hostility to gays and lesbians -- and “a willingness to exploit such feelings for political gain.”

    But they left out the predominant reason Democrats voted for this knee-jerk legislation: fear of losing an election. They supported it because it was expedient. This point was brought home in 2004 when John Kerry -- one of the 14 Senate Democrats who opposed DOMA -- was privately urged by none other than Bill Clinton to outflank George W. Bush from the right on gay marriage. As later reported by top Kerry adviser Bob Shrum, “this was a flip-flop too far for Kerry.”

    The other Massachusetts senator to oppose DOMA was Edward M. Kennedy. His brother, then a future president, won a Pulitzer Prize for a thin volume called “Profiles in Courage.” It details the mettle shown by eight senators, ranging from John Quincy Adams to Robert Taft, who followed their consciences and took politically unpopular stands.

    They all paid a price. Some, like Edmund G. Ross, lost his Kansas Senate seat. Taft compromised his chances of being the 1948 Republican presidential nominee. Here’s the contrast: In our time, on gay marriage, what most Democratic officeholders did was wait for the winds of public opinion to shift. Those winds have shifted now, and rapidly, and it can certainly be argued that this is how elective democracy is designed to work.

    My own view is different. I believe the Republican Party is wrong on this issue. I also believe that there are worse things than being wrong. One of them is being craven. I waited a long time to interview the first Democratic member of the Senate (or the House) who forfeited a place in Congress over the principle of gay marriage.

    I’m still waiting.



    Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/27/democrats_and_gay_marriage_no_profiles_in_courage_118998.html#ixzz2XQGSvzfc
    Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: 5-4 DOMA unconstitutional

    In response to chiefhowie's comment:

    Why does anyone need to be married ? 

    Government control



    The only real answer is for benefits and maybe cultural issues

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: 5-4 DOMA unconstitutional

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:


    I got married in the eyes of my God and my church.  I don't give a flying F if any government thinks I am married or not.



    You could have done that without entering the state licensed institute of marriage.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: 5-4 DOMA unconstitutional

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Bigot Relieved To Learn Gays In His State Still Effectively Subhuman

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    NORMAN, OK—Following the Supreme Court’s landmark 5-4 ruling this morning striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, local bigot Donald Pohlman, 45, reportedly breathed a sigh of relief upon learning that homosexuals were still considered less than human under the laws of his home state. “Boy, that’s a load off—for a second there when I saw all those gays hugging and celebrating on the Supreme Court steps, I thought it could have been really bad,” said the visibly reassured hate monger, who noted that it was “very comforting” to discover that every homosexual living around him remained a second-class citizen and would continue to be denied basic human rights by the Oklahoma constitution. “Yes, sir, that was a close one! Luckily, my beliefs are being upheld and gay marriage stands no chance of getting through our state legislature—not if people like me have any say in it, that is.” Pohlman told reporters he was further delighted upon reading a related article detailing the Supreme Court’s recent rolling back of the Voting Rights Act.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/bigot-relieved-to-learn-gays-in-his-state-still-ef,32968/

     

     

     

    There's still a place for you somewhere, skeeter.

     



    Do you think onion articles are helpful in any way?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: 5-4 DOMA unconstitutional

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In case you missed it, or just saw people screaming about it on Facebook, the U.S. Supreme Court just ruled that the federal government will now recognize gay marriages as legitimate (specifically, that the Defense of Marriage Act that had been preventing it was unconstitutional). BUT individual states are still free to pass their own laws.

    Millions of people, most of whom are neither gay nor looking to get same-sex married, are loudly asking on the Internet how exactly this case impacts their life.

    The Free Republic Message Board

    For them we have provided a handy guide:

    If You Are a Homosexual and Are Already Married:

    The federal government now recognizes your marriage as a thing, and you are eligible for tax, health, and pension benefits under federal law like any other married couple, pending further political shenanigans. You can file taxes jointly, all that s**t.

    If You Are a Homosexual and Want to Get Married:

    This does nothing to affect you UNLESS you live in California. States are still free to decide whether or not same-sex marriage is legal; if you live in Mississippi, this does not help you. But, the voter initiative to ban gay marriage in California is now dead, pending further legal challenges or other f__kery.

    If You Are a Heterosexual and Do NOT Want to Enter into a Homosexual Marriage:

    You will not be required to marry a gay person. This is a common misunderstanding. This decision actually does not affect you in any way.

    If You Are Currently in a Heterosexual Marriage:

    This decision does not affect you in any way.

    If You Are a Heterosexual Who Is Not Currently Married:

    This decision does not affect you in any way.

    If You Are a Heterosexual Who Hopes to Eventually Marry:

    This decision does not affect you in any way.

    If You Are a Member of a Church That Performs Wedding Ceremonies but That Does Not Believe in Gay Marriage:

    This decision does not affect you in any way.

    If You Are a Religious Official Who Performs Wedding Ceremonies but Who Thinks Gay Marriage Is Wrong:

    This decision does not affect you in any way.

    If You Are an Individual Who Believes Gay Marriage or Homosexuality in General Is Wrong for Religious Reasons, and Wish to Continue Expressing Those Beliefs:

    This decision does not affect you in any way.

    If You Are an Individual Who Believes Gay Marriage or Homosexuality in General Is Wrong for Non-Religious Reasons, and Wish to Continue Expressing Those Beliefs:

    This decision does not affect you in any way.

    If You Are a Heterosexual Who Fears This Decision Adversely Affects Your Marriage or the Concept of Marriage in General:

    This decision does not affect you in any way.

    If You Are a Heterosexual Who Fears This Decision Negatively Affects You in Some Way:

    This decision does not affect you in any way.

    If You Are a Heterosexual Who Suffers Anger or Anxiety at the Thought of Gay Couples Getting Married as an Abstract Concept, and Believes the Only Cure Is to Legally Prevent Gay Marriage:

    This decision will cause you some degree of anger or anxiety. Otherwise, this decision does not affect you in any way.

    Hope this helps!


    Read more: http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a-30-second-guide-to-how-gay-marriage-ruling-affects-you/#ixzz2XR2Pd1sE



    There's idiots of all sexual persuasions!

    whats you point?

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: 5-4 DOMA unconstitutional

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    whats you point?

     



    If you have to ask....   

     

     



    Oh, it was to point out that there are idiots who are religious, athiest, agnostic, in politics, apolitical, heterosexual, LGBT lifestyles, and every where else within the 6.9 billion people that populate this planet. gotcha didnt know that.

     

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: 5-4 DOMA unconstitutional

     

    "When you're born, you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America, you get a front-row seat."  - GC

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: 5-4 DOMA unconstitutional

    The House gop celebrates by renewing the push for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.  Stay classy, guys.

    In September, we'll attend our third same-sex wedding this year.

     

    "When you're born, you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America, you get a front-row seat."  - GC

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share