High Court invalidates Defense of Marriage Act

[gabosaurus]

:cheers2: :salute:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-doma-supreme-court-ruling-20130626,0,6846934.story

[Thunderknuckles]

A very narrow ruling by the court that is going to set up some nasty battles at the state level.
Essentially the court ruled that marriage is a state's rights issue. If a state says gay marriage is legal, the federal government will recognize it. However, if a state rules gay marriage illegal, then the federal government may not recognize it.

Overall, I think it was a good call because I'm a state's right kinda guy, but you can see the looming legal battles that will be fought among states that have not legalized gay marriage.
We will see this issue coming back to the Supreme Court sometime in the future and I suspect that at that point they will make a more general ruling and call gay marriage the law of the land to put an end to the issue once and for all.

As for mine and Gabby's state of California, the fight is over with the court's ruling on prop 8. Gay marriage is now legal in California whether you like it or not.

[gabosaurus]

Thunderknuckles, you make some good points. Despite what anyone thinks of gay marriage, it should be a personal choice. The government needs to get out of the business of telling ADULTS (over the age of 18) what they can do. Notice I said ADULTS. Not children, not animals, not refrigerators. Two consenting adults.

[Thunderknuckles]

Thunderknuckles, you make some good points. Despite what anyone thinks of gay marriage, it should be a personal choice. The government needs to get out of the business of telling ADULTS (over the age of 18) what they can do. Notice I said ADULTS. Not children, not animals, not refrigerators. Two consenting adults.
To be clear, I'm personally against gay marriage but ultimately I have to agree with you.

[jimnyc]

Oh well, we have to, unfortunately, stand by what the SCOTUS decides. But hopefully now we'll see battles in the states, and hopefully the states will let the people decide and not politicians and activists. Thing is, if the people even do get to decide, then those against it will further push for the courts to decide.

Like I said a long, long time ago though, they really didn't "win" anything today. While I'm sure there is celebrating over the ability to get married, or to receive federal benefits, their true goal is to be accepted as equals, not just to receive benefits. Nothing has changed in that respect. Those supporting queers and gay marriage likely still feel the same way. Those opposed likely still feel the same way. But for those that simply wanted benefits, I do congratulate them.

[Marcus Aurelius]

According to the linked article, they did not rule DOMA in it's entirety unconstitutional.


The Supreme Court struck down a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (http://www.latimes.com/topic/social-issues/family/same-sex-marriage/defense-of-marriage-act-EVGAP00069.topic) on Wednesday and declared that same-sex couples who are legally married deserve equal rights to the benefits under federal law that go to all other married couples.

Not sure what else is in there that really matters in this, but the onlt part that was struck down was the denial of benefits to married same-sex couples.

[logroller]

According to the linked article, they did not rule DOMA in it's entirety unconstitutional.



Not sure what else is in there that really matters in this, but the onlt part that was struck down was the denial of benefits to married same-sex couples.
I thought Doma had a provision for other states not beig required to recognize other states' same-sex marriages. Seems odd that would stand though, privileges and immunities.

[fj1200]

I thought Doma had a provision for other states not beig required to recognize other states' same-sex marriages. Seems odd that would stand though, privileges and immunities.

True. Seems like it denies equal protection when one couple is looked at differently, Federally speaking, than other couples whose only difference is state of residence.

[aboutime]

According to Liberals, Democrats, Progressives, Gays and Lesbians. This is all Good!

Will they now just shut up, and let the rest of us alone?

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/holb_c11034520130627120100.jpg

[red states rule]

According to Liberals, Democrats, Progressives, Gays and Lesbians. This is all Good!

Will they now just shut up, and let the rest of us alone?

Libs like Chris Matthews were gushing over Obama yesterday - not that this is anything new. But libs like Chris do like to take their assessments of Obama to new heights of hyberbole


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFiD_C3270I&feature=player_embedded

[DragonStryk72]

A very narrow ruling by the court that is going to set up some nasty battles at the state level.
Essentially the court ruled that marriage is a state's rights issue. If a state says gay marriage is legal, the federal government will recognize it. However, if a state rules gay marriage illegal, then the federal government may not recognize it.

Overall, I think it was a good call because I'm a state's right kinda guy, but you can see the looming legal battles that will be fought among states that have not legalized gay marriage.
We will see this issue coming back to the Supreme Court sometime in the future and I suspect that at that point they will make a more general ruling and call gay marriage the law of the land to put an end to the issue once and for all.

As for mine and Gabby's state of California, the fight is over with the court's ruling on prop 8. Gay marriage is now legal in California whether you like it or not.

Yeah, this is about how I figured it was gonna go for the ruling, with the Scotus kicking it back to a states' rights issue. Sure, there are going to be challenges and legal fights, but that was gonna happen regardless.

[red states rule]

Bottom lin is gays could not accomplish what they wanted at the ballot box so they have to get what they want via judicial activism

[red states rule]

Leave it to Chris Matthews to compare a fellow liberal to a criminal who was hanged fro his crimes and play the slavery card all in one diatribe

<iframe width="520" height="293" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/121754" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

[aboutime]

Leave it to Chris Matthews to compare a fellow liberal to a criminal who was hanged fro his crimes and play the slavery card all in one diatribe

<iframe width="520" height="293" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/121754" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>




Pardon my language here but....Matthews is nothing but a pure ​SHIT HEAD!

[DragonStryk72]

Bottom lin is gays could not accomplish what they wanted at the ballot box so they have to get what they want via judicial activism

Yup, just like blacks, women getting the right to vote, and so on. That's the whole point of the checks and balances system. Remember when the SCOTUS overturned the DC gun ban? Yeah, well same thing here.

[red states rule]

Yup, just like blacks, women getting the right to vote, and so on. That's the whole point of the checks and balances system. Remember when the SCOTUS overturned the DC gun ban? Yeah, well same thing here.

Yea so what if the 8 million people who voted against gay marriage in CA were told to drop dead. What the hell do those people know? It takes liberal Judges to set them straight

I do not recall the voters of DC voting for their own gun ban

This is typical of the left. Lose an election so find a Judge who agrees with your position and have them toss out the votes of the stupid and uninformed voters - right DS?

[fj1200]

Yea so what if the 8 million people who voted against gay marriage in CA were told to drop dead.

That's why we don't live in a democracy. Tyranny of the mob and all that.

[red states rule]

Yup, just like blacks, women getting the right to vote, and so on. That's the whole point of the checks and balances system. Remember when the SCOTUS overturned the DC gun ban? Yeah, well same thing here.

Even black church leaders in CA were pissed over gay marriage being compared to the civil rights movement

Here is an excellent article derailing that comparison





The 20-something me would consider the 30-something me a bleeding-heart liberal. Though I still hate political correctness, I no longer find it valuable to attack PC by charging off in the opposite direction, making insensitive remarks that even if right in fact were so wrong in form. I’m not the first political pundit to use excessive hyperbole. I might be one of the few to admit being embarrassed about it.


This embarrassment is particularly true concerning my own region, the South, where slavery, segregation, and institutional racism left a heavy mark. I still detest those on the left and right who exploit racial tension for their own purposes. But I detest even more the inhumanity suffered by African-Americans in our early and later history. T.S. Eliot said, “humankind cannot bear too much reality,” and it is impossible for those of us living in the new millennium to comprehend that absolute horror of being treated like chattel by your fellow man, or being terrorized by your neighbors, because of the color of your skin.


Books, memorials, and museums will never be able to adequately convey such tragedy, at least not in any manner remotely comparable to the pain of those who lived it.


The debate over gay marriage has been portrayed as the civil rights struggle of our time. I’m generally a supporter of same-sex unions and hold the same view as President Obama—I’m personally for it, but believe it should be decided at the state level. I find it legally objectionable that those in longstanding same-sex relationships do not have the same inheritance, tax, and hospital-visitation rights as straight couples. Whatever the courts or states decide now and in the future, I hope this changes.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-gay-marriage-isnt-like-the-civil-rights-struggle/

[WiccanLiberal]

I have an idea. Let's get the government out of the matter of "marriage" entirely. Since the term marriage is such a hot button for so many people, take it out of the equation. Let's say, that any two adults, not otherwise encumbered, may consent to a "cohabitation contract". (No I am not enamored of the phrase, I am using it to make the point that we may need to rename the institution). This will have all the civil benefits formerly conferred by marriage. (Anyone already married is grandfathered in of course) All the couple has to do is go to the local courthouse, Justice of the Peace or Town Clerk and sign on the dotted line with the appropriate witnesses and official seal. This will constitute the new standard and apply equally to all couples. If a given couple wants a religious ceremony, great. Get one. But since the piece that makes it legal is filing the paperwork, that should be out of the control of religious figures. And marriage may be left to be defined by the given subgroups in any way they like. This makes sense to me. If the act of committing to each other as a couple confers civil benefits, the entrance thereto should be a civil matter applied to all equally. By the way, the model of separating the civil from the religious ceremony is the model in a large percentage of European nations.

[gabosaurus]

I am confused how allowing two men or two women to marry would "destroy" the act of marriage. Men and women are still going to be married as usual. Nothing changes here. I believe that more happiness is better for society.

[Robert A Whit]

I am confused how allowing two men or two women to marry would "destroy" the act of marriage. Men and women are still going to be married as usual. Nothing changes here. I believe that more happiness is better for society.

Well good then.

We are going to have waves of polygamy marriages suddenly legal as well as adult incest marriages being legal.

You got what you wanted.

[Robert A Whit]

I have an idea. Let's get the government out of the matter of "marriage" entirely. Since the term marriage is such a hot button for so many people, take it out of the equation. Let's say, that any two adults, not otherwise encumbered, may consent to a "cohabitation contract". (No I am not enamored of the phrase, I am using it to make the point that we may need to rename the institution). This will have all the civil benefits formerly conferred by marriage. (Anyone already married is grandfathered in of course) All the couple has to do is go to the local courthouse, Justice of the Peace or Town Clerk and sign on the dotted line with the appropriate witnesses and official seal. This will constitute the new standard and apply equally to all couples. If a given couple wants a religious ceremony, great. Get one. But since the piece that makes it legal is filing the paperwork, that should be out of the control of religious figures. And marriage may be left to be defined by the given subgroups in any way they like. This makes sense to me. If the act of committing to each other as a couple confers civil benefits, the entrance thereto should be a civil matter applied to all equally. By the way, the model of separating the civil from the religious ceremony is the model in a large percentage of European nations.

How does that get government out of the business of marriages?

Some who see marriage as non religious or religious as the case may be, seem to have this idea it is one or the other.

Either way, the government decided to be in the marriage business. Removing that could have fixed a lot. But now it is in so deep that even using a wart medicine may not remove it.

Homosexualis ruined the institution.

Notice as homosexuals got into this, from earlier eras where they were not in this, the marriages of too many in the USA crumbled. Today too many people have been through too many divorces.

[Missileman]

How does that get government out of the business of marriages?

Some who see marriage as non religious or religious as the case may be, seem to have this idea it is one or the other.

Either way, the government decided to be in the marriage business. Removing that could have fixed a lot. But now it is in so deep that even using a wart medicine may not remove it.

Homosexualis ruined the institution.

Notice as homosexuals got into this, from earlier eras where they were not in this, the marriages of too many in the USA crumbled. Today too many people have been through too many divorces.

Did you really just blame gays for the high divorce rate among heterosexuals?

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=649441#post649441)

How does that get government out of the business of marriages?

Some who see marriage as non religious or religious as the case may be, seem to have this idea it is one or the other.

Either way, the government decided to be in the marriage business. Removing that could have fixed a lot. But now it is in so deep that even using a wart medicine may not remove it.

Homosexualis ruined the institution.

Notice as homosexuals got into this, from earlier eras where they were not in this, the marriages of too many in the USA crumbled. Today too many people have been through too many divorces.



Did you really just blame gays for the high divorce rate among heterosexuals?

he's not the brightest crayon in the box.

[aboutime]

Did you really just blame gays for the high divorce rate among heterosexuals?


Missileman, and others here. How can anyone blame gays for such things? My youngest brother was gay, died from AIDS, and drug abuse, and somehow. My wife and I have managed to remain partners in marriage for 44 years. My brother died in 2000. And somehow. Despite some of the crazy claims on this thread. His being gay had no effect on our marriage.

Bias, Hatred, and Ignorance seem to go HAND in HAND these days.

[fj1200]

I have an idea. Let's get the government out of the matter of "marriage" entirely.

Great idea, but it's not new. Are you also prepared to strip marriage out of SS, Medicare, tax law, etc.?

[Voted4Reagan]

:cheers2: :salute:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-doma-supreme-court-ruling-20130626,0,6846934.story

Maybe you could call up Wind-Song and give your hubby a show....

:poke::poke::poke:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Bottom lin is gays could not accomplish what they wanted at the ballot box so they have to get what they want via judicial activism Yet again the courts rule the people do not have a right to set the standards in their own states. Sure in was kicked back down to the states with the warning from the courts for those opposed to gay marriage to shut the hell up and quit being reprobates and savages! The ffing SCOTUS has no damn authority to tell me what my morals should be . I curse the Sons da biatches for arrogantly and contemptuously attempting to lecture the citizens and imposed their damn morals and biases on us. That is not their duty nor do they have authority to do so. They swear an oath not to do that very thing which is exactly what Scalia was pissed off about and sternly cursing the bastards for! Scalia is dead on the money about it all too. Folks Obama has the court under his thumb. Kagan and Sotomayor are a big part of that . The two worst and most dishonorable people ever to have served as Supreme Court justices IMHO. Kagan's refusal to step out of the Obama care case proves that. -Tyr

[red state]

RSR....great point about the voters voting on the marriage issue and the DC folks not voting on their own gun ban!!!! I truly don't believe marriage should have ever been an issue as it is NATURAL to billions of folks throughout history for one man and one woman to marry, YET, we have those who would push the UNNATURAL upon us all. Soon, the homosexual/PC gestapo will be writing the sermons for pastors, priests and rabbis all over the country and should they deviate from what was dictated that they teach, they will lose their tax exempt status, face fines, imprisonment or (ALL THREE). Possibly, the LEFT or iSLUM will one day have all who oppose their thoughts, beliefs or traditions imprisoned, shot or beheaded.


Wiccan Lib....why stop at two consenting adults? Why have inequality for ANY one person, group or religion? We'd be better served to simply let the tigers out of the cage and let them roan where they will and devour what and whomever they will. AND, by the way, this ain't EUROPE...that is part of our problem. Why are we always trying to be like Europe? Have they ever bailed us from an invading force without alternative intentions? I doubt it. So please drop the "like Europe bit". Does V4R know you posted that? HA!!!!


Robert A Whit!!!!! Bravo! That says it all and I hope that what you wrote will finally sink in to those who are apparently not thinking this thing through but because of not thinking it through, we ALL certainly got what we DIDN'T or DON'T want. I've yet to here a homosexual or lib say that they'd be OK with sister/sister marriage or girl, girl, girl + boy marriage and I find it repulsive for THEM to fight and bully their on ways through and leave out TRUE equality for ALL.


Tyr, I'm actually torn in half on this subject. I know homosexuality it WRONG, unnatural and against God's design but I have to look at the "EQUALITY" that our Constitution states for ALL. With ALL, I assume that does imply ALL who are consenting adults so if they were to have done the RIGHT thing for the RIGHT reason, they would have ruled properly and dug a little deeper on the issue. That would have led to reversals in other cases from years ago. Look, if we're gonna open the "box" or the bag, don't open it just enough for a few snakes to get out....open the entire freakn' thing and get it all out in the open so we can see all the nasty little perversions of TRUE and HOLY marriage. I say get your hands or eyes out of my wallet, bedroom and church BUT you can't have one without the other and that is exactly what the LEFT wants (their way without any opposition) or right to protect oneself, worship one's God or pay for one's OWN way.


__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________




RSR Wrote:


Yea so what if the 8 million people who voted against gay marriage in CA were told to drop dead. What the hell do those people know? It takes liberal Judges to set them straight

I do not recall the voters of DC voting for their own gun ban

This is typical of the left. Lose an election so find a Judge who agrees with your position and have them toss out the votes of the stupid and uninformed voters - right DS?



__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________


Wiccan Liberal Wrote: I have an idea. Let's get the government out of the matter of "marriage" entirely. Since the term marriage is such a hot button for so many people, take it out of the equation. Let's say, that any two adults, not otherwise encumbered, may consent to a "cohabitation contract". (No I am not enamored of the phrase, I am using it to make the point that we may need to rename the institution). This will have all the civil benefits formerly conferred by marriage. (Anyone already married is grandfathered in of course) All the couple has to do is go to the local courthouse, Justice of the Peace or Town Clerk and sign on the dotted line with the appropriate witnesses and official seal. This will constitute the new standard and apply equally to all couples. If a given couple wants a religious ceremony, great. Get one. But since the piece that makes it legal is filing the paperwork, that should be out of the control of religious figures. And marriage may be left to be defined by the given subgroups in any way they like. This makes sense to me. If the act of committing to each other as a couple confers civil benefits, the entrance thereto should be a civil matter applied to all equally. By the way, the model of separating the civil from the religious ceremony is the model in a large percentage of European nations.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++


Robert A Whit Wrote:


Well good then.

We are going to have waves of polygamy marriages suddenly legal as well as adult incest marriages being legal.

You got what you wanted.



================================================== ================================


How does that get government out of the business of marriages?

Some who see marriage as non religious or religious as the case may be, seem to have this idea it is one or the other.

Either way, the government decided to be in the marriage business. Removing that could have fixed a lot. But now it is in so deep that even using a wart medicine may not remove it.

Homosexualis ruined the institution.

Notice as homosexuals got into this, from earlier eras where they were not in this, the marriages of too many in the USA crumbled. Today too many people have been through too many divorces.





++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++

[logroller]

Did you really just blame gays for the high divorce rate among heterosexuals?
I thought that was bush's obama's fault.

[logroller]

Yet again the courts rule the people do not have a right to set the standards in their own states. Sure in was kicked back down to the states with the warning from the courts for those opposed to gay marriage to shut the hell up and quit being reprobates and savages! The ffing SCOTUS has no damn authority to tell me what my morals should be . I curse the Sons da biatches for arrogantly and contemptuously attempting to lecture the citizens and imposed their damn morals and biases on us. That is not their duty nor do they have authority to do so. They swear an oath not to do that very thing which is exactly what Scalia was pissed off about and sternly cursing the bastards for! Scalia is dead on the money about it all too. Folks Obama has the court under his thumb. Kagan and Sotomayor are a big part of that . The two worst and most dishonorable people ever to have served as Supreme Court justices IMHO. Kagan's refusal to step out of the Obama care case proves that. -Tyr
Is it the collective responsibility to set morals at all? What if it was a women must cover their face in public law? The slippery slope goes both ways. Best to leave government out of decisions that are inherently personal in scope

[red states rule]

RSR....great point about the voters voting on the marriage issue and the DC folks not voting on their own gun ban!!!! I truly don't believe marriage should have ever been an issue as it is NATURAL to billions of folks throughout history for one man and one woman to marry, YET, we have those who would push the UNNATURAL upon us all. Soon, the homosexual/PC gestapo will be writing the sermons for pastors, priests and rabbis all over the country and should they deviate from what was dictated that they teach, they will lose their tax exempt status, face fines, imprisonment or (ALL THREE). Possibly, the LEFT or iSLUM will one day have all who oppose their thoughts, beliefs or traditions imprisoned, shot or beheaded.







It is one of the basic foundations of liberalism that FU and LR agree with. When the voters screw up and vote against what the far left want they will do anything and everything to have the votes tossed out

Libs found a gay Judge to toss out the 8 million votes in CA and sneered how there was no conflict of interest on the part of the Judge

It is typical when libs win an election they rant how the voters made their decision and it is the will of the people

But when libs lose an election the voters are stupid, uninformed, and in this case - a bunch of bigoted homophobes - and their votes must be tossed out for the good of the collective

[fj1200]

Oh brother. :rolleyes: Another post by those who appreciate liberty except when they don't like said liberty.