Appeals court: Denying federal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional

[Ausm]

A federal appeals court has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that denies a host of federal benefits to same-sex married couples, is unconstitutional.

Ducking for the inevitable Rightist outrage....

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...-to-same-sex-couples-is-unconstitutional?lite

 

[EagleKeeper]

Good:thumbsup:

Ducking for the inevitable Rightist outrage...

Why do righties have to be outraged?

Broad generalization flawed

 

[cybrsage]

The law should not apply to legally married couples (even if I think it is wrong for the government to be involved with controlling religion and therefor gay marriage should not be allowed - or any legal marriage, civil unions only allowed). If they are married, they are maried.

Now, denying to unmarried couples, sure.

 

[nehalem256]

The judge found that the law interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.

This would seem to say that states have the power to define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. At least that is something.

 

[fskimospy]

This would seem to say that states have the power to define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. At least that is something.

No, it doesn't. At least from that sentence this is a separation of powers argument. (although I have not read the ruling so it may mention other things) It is saying that the federal government cannot tell states how they must define marriage. State prohibition of gay marriages have been recently found to violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the US Constitution however, so you could say that separate courts have found that such bans now violate three different parts of the Constitution instead of only two.

 

[nehalem256]

No, it doesn't. At least from that sentence this is a separation of powers argument. (although I have not read the ruling so it may mention other things) It is saying that the federal government cannot tell states how they must define marriage. State prohibition of gay marriages have been recently found to violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the US Constitution however, so you could say that separate courts have found that such bans now violate three different parts of the Constitution instead of only two.

But if you are saying that states cannot define marriage, how can the federal government violate their right to do so? :hmm:

Or as a better question, if states cannot define marriage, how can it exist in the first place?

 

[Ausm]

Good:thumbsup:


Why do righties have to be outraged?

Broad generalization flawed

Not really....I wouldn't see it coming from the left on this issue or would you?

 

[fskimospy]

But if you are saying that states cannot define marriage, how can the federal government violate their right to do so? :hmm:

Or as a better question, if states cannot define marriage, how can it exist in the first place?

I have no idea what you're talking about. States can define marriage, but they cannot define it in ways that violate the Constitution. I thought that would be obvious.

 

[EagleKeeper]

This would seem to say that states have the power to define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. At least that is something.

No, it doesn't. At least from that sentence this is a separation of powers argument. (although I have not read the ruling so it may mention other things) It is saying that the federal government cannot tell states how they must define marriage. State prohibition of gay marriages have been recently found to violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the US Constitution however, so you could say that separate courts have found that such bans now violate three different parts of the Constitution instead of only two.

This

The 2010 ruling stated that the Feds do not have the authorization to dictate the definitions of marriage to the states.

This ruling states that the Feds can not discriminate in Federal benefits.


Now all we need is CA Prop 8 to get chopped up by the Supreme Court and the universe will be starting to balance properly in this regard.

Feds can not dictate to the state
Feds can not discriminate
States can not discriminate.

Then to make it perfect; pull tax exempt status for politics from the pulpit.:biggrin:

 

[nehalem256]

I have no idea what you're talking about. States can define marriage, but they cannot define it in ways that violate the Constitution. I thought that would be obvious.

Except that be violate the constitution you mean states cannot define marriage in a manner that is "discriminatory". Of course any definition of marriage is going to discriminate against someone.

Which means the state cannot define marriage.

 

[Craig234]

I think something for people to consider is how, while in 2010 a court ruled that 'equal protection' means 'equal protection', a court would not have ruled the same, with the same laws in effect, with the same lawsuit in 1880, or 1900, or 1920, or 1940, or 1960, or 1980 - or in 1800, had the equal protection amendment been in the constitution.

There's a lesson there in how powerful bigotry is in public opinion and the importance of 'evolving understanding of our laws'.

 

[fskimospy]

Except that be violate the constitution you mean states cannot define marriage in a manner that is "discriminatory". Of course any definition of marriage is going to discriminate against someone.

Which means the state cannot define marriage.

This is factually false and of course totally disproven by every state in the United States.

From a quick online search, the legal definition of discrimination in US Constitutional law:

the grant by statute of particular privileges to a class arbitrarily designated from a sizable number of persons, where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes

There is plenty of room to define marriage within such a definition. Why do you say such ridiculous things?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Not really....I wouldn't see it coming from the left on this issue or would you?

Yet you accuse me of being Right.

People know what is correct; it is not a political issue

 

[nehalem256]

This is factually false and of course totally disproven by every state in the United States.

From a quick online search, the legal definition of discrimination in US Constitutional law:


There is plenty of room to define marriage within such a definition. Why do you say such ridiculous things?

the grant by statute of particular privileges to a class arbitrarily designated from a sizable number of persons, where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes

Designating marriage as between a man and a woman is not arbitrary. Unless you believe men and women are the same.

So if you believe defining marriage as between a man and woman is "arbitrary" then yeah you pretty much cannot define marriage without making some arbitrary distinction, which would constitute discrimination.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Designating marriage as between a man and a woman is not arbitrary. Unless you believe men and women are the same.

So if you believe defining marriage as between a man and woman is "arbitrary" then yeah you pretty much cannot define marriage without making some arbitrary distinction, which would constitute discrimination.

Multiple cases can exist.

the problem is when people want one and only one for no justifiable reason other than that is the way it has been.

 

[nehalem256]

Multiple cases can exist.

the problem is when people want one and only one for no justifiable reason other than that is the way it has been.

Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not arbitrary.

EDIT: And please go ahead and give what you would consider a non-arbitrary condition for marriage.

 

[Atreus21]

On to the SCOTUS, then.

 

[fskimospy]

Designating marriage as between a man and a woman is not arbitrary. Unless you believe men and women are the same.

So if you believe defining marriage as between a man and woman is "arbitrary" then yeah you pretty much cannot define marriage without making some arbitrary distinction, which would constitute discrimination.

Why do you keep persisting in this hilariously wrong, losing arguments? You believe it is not arbitrary, the courts believe otherwise. There are in fact numerous other restrictions on the nature of marriage having to do with age, sound mind, etc, etc that the courts are just fine with.

All of this information should be incredibly obvious to you. I hope you will now respond and acknowledge your error.

 

[cybrsage]

Then to make it perfect; pull tax exempt status for politics from the pulpit.:biggrin:

No group that funds politics should be allowed to also be tax exempt.

 

[nehalem256]

Why do you keep persisting in this hilariously wrong, losing arguments? You believe it is not arbitrary, the courts believe otherwise. There are in fact numerous other restrictions on the nature of marriage having to do with age, sound mind, etc, etc that the courts are just fine with.

All of this information should be incredibly obvious to you. I hope you will now respond and acknowledge your error.

Actually this ruling merely says the Federal government cannot define marriage, it being a state power. So if the state of Mississippi wanted to make it legal to marry a 10 year old girl the federal government couldnt pass a law denying benefits to such a marriage.

And established legal precedence does allow defining marriage as between a man and a woman precisely because it is not arbitrary.

You are the one opposed to legal precedence not me.

 

[cybrsage]

This is factually false and of course totally disproven by every state in the United States.

From a quick online search, the legal definition of discrimination in US Constitutional law:


There is plenty of room to define marriage within such a definition. Why do you say such ridiculous things?

According to that, affirmative action is discrimination.

 

[Craig234]

Why do you keep persisting in this hilariously wrong, losing arguments? You believe it is not arbitrary, the courts believe otherwise. There are in fact numerous other restrictions on the nature of marriage having to do with age, sound mind, etc, etc that the courts are just fine with.

All of this information should be incredibly obvious to you. I hope you will now respond and acknowledge your error.

Designating a meal as only a cheeseburger, soda and fries is not "arbitrary", unless you say that a cheeseburger and fries or soda are the same thing.

 

[cybrsage]

Except that be violate the constitution you mean states cannot define marriage in a manner that is "discriminatory". Of course any definition of marriage is going to discriminate against someone.

Which means the state cannot define marriage.

Such as discriminating against polygamy and incestuous marriages?

 

[nehalem256]

According to that, affirmative action is discrimination.

Actually it is even more clearly discrimination since established court ruling on inter-racial marriage would seem to make it clear that there is no real difference between people of different races. ie they have ruled that distinctions on race are arbitrary.

 

[nehalem256]

Such as discriminating against polygamy and incestuous marriages?

The only reason given for opposing incestuous marriage is the possibility of genetically inferior offspring.

Unfortunately if you buy that argument you are basically saying that an important part of marriage is producing offspring. Something which a gay couple is incapable of doing.