SCOTUS struck down DOMA

[irishScott]

Because to believe in SSM you have to believe in the perversion that marriage is just a contract to extort government benefits.

Then what do you say to people like me?

I technically support same-sex marriage, but my case is based on my belief that there shouldn't be a legal definition of marriage in the first place. Any two consenting adults engaged in a life-long romantic relationship should be entitled to the status of "civil union", regardless of gender or sexual persuasion. Leave it to the churches, individuals and other moral authorities to decide what a "marriage" is or isn't.

 

[Wreckem]

Gay marriage is legal in CA and those marriages have to be recognized by the federal govt but not other states. Issue isn't settled but this is a win for gay rights.

 

[DCal430]

Lack of standing.

 

[Wreckem]

Can someone summarize the legal reasoning of the dissenters once available? While I agree with this ruling I'd like to see what the thought processes were for Roberts and friends in reaching their votes.

No jurisdiction to hear the case.

 

[nehalem256]

Then what do you say to people like me?

I technically support same-sex marriage, but my case is based on my belief that there shouldn't be a legal definition of marriage in the first place. Any two consenting adults engaged in a life-long romantic relationship should be entitled to the status of "civil union", regardless of gender or sexual persuasion. Leave it to the churches, individuals and other moral authorities to decide what a "marriage" is or isn't.

I would ask why you think a "civil union" should exist at all.

Why should someone be entitled to receive SS benefits based on your work record? Or inherit you possessions tax free?

 

[Brainonska511]

Then what do you say to people like me?

I technically support same-sex marriage, but my case is based on my belief that there shouldn't be a legal definition of marriage in the first place. Any two consenting adults engaged in a life-long romantic relationship should be entitled to the status of "civil union", regardless of gender or sexual persuasion. Leave it to the churches, individuals and other moral authorities to decide what a "marriage" is or isn't.

I don't see a problem with the word marriage. It has been used in a civil sense since forever. People have been able to get married by their local government without any religion involved since forever. The argument that government should call it 'civil unions' and reserve 'marriage' for religion really rings of a scorched earth style argument of 'if we can't have it alone, no one can have it'.

 

[Oldgamer]

Gay marriage is legal in CA and those marriages have to be recognized by the federal govt but not other states. Issue isn't settled but this is a win for gay rights.

yea, it looks like the SCOTUS punted again.. they basically said that the cases in Prop 8 were not given a "legal standing" and were discrminated against, but they were sly as to not include any statements for other states.

Again, they took a safe route, and punted it seems. Amazing, now I want to read the dissents to see what they say.

 

[nageov3t]

 

[Oldgamer]

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a 1996 law denying federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples is unconstitutional, in a sign of how rapidly the national debate over gay rights has shifted.

The decision was 5 to 4, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy writing the majority opinion, which the four liberal-leaning justices joined. (Read the decision.)

“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was in the minority, as were Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

The ruling overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed with bipartisan support and which President Bill Clinton signed.

The decision will immediately extend some federal benefits to same-sex couples, but it will also raise a series of major decisions for the Obama administration about how aggressively to overhaul references to marriage throughout the many volumes that lay out the laws of the United States.

The court is still expected to rule Wednesday on a second case involving same-sex marriage: whether California’s ban on it is unconstitutional.

The decision on the Defense of Marriage Act does not alter any state laws governing whether same-sex couples can marry. It instead determines whether same-sex couples that are legally married in one state receive federal benefits that apply to heterosexual married couples.

“In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us,” Justice Scalia wrote in his dissent. “The truth is more complicated.”

Justice Scalia read from his dissent on the bench, a step justices take in a small share of cases, typically to show that they have especially strong views.

Justice Kennedy, in his opinion, wrote that the law was “unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.”

Link to article

 

[Wreckem]

yea, it looks like the SCOTUS punted again.. they basically said that the cases in Prop 8 were not given a "legal standing" and were discrminated against, but they were sly as to not include any statements for other states.

Again, they took a safe route, and punted it seems. Amazing, now I want to read the dissents to see what they say.

It's punting to an extent but not the same type of punting as in fisher. The district courts ruling in CA is binding in CA and their opinion pretty much makes it final. They punted on the merits but prop 8 is never coming back in CA.

And The DOMA could have never ruled same sex marriage bans as unconstitutional as that wasn't the issue in the case.

 

[irishScott]

I don't see a problem with the word marriage. It has been used in a civil sense since forever. People have been able to get married by their local government without any religion involved since forever. The argument that government should call it 'civil unions' and reserve 'marriage' for religion really rings of a scorched earth style argument of 'if we can't have it alone, no one can have it'.

I agree.

Note I mentioned "individuals" in addition to churches. Marriage means different things to different people, even people of the same sexual persuasion. To have some legal definition of it is ludicrous IMO.

If two people want to get "married", there's enough diversity in this country that they can find someone to go through the whole ceremony regardless of their religious (or lack thereof) persuasion. Hell you can leave the power to marry in the hands of the government if you like, to make sure Atheists have someone. I just don't think the word "marriage" or a marriage license should have any legal meaning. It's a very charged word for a lot of people.

 

[sportage]

This probably is the last great battle for equality.
Those offended or shocked have really nothing to fear or worry about.
That being SS couples getting married will not only have no effect on those apposed to, those opposed would have no idea when or who of the same sex is getting married.
In other words, all that anger and hatred had no substance.
Unless someone you personally know were getting SS married, you'd have no idea of the event.
It comes down to a private, personal life decisions.
Just like with every other marriage in history, no one not connect to the couple in question should have any influence in the matter or that couples decision.

The only problem to worry about now is will you get an invitation?
And if you do not, would you be pissed?
I'm assuming SS marriage will be nation wide, coast to coast, in the very near future.
No state law, no ballot vote, will ever again hold up in court.
States now with SS marriage are now safe and protected from voter retraction.
Those states not yet allowing SS marriage will have no legal grounds to oppose that state granting SS marriage.
This decision is the game changer.

 

[nageov3t]

The decision on the Defense of Marriage Act does not alter any state laws governing whether same-sex couples can marry. It instead determines whether same-sex couples that are legally married in one state receive federal benefits that apply to heterosexual married couples.

it's still a major impediment, though, even in states where gay marriage was legal.

in the immediate aftermath, I wonder if this means that homosexual couples will be able to get citizenship for their partners if one is a non-citizen.

 

[Jaskalas]

It really is all about government benefits.

It's up to the legislature to remove government from marriage... to shrink gov... hahha, nevermind. Shrinking or cutting in this country is to grow government a little slower. They will never remove themselves from something.

It's just a contract with the government anyway, and I have more grounds to support equality in government dealings than to oppose it. Not saying I really support or am fond of this - but as things stand now with the present law and legislature, it cannot be any other way. The SCOTUS had to rule this way.

 

[irishScott]

I would ask why you think a "civil union" should exist at all.

Why should someone be entitled to receive SS benefits based on your work record? Or inherit you possessions tax free?

Because they're family; and heirlooms, property and everything else has been passed down through generations from time immemorial. If you say I have to pay taxes to pass down my inheritance to my future kids, well fuck you. I'll convert it all to hard cash and keep it under the mattress, give it to them and instruct them to keep it secret and not spend it all at once. Because the government has no more right to tax that than they have a right to tax birthday presents.

Humanity is based, in one way or another, around the concept of family. To deny that and say that we're little more than 7 billion individuals is, well kinda dumb.

 

[LightPattern]

It is, but regardless, who someone else marries in no way whatsoever effects your marriage. People that talk about the "sanctity" of marriage during an epidemic of cheating and divorce, it's so comically hypocritical it makes the brain explode.

Widening the definition of marriage to include same-sex partners isn't necessarily leading to the downfall of marriage as we've known it.

But it's striking that heterosexual couples are increasingly disfavoring marriage before childbirth at precisely the same time that social liberals are working to redefine marriage.

 

[nageov3t]

Then what do you say to people like me?

I technically support same-sex marriage, but my case is based on my belief that there shouldn't be a legal definition of marriage in the first place. Any two consenting adults engaged in a life-long romantic relationship should be entitled to the status of "civil union", regardless of gender or sexual persuasion. Leave it to the churches, individuals and other moral authorities to decide what a "marriage" is or isn't.

in a perfect world, I'd agree with you... but banning marriage all-together and replacing it with civil unions is probably more trouble than it's worth.

in its current form, civil unions have been shown to be separate-but-not-equal, as people like insurance companies will grasp onto any loophole to deny coverage if, say, they only grant spousal benefits to "married" couples.

 

[dank69]

This probably is the last great battle for equality.
Those offended or shocked have really nothing to fear or worry about.
That being SS couples getting married will not only have no effect on those apposed to, those opposed would have no idea when or who of the same sex is getting married.
In other words, all that anger and hatred had no substance.
Unless someone you personally know were getting SS married, you'd have no idea of the event.
It comes down to a private, personal life decisions.
Just like with every other marriage in history, no one not connect to the couple in question should have any influence in the matter or that couples decision.

The only problem to worry about now is will you get an invitation?
And if you do not, would you be pissed?
I'm assuming SS marriage will be nation wide, coast to coast, in the very near future.
No state law, no ballot vote, will ever again hold up in court.
States now with SS marriage are now safe and protected from voter retraction.
Those states not yet allowing SS marriage will have no legal grounds to oppose that state granting SS marriage.
This decision is the game changer.

I think polygamy will be next. No rational reason to oppose it anymore, just like there wasn't a rational reason to oppose SSM.

 

[Jaskalas]

in a perfect world, I'd agree with you... but banning marriage all-together and replacing it with civil unions is probably more trouble than it's worth.

in its current form, civil unions have been shown to be separate-but-not-equal, as people like insurance companies will grasp onto any loophole to deny coverage if, say, they only grant spousal benefits to "married" couples.

That's not a problem or difficult thing to fix. Marriage becomes a term for Civil Union, all rights and legal definitions of marriage get transferred to Civil Unions. Done.

This isn't rocket science - but it's FAR beyond the capabilities of our glorious leaders.

 

[shadow9d9]

Widening the definition of marriage to include same-sex partners isn't necessarily leading to the downfall of marriage as we've known it.

But it's striking that heterosexual couples are increasingly disfavoring marriage before childbirth at precisely the same time that social liberals are working to redefine marriage.

I don't see marriage as being redefined at all. It has always been for two people... I just don't see the reasoning that people think it should only be for heterosexuals.

 

[DCal430]

Given that the Prop 8 case wasn't a class action, I am wondering if they could argue the district court decision only applies to the two couples?

 

[nehalem256]

Because they're family; and heirlooms, property and everything else has been passed down through generations from time immemorial. If you say I have to pay taxes to pass down my inheritance to my future kids, well fuck you. I'll convert it all to hard cash and keep it under the mattress, and instruct them to keep it secret. Because the government has no more right to tax that than they have a right to tax birthday presents.

Humanity is based, in one way or another, around the concept of family. To deny that and say that we're little more than 7 billion individuals is, well kinda dumb.

You don't typically marry your children. And I believe that your children do have to pay inheritance taxes.

Widening the definition of marriage to include same-sex partners isn't necessarily leading to the downfall of marriage as we've known it.

But it's striking that heterosexual couples are increasingly disfavoring marriage before childbirth at precisely the same time that social liberals are working to redefine marriage.

Its not interesting at all. Its obvious. If marriage is just a contract to extort benefits from the government why would you expect to sign such a contract before getting married?

 

[sunzt]

Imagine what the outcomes would have been if Obama had not been president to appoint Kagan and Sotomayer...

Elections have far reaching consequences.......

 

[nehalem256]

in a perfect world, I'd agree with you... but banning marriage all-together and replacing it with civil unions is probably more trouble than it's worth.

in its current form, civil unions have been shown to be separate-but-not-equal, as people like insurance companies will grasp onto any loophole to deny coverage if, say, they only grant spousal benefits to "married" couples.

EDIT: So the purpose of SSM is to force your views on others. So much for not affecting other people huh?

I don't see marriage as being redefined at all. It has always been for two people... I just don't see the reasoning that people think it should only be for heterosexuals.

No it has always been between at least one man and one woman.

But putting aside shall we say non-recent western history it has always been between a man and a woman. The only way you can say that redefining it as between 2 people is not changing the definition is if you don't understand men and women are different.

 

[fskimospy]

Given that the Prop 8 case wasn't a class action, I am wondering if they could argue the district court decision only applies to the two couples?

Nope. The ruling is for what California as a state is permitted to do, not about whether these two couples can be married. It holds for everyone without exception.