Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 39

Thread: SCOTUS Rules DOMA Unconstitutional

  1. #1

    Default SCOTUS Rules DOMA Unconstitutional

    Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

    I'm pleased to see this, how about you?

    ----EDIT----

    The court also issued a ruling on California's Proposition 8, here. The ruling dismisses the case, citing that the group bringing it forward did not have the right to appeal the lower court ruling.
    Last edited by AnalogRTO; 26-Jun-2013 at 16:40. Reason: Added extra info

  2. #2

  3. #3
    June

    Default

    I think this was a horrible decision. The government robbed traditional marriage advocates of a fairly passed legislation, just as fairly passed as Jim Crow laws and amendments criminalizing consensual homosexuality. Our SC is forgetting that we are a Christian nation; it says so in the constitution. This will lead to a broken generation. Kids with gay parents will catch their homosexuality (which is contagious; it says so in the bible). Kids with a mom and dad are raised better. I have no proof of this, but just like Bush said about the death penalty, I have a feeling they do, so it's true. Finally, I don't even get why gays would want to marry in the first place. Marriage is about procreation and we are vastly underpopulated as a nation and a planet.

    In all seriousness, this was a great ruling, a great victory, and a great step forward. Bravo.

  4. #4

    Default

    I think it was a fair ruling. I'm normally for managing governance on as local a level as possible, but IMO discrimination shouldn't be legislatable (not a word, but who cares.)

  5. #5

    Default

    The ruling was fair. I may not like the decision, but at least it was not one person trying to make a unilateral decision. With the court deciding this our checks and balances system is shown to be in place and working.

    As far as the actual argument goes? I am often one that thinks that same sex couples should have all the legal rights and benefits as those unions between a man and woman. Legally, all unions should be the same.

  6. #6

    Default

    I think it was a stupid as fuck ruling. No not because they legalized it here in California and hit a part of DOMA.

    But that they simply didn't rule it legal everywhere. All that's going to happen is a court case from every other state where its up in the air/illegal and then come right back to them.

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire2box View Post
    I think it was a stupid as f*** ruling. No not because they legalized it here in California and hit a part of DOMA.

    But that they simply didn't rule it legal everywhere. All that's going to happen is a court case from every other state where its up in the air/illegal and then come right back to them.
    I have to agree with you on this one.

    While it's a big step forward towards equality in the USA, we haven't heard the end of it.

    I've never heard of a functionally sound argument to uphold that marriage should remain between one man and one woman.

    The most functional argument I have ever heard is simply "The Bible says so."

    Well, there are religions and sects of Christianity/Catholicism/Judaism that state otherwise; thus it infringes on their personal religion!

    Well, wait; no it doesn't because they can perform the wedding, you just don't get a legal certificate for your marriage.

    It's never been about religion, it's purely at the government level governing rule of one religion over many others.

    I hope this really steps the US forward (and many other nations seeking legalization of same-sex marriage).

    - Lobie

  8. #8
    June

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire2box View Post
    I think it was a stupid as fuck ruling. No not because they legalized it here in California and hit a part of DOMA.

    But that they simply didn't rule it legal everywhere. All that's going to happen is a court case from every other state where its up in the air/illegal and then come right back to them.
    I'm trying to understand why they didn't strike down the other part as well by using the Full Faith and Credit Clause. It seems almost too simple to be true. Constitutionally, my state should be required to recognize your state's marriage licenses.

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by June View Post
    I'm trying to understand why they didn't strike down the other part as well by using the Full Faith and Credit Clause. It seems almost too simple to be true. Constitutionally, my state should be required to recognize your state's marriage licenses.
    Generally courts try to rule as narrowly as possible. This is both to respect the legislative process and to avoid setting precedents that they might not be ready to set (given that our courts function very heavily on precedent). The Roberts court in particular has really been trying to limit access to the judiciary strict in its in interpretation of who does and does not have standing to bring a case. It's always a thing, since our courts are based on the idea that one must have suffered or will suffer a demonstrable "injury" in order to bring a suit and that a judgement can make the person "whole."

    In this case, though, while I understand the principles by which they determined the Prop 8 proponents had no standing, I agree with Kennedy's dissent and the idea that the California Supreme Court had already decided that the proponents legally could act on behalf of the State of California. The SCOTUS has previously ruled on cases like this where the proponents of ballot initiatives have tried to act on the state's behalf, and in pretty much every instance they've ruled those proponents did not have standing. I think the facts in this case were sufficiently different to warrant a different ruling on standing, but I get where the majority ruling came from.

    While I would have liked a good decision today, I think the court still gave us a huge boost going forward. They vacated the 9th Circuit's ruling, which is the judicial equivalent of the SCOTUS telling the 9th that they fucked up so badly that their decision was not even salvageable. They left the District Court's ruling stand. My inkling is that the court is looking for a couple of conflicting Circuit Court rulings and some precedent-setting legal reasoning before they'll take a marriage case on the merits. While District Court rulings do not set precedent, this one was so well publicized and the effects simultaneously huge and severely constrained. I think the stage has been set for future suits, legislative action, and a bit more on the record for the court to consider in some future case.

  10. #10

    Default

    I'm an American in a same-sex relationship with a non-American. Words do not do justice to what it means for me that section 3 of DOMA died in a fire today.

    The ruling today was largely in line with what was expected after the oral arguments - they struck DOMA and found a way to punt on Prop 8. However, and this is really key, they struck DOMA on equal protection grounds, with logic that would seem to also justify outright ruling for a right to same-sex marriage. This is hugely helpful precedent in the fight for gay rights and all but guarantees that SCOTUS will have to decide a case on the merits of bans on same-sex marriage within a few years (and, in fact, even as soon as the next term; there are multiple relevant cases pending to which they could grant certorari tomorrow).

Similar Threads

  1. SCOTUS overturns sec 5 of the voting rights act.
    By oleman72 in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 27-Jun-2013, 04:26
  2. Rules....(Please help)
    By Baby23 in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 30-Apr-2013, 16:28

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.