US Politics Mega-thread - Page 303

On June 26 2013 23:08 Derez wrote:
Doma is unconstitutional?



liveblog: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2013/jun/26/usa

On June 26 2013 23:10 FromShouri wrote:

Si doma is no more gays are free to get married! Lets start it up las vegas drive through chappel style!

Scalia, in his dissent, wrote: “We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.”

Good news for California supporters of same-sex marriage: the supreme court won't touch a lower court finding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

The effect of the supreme court's action – or inaction – is to restore same-sex marriage in California – without setting any precedent or making any rule that applies to marriage for other states.

On June 26 2013 23:43 mordek wrote:
I don't personally support homosexual behavior but I think the correct decision was made. No reason to treat same sex couples any differently.

On June 26 2013 23:47 marvellosity wrote:


Phew! I don't support heterosexual behaviour either, but you're ok in my book too bbygrl xoxox

On June 26 2013 23:53 mordek wrote:

:\ I was afraid if I posted my opinion on the matter might get this. Not sure what you want. Oh well

On June 26 2013 23:55 marvellosity wrote:


Gentle teasing, never fear. Wasn't after anything

edit: apart from your continued advice in H&F. rofl.

On June 26 2013 23:32 Derez wrote:
Prop 8 is down also, but only applies to california as expected.

DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code. The particular case at hand concerns the estate tax, but DOMA is more than a simple determination of what should or should not be allowed as an estate tax refund. Among the over 1,000 statutes and numerous federal regulations that DOMA controls are laws pertaining to Social Security, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright, and veterans’ benefits.

DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.

Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound.

Source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf

On June 26 2013 23:58 Klondikebar wrote:


It ends up affecting things on a national level too because the Supreme Court basically said you aren't allowed to defend a law that doesn't affect you. It will also make other states leery of defending traditional marriage clauses.

On June 26 2013 23:58 mordek wrote:

XD Don't worry, it won't influence any of my advice-giving! I was hesitant to say anything to begin with so I was worried. If it's all in good fun I don't mind at all.

Someone help me out, does this ruling help situations where one partner dies and his/her possessions go to a family member instead of the partner? That always was a load of crap imo.

On June 27 2013 00:02 xDaunt wrote:

Be careful here. That's not really what the Court is saying. What the Court did was hold that individual citizens do not have standing to defend a law that has been stricken down if the law does not affect them directly; their elected officials must do it.