Supreme court strikes down DOMA - Page 10

12% approval rate, 90% incumbency, how the fuck does that even happen? /sigh

On June 27 2013 06:03 Jibba wrote:

What about the VRA yesterday? They literally said the reason is because social conditions have changed. If you claim to be against activism, you can't strike down a law for that reason. It's for Congress to decide.

On June 27 2013 06:14 Plansix wrote:


The ruling on that basically said: "Congress, update you 50 year old voter registration law, rather than renewing it. Shit has changed. Do you job."

As I said before, your going to see a lot of more these where SCOTUS basically calls out the legislator for not getting shit done. They do not like overuling laws or being forced to rule on laws based on practices from +50 years ago.

On June 27 2013 06:12 Stol wrote:
The people opposing this had some pretty weird reasons. Complaining on the fact that the supreme court can overthrow laws and saying capitalism will die is quite funny. And really, really sad.

On June 27 2013 06:01 packrat386 wrote:
religion =/= patriarchy. I know that in general the church has not been incredibly progressive on the issue of womens rights, but that doesn't mean that all religious people are misogynists. A lot of couples bothgay and straight want to have their marriage recognized by god and the avenue that they deem best to do that is through the church. Also I'm not sure why getting rid of patriarchy necessitates the destruction of marriage as a whole, its just a 2 person commit to love and live with each other.

Also this decision has nothing to do with churches recognizing SSM (many of them still won't in the US). It only has to do with how the state defines marriage.

On June 27 2013 06:20 Reason wrote:
Pat Robertson

Allowing gay couples to access the same rights and benefits as straight couples is an attack on “the foundation of our society” led by “a few people [who] want to have their way of doing of sex affirmed by everybody else,” Robertson warned on the “700 Club” on Wednesday.

“They say it’s homophobia to believe that a marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned by God. God is not a homophobe, God is almighty. He’s in charge of the world and this is the way he made it. Why? Because there isn’t any other way to have children. Two men do not have children, two women do not have children. That is the way God made it.”

With arguments as solid as Pat's I have no idea why people are even considering gay marriage in the first place.

On June 27 2013 06:15 Jibba wrote:

That is fucking judicial activism.

They're making a judgment on the public policy aspects of a current law. Who's to say it needs to be updated? Upon what criteria? The criteria legislators deal with.

I can't think of a more obvious example of judicial activism in recent memory.

On June 27 2013 06:20 Reason wrote:
Pat Robertson

Allowing gay couples to access the same rights and benefits as straight couples is an attack on “the foundation of our society” led by “a few people [who] want to have their way of doing of sex affirmed by everybody else,” Robertson warned on the “700 Club” on Wednesday.

“They say it’s homophobia to believe that a marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned by God. God is not a homophobe, God is almighty. He’s in charge of the world and this is the way he made it. Why? Because there isn’t any other way to have children. Two men do not have children, two women do not have children. That is the way God made it.”

With arguments as solid as Pat's I have no idea why people are even considering gay marriage in the first place.

On June 27 2013 06:20 TWIX_Heaven wrote:


Fighting patriarchy is not exclusively about women's right (though that is a important step in the right direction in getting there) but about the removal of social as well as governmental systems in which patriarchal thinking and governing is prevalent (such as traditional marriage). I think its important to realize that, two persons committing to live with, and love each other, is not marriage on its own, and should not be viewed as such. Marriage is a binding, in which both parties have obligations, both legal and morally(at least from a religious and or social point of view), which are different based on who in that binding you are (male/female). I am all for people finding love, but regardless of what box you feel you fit in, you should have the same rights as everyone else.

I know the decision has got nothing to do with the religious part of it, but that is where its going it seems (looking at Europe and Scandinavia) And while it's surely a step in the right direction, i mean that part is obvious, i just always wondered why is was such a issue to begin with, and why the discussion isn't about removing status and rights from existing marriage systems, instead of granting said rights to more people.

On June 27 2013 06:20 Reason wrote:
Pat Robertson

Allowing gay couples to access the same rights and benefits as straight couples is an attack on “the foundation of our society” led by “a few people [who] want to have their way of doing of sex affirmed by everybody else,” Robertson warned on the “700 Club” on Wednesday.

“They say it’s homophobia to believe that a marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned by God. God is not a homophobe, God is almighty. He’s in charge of the world and this is the way he made it. Why? Because there isn’t any other way to have children. Two men do not have children, two women do not have children. That is the way God made it.”

With arguments as solid as Pat's I have no idea why people are even considering gay marriage in the first place.

On June 27 2013 05:59 Plansix wrote:

That is the endless debate that people have about the Supreme Court: Is it an agent for change? People debate it until the end of time and use phrased like "activist judges" and so on. There are good sides and bad sides to the argument. In general, from working the the legal field, activist judges are bad and generally cause more harm than good.

But Scalia is correct that they do not have supremacy over what is constitutional and what isn't. It is a terrible tool for change, since they are limited by their rulings and can only address issues that are brought before them. He would argue that it is the Representatives in Congress and the Executive branch's job to address these issues across the board, rather than bring each one up before the court for them to decide on its own merits.

You are going to see a lot more like these, where the Court tell says to Congress "Yo, you guys should be handling this shit, not us."

On June 27 2013 06:39 docvoc wrote:
After re-reading this. This also means that the federal government cannot make same-sex marriage legal. If the government cannot make something illegal, then it must leave it up to the states to ensure its legality. That is going to make same-sex marriage a really tough, long fight. If states rights are upheld for this, then states rights must be upheld later as well. This is going to get complicated, fast.

On June 27 2013 06:31 Plansix wrote:

Who is this man and why do I give a shit what he says, or repeats because I have heard this shit before? What about couples that don't have babies? What do we do with them, unmarry them for not cranking one out in time. How about elderly couples who get married?

And God said don't judge too, but Christians are fond of forgetting that part.

On June 27 2013 06:39 docvoc wrote:
After re-reading this. This also means that the federal government cannot make same-sex marriage legal. If the government cannot make something illegal, then it must leave it up to the states to ensure its legality. That is going to make same-sex marriage a really tough, long fight. If states rights are upheld for this, then states rights must be upheld later as well. This is going to get complicated, fast.