Supreme court strikes down DOMA - Page 12

On June 27 2013 07:53 cLAN.Anax wrote:
Not sure why the government cares whether we're married or not in the first place.... Differences in taxation based on marital status is as dumb as based on any other factor of one's life. I've no problem letting the states make up their own minds (which I believe DOMA did permit), but personally, I don't see why the fed ought care about who I may or may not be bound to for life.

On June 27 2013 07:31 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:

Thanks.

But I thought no one is immune to the constitution, IE: A state couldn't make slavery legal just because they wanted it. So if the supreme court, the highest court in the land says that the constitution doesn't allow discrimination against same sex marriage then wouldn't that have to trickle down and effect every state equally the same way Roe V. Wade made abortion legal throughout the country based off the right to privacy?

On June 27 2013 05:22 codonbyte wrote:

So what you are saying is that just because you don't typically think of a gay couple when you think of marriage, therefore a lesbian should not have visitation rights to visit her partner who's sick and in the hospital? Because when you say you don't support making gay marriage legal, that is what you are saying: that gay couples do not deserve the same legal rights, benefits and responsibilities that you get to enjoy. Despicable.

On June 27 2013 07:35 packrat386 wrote:


The court didn't rule on whether offering marriage only to heterosexual couples was a violation of the 14th. They only ruled that it was a violation to withhold federal benefits to people with state sanctioned SSM's

On June 27 2013 07:56 Daethan wrote:


Unfortunately the Supreme Court did *NOT* say that the Constitution doesn't allow discrimination against same-sex marriage though I can understand why the issue is confusing especially considering how the media is covering the decision. So here are a couple points:

1. You are correct that a state cannot legalize slavery. This is because it would infringe upon a person's rights as defined in the Constitution.

2. This ruling says that the federal government does not have the right treat one class of people (gay couples) differently than (straight people) because the state law (in this case New York) treats them equally. Section 3 of DOMA defined marriage for federal purposes as only one man and one woman (i.e. in conflict with NY).

3. Section 2 of DOMA still holds since it was not part of this case because the plaintiff was legally married in NY. Section 2 protects other states from recognizing marriages that are legal in another. For example, if a gay couple from Utah gets married in California, Utah does not have to treat them as married.

I think it is only a matter of time before the constitutionality of Section 2 is decided, but until then it is still up to the states to define marriage. Right now that is about three dozen states. Today's decision was a good step forward but we still have a long way to go.

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

On June 27 2013 00:40 Plansix wrote:

Nah, for 9-0's you need something super dumb, like copyrighting human DNA.

On June 27 2013 07:55 PrinceXizor wrote:

Its based on the "traditional family" where the man has an income and the wife stays at home. the tax system rewards you for having "family values" and if your wife makes significantly less than you (or nothing) you get a tax break because your money has to go to both of you and not just yourself. meanwhile if you and your wife make similiar amounts, you get punished.

On June 27 2013 08:15 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:

I was reading section two just now. If they overturned section 2 wouldn't that just require states that have SSM as illegal to recognize SSM performed in states that allow it?

IE: If it said "states are allowed to decide whether same sex marriage is legal in their state and can choose to respect/not respect other states laws pertaining to that." and that was ruled unconstitutional then all states would have to respect SSM being either legal or illegal and not have a choice in the matter. However the wording of section two only seems to indicate whether state that don't have SSM need to recognize the marriage of individuals who get married in states that allow it.

On June 27 2013 08:16 Lockitupv2 wrote:
Probably one of the most frustrating days of my life. Ignoring the fact of massive misunderstanding of why the scotus ruled each way and the actual outcomes, people who wanted doma to be overturned are cheering for the scotus.

Lets be serious for a moment.
No one, gay or straight, has any reason to thank anyone in office for these outcomes. There is only one thing you can thank and that is the Constitution. Well, I guess you could thank the people who wrote it.

The supreme court doesnt care about your campaign for gay marriage. It doesnt care about your equality. It doesnt even care if you are gay. The supreme court cares only about one thing which is making sure the laws/rules/etc are all valid under the constitution.

Also, it was a good day for state rights. If only there was a politician who believed greatly in state rights.

It gets a bad rep for being old (by some) but that hardly means it is irrelevant.

On June 27 2013 08:16 Lockitupv2 wrote:
The supreme court doesnt care about your campaign for gay marriage. It doesnt care about your equality. It doesnt even care if you are gay. The supreme court cares only about one thing which is making sure the laws/rules/etc are all valid under the constitution.

On June 27 2013 06:25 Plans ix wrote:

The ruling said that Congress could pass a law with the exact same rules as to voter restrictions, but they needed to be based on current information, not information from 50 years ago. That was the problem with the law, not that it was bad, but that congress couldn't get anyone to agree what the new rules should be, so they just renewed the old one. The SCOTUS told them no, you can't restrict states ability to set voting rules based on information from the 1960s.

And when I say it said, it literally said "Congress can pass a law to protect voters rights and limit discrimination at the polls, but it must be based on current information."

On June 27 2013 08:16 Lockitupv2 wrote:
Probably one of the most frustrating days of my life. Ignoring the fact of massive misunderstanding of why the scotus ruled each way and the actual outcomes, people who wanted doma to be overturned are cheering for the scotus.

Lets be serious for a moment.
No one, gay or straight, has any reason to thank anyone in office for these outcomes. There is only one thing you can thank and that is the Constitution. Well, I guess you could thank the people who wrote it.

The supreme court doesnt care about your campaign for gay marriage. It doesnt care about your equality. It doesnt even care if you are gay. The supreme court cares only about one thing which is making sure the laws/rules/etc are all valid under the constitution.

Also, it was a good day for state rights. If only there was a politician who believed greatly in state rights.

It gets a bad rep for being old (by some) but that hardly means it is irrelevant.

On June 27 2013 10:13 Shiori wrote:

States rights gets a bad rep because it's often used to justify dodging things that the federal government mandates. States rights should only exist if they serve some sort of pragmatic purpose. Things that are issues of human rights shouldn't be down to the states to decide because they apply universally regardless of one's location. I swear, America's ethical dilemmas would be solved so much more quickly if they just nixed this concept that one state can think the death penalty is heinous and another think that it's justified. The answer to such a debate doesn't change based on where you live. Why then should it vary within a nation?

++ It would be splendid if the SCOTUS was more liberal in its interpretation of the constitution. It would be awfully convenient for the progression of precedent for them to take a more serious interest in pressing ethical debates rather than just shying away from them or ruling based on technicalities. Bite the bullet, I say.

On June 27 2013 10:17 Lockitupv2 wrote:



I was talking about the constitution being old but I was unclear.

You picked a bad example because you can argue that the death penalty is against the constitution

On June 27 2013 10:19 Shiori wrote:

You can argue that, but you can also argue that it's an issue for the states.