|
On June 27 2013 00:31 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 00:18 theking1 wrote:What does an analyst think about the entire rulling:
The Supreme Court has dismissed a closely-watched appeal over same-sex marriage on jurisdictional grounds, ruling Wednesday private parties do not have "standing" to defend California's voter-approved ballot measure barring gay and lesbians couples from state-sanctioned wedlock. The ruling permits same-sex couples in California to legally marry. The 5-4 decision avoids for now a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutionally-protected "equal protection" right that would apply to all states. The case is Hollingsworth v. Perry (12-144).
uh, that's a different ruling
this is kinda just going to become the "Supreme Court rules in favor of gay things" thread anyway. Although an update to the OP including both would be nice.
|
Cool stuff. I have really no idea about US politics but progress is always progress.
|
On June 27 2013 00:47 Bagi wrote:
Cool stuff. I have really no idea about US politics but progress is always progress.
It actually turns out that A = A ! 
On a serious note, the US Supreme Court has always been seen as a way to sort of perform an end run around an otherwise complicated political system. Because Congress and the President have constituents they have to be wary of making decisions that piss off a lot of people. This is FAR less the case for Supreme Court justices because they aren't elected, and they have the job for life. The Supreme Court is often a place where first steps are made on controversial issues since they are the only ones who can. This decision may also provide "cover" to Congress or the President to make some changes in law on this since they can use the excuse that SCOTUS forced their hand.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:31 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 00:29 arie3000 wrote:On June 27 2013 00:21 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 00:20 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 00:18 theking1 wrote:From CNN: Washington (CNN) -- In a dramatic slap at federal authority, a divided Supreme Court has struck down a key part of congressional law that denies to legally married same-sex couples the same benefits provided to heterosexual spouses.
The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.
The vote Wednesday was 5-4.
"Although Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Read the ruling
The case examined whether the federal government can deny tax, health and pension benefits to same-sex couples in states where they can legally marry. At issue was whether DOMA violates equal protection guarantees in the Fifth Amendment's due process clause as applied to same-sex couples legally married under the laws of their states.
The key plaintiff is Edith "Edie" Windsor, 84, who married fellow New York resident Thea Spyer in Canada in 2007, about 40 years into their relationship. By the time Spyer died in 2009, New York courts recognized same-sex marriages performed in other countries. But the federal government didn't recognize Windsor's same-sex marriage, and she was forced to assume an estate tax bill much larger than those that other married couples would have to pay. So, Windsor sued the federal government.
A federal appeals court last year ruled in Windsor's favor, saying DOMA violated the Constitution's equal protection clause.
"Today's DOMA ruling is a historic step forward for #MarriageEquality. #LoveIsLove," President Barack Obama's official Twitter account posted soon after the decision was handed down. Responses form other relevant individuals: Lady Gaga ✔ @ladygaga Let's go DOMA. Supreme Court lets make history & stand for MARRIAGE EQUALITY! #GetItDoneThisWeek #TheWhole WorldIsWatching What does an analyst think about the entire rulling:
The Supreme Court has dismissed a closely-watched appeal over same-sex marriage on jurisdictional grounds, ruling Wednesday private parties do not have "standing" to defend California's voter-approved ballot measure barring gay and lesbians couples from state-sanctioned wedlock. The ruling permits same-sex couples in California to legally marry. The 5-4 decision avoids for now a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutionally-protected "equal protection" right that would apply to all states. The case is Hollingsworth v. Perry (12-144).
I am personally glad that homosexuals basicly now have the same rights as heterosexuals and can also get the same benifits as heterosexuals.I am long believer in equlity for all and this measures reestablishes the United states a country based on democracy and himan rights and puts it along with Netherlands and France at the forefornt of the battle for equlity.It is also a great victory for President Obama since he has always advocated same sex marriage in his speeches and political programs. Not quite, they only have the ability to get married in states which have already signed same sex marriage into law. But like states have to recognize each others' driver's licenses, they have to recognize each others' marriages too. Sure gay people will have to get married out of state so it's not perfect, but they can still get married. No. States do NOT have to recognize out-of-state SS marriages, that is paragraph 2 of DOMA, and was not an issue before the Court, thus the Court didn't rule on it. Texas will definitely not recognize same-sex marriages until a court orders it to do. Of course, the couples can file their Federal Tax Returns as married, but in some states they will not be treated as such. Lawsuit filed in 3,2,1... it'll be a few years, and then this question will be before the justices. Good ruling today, as expected. The 'no standing' is a 50-50 thing, but at least it'll most likely bring SSM back to California. Ah ok. But yeah, a quick lawsuit will clear that up really fast. And it might not even have to go all the way to the supreme court.
No, it won't. It's not a citizen's rights being violated by that portion of DoMA, it's the state's right (where the marriage took place) that's being violated. It would be a case between a state and the federal government. That portion of DoMA has been known to be unconstitutional since its inception, yet it hasn't made it to SCOTUS yet. That's part of why it's so stupid they remained silent on it. It should have been a part of the decision. It's plain as day.
This is a good victory but unfortunately there's still a very, very long way to go in this country. The worst states are still pulling the country down.
|
Steps in the right direction, at least in some areas for us. Now what time is Rush, or a similar commentator on? I want to hear some ranting.
|
On June 27 2013 00:53 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 00:31 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 00:29 arie3000 wrote:On June 27 2013 00:21 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 00:20 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 00:18 theking1 wrote:From CNN: Washington (CNN) -- In a dramatic slap at federal authority, a divided Supreme Court has struck down a key part of congressional law that denies to legally married same-sex couples the same benefits provided to heterosexual spouses.
The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.
The vote Wednesday was 5-4.
"Although Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Read the ruling
The case examined whether the federal government can deny tax, health and pension benefits to same-sex couples in states where they can legally marry. At issue was whether DOMA violates equal protection guarantees in the Fifth Amendment's due process clause as applied to same-sex couples legally married under the laws of their states.
The key plaintiff is Edith "Edie" Windsor, 84, who married fellow New York resident Thea Spyer in Canada in 2007, about 40 years into their relationship. By the time Spyer died in 2009, New York courts recognized same-sex marriages performed in other countries. But the federal government didn't recognize Windsor's same-sex marriage, and she was forced to assume an estate tax bill much larger than those that other married couples would have to pay. So, Windsor sued the federal government.
A federal appeals court last year ruled in Windsor's favor, saying DOMA violated the Constitution's equal protection clause.
"Today's DOMA ruling is a historic step forward for #MarriageEquality. #LoveIsLove," President Barack Obama's official Twitter account posted soon after the decision was handed down. Responses form other relevant individuals: Lady Gaga ✔ @ladygaga Let's go DOMA. Supreme Court lets make history & stand for MARRIAGE EQUALITY! #GetItDoneThisWeek #TheWhole WorldIsWatching What does an analyst think about the entire rulling:
The Supreme Court has dismissed a closely-watched appeal over same-sex marriage on jurisdictional grounds, ruling Wednesday private parties do not have "standing" to defend California's voter-approved ballot measure barring gay and lesbians couples from state-sanctioned wedlock. The ruling permits same-sex couples in California to legally marry. The 5-4 decision avoids for now a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutionally-protected "equal protection" right that would apply to all states. The case is Hollingsworth v. Perry (12-144).
I am personally glad that homosexuals basicly now have the same rights as heterosexuals and can also get the same benifits as heterosexuals.I am long believer in equlity for all and this measures reestablishes the United states a country based on democracy and himan rights and puts it along with Netherlands and France at the forefornt of the battle for equlity.It is also a great victory for President Obama since he has always advocated same sex marriage in his speeches and political programs. Not quite, they only have the ability to get married in states which have already signed same sex marriage into law. But like states have to recognize each others' driver's licenses, they have to recognize each others' marriages too. Sure gay people will have to get married out of state so it's not perfect, but they can still get married. No. States do NOT have to recognize out-of-state SS marriages, that is paragraph 2 of DOMA, and was not an issue before the Court, thus the Court didn't rule on it. Texas will definitely not recognize same-sex marriages until a court orders it to do. Of course, the couples can file their Federal Tax Returns as married, but in some states they will not be treated as such. Lawsuit filed in 3,2,1... it'll be a few years, and then this question will be before the justices. Good ruling today, as expected. The 'no standing' is a 50-50 thing, but at least it'll most likely bring SSM back to California. Ah ok. But yeah, a quick lawsuit will clear that up really fast. And it might not even have to go all the way to the supreme court. No, it won't It's not a citizen's rights being violated by that portion of DoMA, it's the state's right (where the marriage took place) that's being violated. It would be a case between a state and the federal government. That portion of DoMA has been known to be unconstitutional since its inception, yet it hasn't made it to SCOTUS yet. That's part of why it's so stupid they remained silent on it. It should have been a part of the decision. It's plain as day.
I think that it probably wasn't within the bounds of the case that was given to them. The Supreme Court doesn't have the ability to rule on just anything. They need to have a case brought, and the scope of their ruling has something to do with the writ of certiorari, but as I am not a lwayer I couldn't tell you exactly what has to happen.
|
On June 27 2013 00:53 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 00:31 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 00:29 arie3000 wrote:On June 27 2013 00:21 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 00:20 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 00:18 theking1 wrote:From CNN: Washington (CNN) -- In a dramatic slap at federal authority, a divided Supreme Court has struck down a key part of congressional law that denies to legally married same-sex couples the same benefits provided to heterosexual spouses.
The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.
The vote Wednesday was 5-4.
"Although Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Read the ruling
The case examined whether the federal government can deny tax, health and pension benefits to same-sex couples in states where they can legally marry. At issue was whether DOMA violates equal protection guarantees in the Fifth Amendment's due process clause as applied to same-sex couples legally married under the laws of their states.
The key plaintiff is Edith "Edie" Windsor, 84, who married fellow New York resident Thea Spyer in Canada in 2007, about 40 years into their relationship. By the time Spyer died in 2009, New York courts recognized same-sex marriages performed in other countries. But the federal government didn't recognize Windsor's same-sex marriage, and she was forced to assume an estate tax bill much larger than those that other married couples would have to pay. So, Windsor sued the federal government.
A federal appeals court last year ruled in Windsor's favor, saying DOMA violated the Constitution's equal protection clause.
"Today's DOMA ruling is a historic step forward for #MarriageEquality. #LoveIsLove," President Barack Obama's official Twitter account posted soon after the decision was handed down. Responses form other relevant individuals: Lady Gaga ✔ @ladygaga Let's go DOMA. Supreme Court lets make history & stand for MARRIAGE EQUALITY! #GetItDoneThisWeek #TheWhole WorldIsWatching What does an analyst think about the entire rulling:
The Supreme Court has dismissed a closely-watched appeal over same-sex marriage on jurisdictional grounds, ruling Wednesday private parties do not have "standing" to defend California's voter-approved ballot measure barring gay and lesbians couples from state-sanctioned wedlock. The ruling permits same-sex couples in California to legally marry. The 5-4 decision avoids for now a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutionally-protected "equal protection" right that would apply to all states. The case is Hollingsworth v. Perry (12-144).
I am personally glad that homosexuals basicly now have the same rights as heterosexuals and can also get the same benifits as heterosexuals.I am long believer in equlity for all and this measures reestablishes the United states a country based on democracy and himan rights and puts it along with Netherlands and France at the forefornt of the battle for equlity.It is also a great victory for President Obama since he has always advocated same sex marriage in his speeches and political programs. Not quite, they only have the ability to get married in states which have already signed same sex marriage into law. But like states have to recognize each others' driver's licenses, they have to recognize each others' marriages too. Sure gay people will have to get married out of state so it's not perfect, but they can still get married. No. States do NOT have to recognize out-of-state SS marriages, that is paragraph 2 of DOMA, and was not an issue before the Court, thus the Court didn't rule on it. Texas will definitely not recognize same-sex marriages until a court orders it to do. Of course, the couples can file their Federal Tax Returns as married, but in some states they will not be treated as such. Lawsuit filed in 3,2,1... it'll be a few years, and then this question will be before the justices. Good ruling today, as expected. The 'no standing' is a 50-50 thing, but at least it'll most likely bring SSM back to California. Ah ok. But yeah, a quick lawsuit will clear that up really fast. And it might not even have to go all the way to the supreme court. No, it won't. It's not a citizen's rights being violated by that portion of DoMA, it's the state's right (where the marriage took place) that's being violated. It would be a case between a state and the federal government. That portion of DoMA has been known to be unconstitutional since its inception, yet it hasn't made it to SCOTUS yet. That's part of why it's so stupid they remained silent on it. It should have been a part of the decision. It's plain as day. This is a good victory but unfortunately there's still a very, very long way to go in this country. The worst states are still pulling the country down.
DOMA was struck down on equal protection grounds, not federalism grounds. The Supreme Court says that it does violate citizen's rights. Married couples must be treated equally at the federal level.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:59 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 00:53 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 00:31 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 00:29 arie3000 wrote:On June 27 2013 00:21 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 00:20 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 00:18 theking1 wrote:From CNN: Washington (CNN) -- In a dramatic slap at federal authority, a divided Supreme Court has struck down a key part of congressional law that denies to legally married same-sex couples the same benefits provided to heterosexual spouses.
The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.
The vote Wednesday was 5-4.
"Although Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Read the ruling
The case examined whether the federal government can deny tax, health and pension benefits to same-sex couples in states where they can legally marry. At issue was whether DOMA violates equal protection guarantees in the Fifth Amendment's due process clause as applied to same-sex couples legally married under the laws of their states.
The key plaintiff is Edith "Edie" Windsor, 84, who married fellow New York resident Thea Spyer in Canada in 2007, about 40 years into their relationship. By the time Spyer died in 2009, New York courts recognized same-sex marriages performed in other countries. But the federal government didn't recognize Windsor's same-sex marriage, and she was forced to assume an estate tax bill much larger than those that other married couples would have to pay. So, Windsor sued the federal government.
A federal appeals court last year ruled in Windsor's favor, saying DOMA violated the Constitution's equal protection clause.
"Today's DOMA ruling is a historic step forward for #MarriageEquality. #LoveIsLove," President Barack Obama's official Twitter account posted soon after the decision was handed down. Responses form other relevant individuals: Lady Gaga ✔ @ladygaga Let's go DOMA. Supreme Court lets make history & stand for MARRIAGE EQUALITY! #GetItDoneThisWeek #TheWhole WorldIsWatching What does an analyst think about the entire rulling:
The Supreme Court has dismissed a closely-watched appeal over same-sex marriage on jurisdictional grounds, ruling Wednesday private parties do not have "standing" to defend California's voter-approved ballot measure barring gay and lesbians couples from state-sanctioned wedlock. The ruling permits same-sex couples in California to legally marry. The 5-4 decision avoids for now a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutionally-protected "equal protection" right that would apply to all states. The case is Hollingsworth v. Perry (12-144).
I am personally glad that homosexuals basicly now have the same rights as heterosexuals and can also get the same benifits as heterosexuals.I am long believer in equlity for all and this measures reestablishes the United states a country based on democracy and himan rights and puts it along with Netherlands and France at the forefornt of the battle for equlity.It is also a great victory for President Obama since he has always advocated same sex marriage in his speeches and political programs. Not quite, they only have the ability to get married in states which have already signed same sex marriage into law. But like states have to recognize each others' driver's licenses, they have to recognize each others' marriages too. Sure gay people will have to get married out of state so it's not perfect, but they can still get married. No. States do NOT have to recognize out-of-state SS marriages, that is paragraph 2 of DOMA, and was not an issue before the Court, thus the Court didn't rule on it. Texas will definitely not recognize same-sex marriages until a court orders it to do. Of course, the couples can file their Federal Tax Returns as married, but in some states they will not be treated as such. Lawsuit filed in 3,2,1... it'll be a few years, and then this question will be before the justices. Good ruling today, as expected. The 'no standing' is a 50-50 thing, but at least it'll most likely bring SSM back to California. Ah ok. But yeah, a quick lawsuit will clear that up really fast. And it might not even have to go all the way to the supreme court. No, it won't. It's not a citizen's rights being violated by that portion of DoMA, it's the state's right (where the marriage took place) that's being violated. It would be a case between a state and the federal government. That portion of DoMA has been known to be unconstitutional since its inception, yet it hasn't made it to SCOTUS yet. That's part of why it's so stupid they remained silent on it. It should have been a part of the decision. It's plain as day. This is a good victory but unfortunately there's still a very, very long way to go in this country. The worst states are still pulling the country down. DOMA was struck down on equal protection grounds, not federalism grounds. The Supreme Court says that it does violate citizen's rights. "by that portion of DoMA"
|
A step in the right direction. Hopefully more of this positive news will come along in the fight for human equality.
|
On June 27 2013 00:59 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 00:53 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 00:31 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 00:29 arie3000 wrote:On June 27 2013 00:21 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 00:20 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 00:18 theking1 wrote:From CNN: Washington (CNN) -- In a dramatic slap at federal authority, a divided Supreme Court has struck down a key part of congressional law that denies to legally married same-sex couples the same benefits provided to heterosexual spouses.
The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.
The vote Wednesday was 5-4.
"Although Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Read the ruling
The case examined whether the federal government can deny tax, health and pension benefits to same-sex couples in states where they can legally marry. At issue was whether DOMA violates equal protection guarantees in the Fifth Amendment's due process clause as applied to same-sex couples legally married under the laws of their states.
The key plaintiff is Edith "Edie" Windsor, 84, who married fellow New York resident Thea Spyer in Canada in 2007, about 40 years into their relationship. By the time Spyer died in 2009, New York courts recognized same-sex marriages performed in other countries. But the federal government didn't recognize Windsor's same-sex marriage, and she was forced to assume an estate tax bill much larger than those that other married couples would have to pay. So, Windsor sued the federal government.
A federal appeals court last year ruled in Windsor's favor, saying DOMA violated the Constitution's equal protection clause.
"Today's DOMA ruling is a historic step forward for #MarriageEquality. #LoveIsLove," President Barack Obama's official Twitter account posted soon after the decision was handed down. Responses form other relevant individuals: Lady Gaga ✔ @ladygaga Let's go DOMA. Supreme Court lets make history & stand for MARRIAGE EQUALITY! #GetItDoneThisWeek #TheWhole WorldIsWatching What does an analyst think about the entire rulling:
The Supreme Court has dismissed a closely-watched appeal over same-sex marriage on jurisdictional grounds, ruling Wednesday private parties do not have "standing" to defend California's voter-approved ballot measure barring gay and lesbians couples from state-sanctioned wedlock. The ruling permits same-sex couples in California to legally marry. The 5-4 decision avoids for now a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutionally-protected "equal protection" right that would apply to all states. The case is Hollingsworth v. Perry (12-144).
I am personally glad that homosexuals basicly now have the same rights as heterosexuals and can also get the same benifits as heterosexuals.I am long believer in equlity for all and this measures reestablishes the United states a country based on democracy and himan rights and puts it along with Netherlands and France at the forefornt of the battle for equlity.It is also a great victory for President Obama since he has always advocated same sex marriage in his speeches and political programs. Not quite, they only have the ability to get married in states which have already signed same sex marriage into law. But like states have to recognize each others' driver's licenses, they have to recognize each others' marriages too. Sure gay people will have to get married out of state so it's not perfect, but they can still get married. No. States do NOT have to recognize out-of-state SS marriages, that is paragraph 2 of DOMA, and was not an issue before the Court, thus the Court didn't rule on it. Texas will definitely not recognize same-sex marriages until a court orders it to do. Of course, the couples can file their Federal Tax Returns as married, but in some states they will not be treated as such. Lawsuit filed in 3,2,1... it'll be a few years, and then this question will be before the justices. Good ruling today, as expected. The 'no standing' is a 50-50 thing, but at least it'll most likely bring SSM back to California. Ah ok. But yeah, a quick lawsuit will clear that up really fast. And it might not even have to go all the way to the supreme court. No, it won't. It's not a citizen's rights being violated by that portion of DoMA, it's the state's right (where the marriage took place) that's being violated. It would be a case between a state and the federal government. That portion of DoMA has been known to be unconstitutional since its inception, yet it hasn't made it to SCOTUS yet. That's part of why it's so stupid they remained silent on it. It should have been a part of the decision. It's plain as day. This is a good victory but unfortunately there's still a very, very long way to go in this country. The worst states are still pulling the country down. DOMA was struck down on equal protection grounds, not federalism grounds. The Supreme Court says that it does violate citizen's rights.
yeah the only struck down the federal benefits portion on equal protection. The other part wasn't brought as part of the case and likely can't be ruled on.
|
On June 27 2013 00:59 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 00:53 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 00:31 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 00:29 arie3000 wrote:On June 27 2013 00:21 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 00:20 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 00:18 theking1 wrote:From CNN: Washington (CNN) -- In a dramatic slap at federal authority, a divided Supreme Court has struck down a key part of congressional law that denies to legally married same-sex couples the same benefits provided to heterosexual spouses.
The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.
The vote Wednesday was 5-4.
"Although Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Read the ruling
The case examined whether the federal government can deny tax, health and pension benefits to same-sex couples in states where they can legally marry. At issue was whether DOMA violates equal protection guarantees in the Fifth Amendment's due process clause as applied to same-sex couples legally married under the laws of their states.
The key plaintiff is Edith "Edie" Windsor, 84, who married fellow New York resident Thea Spyer in Canada in 2007, about 40 years into their relationship. By the time Spyer died in 2009, New York courts recognized same-sex marriages performed in other countries. But the federal government didn't recognize Windsor's same-sex marriage, and she was forced to assume an estate tax bill much larger than those that other married couples would have to pay. So, Windsor sued the federal government.
A federal appeals court last year ruled in Windsor's favor, saying DOMA violated the Constitution's equal protection clause.
"Today's DOMA ruling is a historic step forward for #MarriageEquality. #LoveIsLove," President Barack Obama's official Twitter account posted soon after the decision was handed down. Responses form other relevant individuals: Lady Gaga ✔ @ladygaga Let's go DOMA. Supreme Court lets make history & stand for MARRIAGE EQUALITY! #GetItDoneThisWeek #TheWhole WorldIsWatching What does an analyst think about the entire rulling:
The Supreme Court has dismissed a closely-watched appeal over same-sex marriage on jurisdictional grounds, ruling Wednesday private parties do not have "standing" to defend California's voter-approved ballot measure barring gay and lesbians couples from state-sanctioned wedlock. The ruling permits same-sex couples in California to legally marry. The 5-4 decision avoids for now a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutionally-protected "equal protection" right that would apply to all states. The case is Hollingsworth v. Perry (12-144).
I am personally glad that homosexuals basicly now have the same rights as heterosexuals and can also get the same benifits as heterosexuals.I am long believer in equlity for all and this measures reestablishes the United states a country based on democracy and himan rights and puts it along with Netherlands and France at the forefornt of the battle for equlity.It is also a great victory for President Obama since he has always advocated same sex marriage in his speeches and political programs. Not quite, they only have the ability to get married in states which have already signed same sex marriage into law. But like states have to recognize each others' driver's licenses, they have to recognize each others' marriages too. Sure gay people will have to get married out of state so it's not perfect, but they can still get married. No. States do NOT have to recognize out-of-state SS marriages, that is paragraph 2 of DOMA, and was not an issue before the Court, thus the Court didn't rule on it. Texas will definitely not recognize same-sex marriages until a court orders it to do. Of course, the couples can file their Federal Tax Returns as married, but in some states they will not be treated as such. Lawsuit filed in 3,2,1... it'll be a few years, and then this question will be before the justices. Good ruling today, as expected. The 'no standing' is a 50-50 thing, but at least it'll most likely bring SSM back to California. Ah ok. But yeah, a quick lawsuit will clear that up really fast. And it might not even have to go all the way to the supreme court. No, it won't. It's not a citizen's rights being violated by that portion of DoMA, it's the state's right (where the marriage took place) that's being violated. It would be a case between a state and the federal government. That portion of DoMA has been known to be unconstitutional since its inception, yet it hasn't made it to SCOTUS yet. That's part of why it's so stupid they remained silent on it. It should have been a part of the decision. It's plain as day. This is a good victory but unfortunately there's still a very, very long way to go in this country. The worst states are still pulling the country down. DOMA was struck down on equal protection grounds, not federalism grounds. The Supreme Court says that it does violate citizen's rights. Married couples must be treated equally at the federal level.
We are not lawyers(well maybe, I'm not) and it will take years to flesh this one out, but it is clear that the court does not approve of laws that attempt provide protections to one set of people while removing them from another.
|
Framing the debate in terms of 'equality' and:
"This is a basic human right and anyone who disagrees is a monster."
is dishonest and disgusting.
|
On June 27 2013 01:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 00:59 DoubleReed wrote:On June 27 2013 00:53 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 00:31 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 00:29 arie3000 wrote:On June 27 2013 00:21 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 00:20 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 00:18 theking1 wrote:From CNN: Washington (CNN) -- In a dramatic slap at federal authority, a divided Supreme Court has struck down a key part of congressional law that denies to legally married same-sex couples the same benefits provided to heterosexual spouses.
The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.
The vote Wednesday was 5-4.
"Although Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Read the ruling
The case examined whether the federal government can deny tax, health and pension benefits to same-sex couples in states where they can legally marry. At issue was whether DOMA violates equal protection guarantees in the Fifth Amendment's due process clause as applied to same-sex couples legally married under the laws of their states.
The key plaintiff is Edith "Edie" Windsor, 84, who married fellow New York resident Thea Spyer in Canada in 2007, about 40 years into their relationship. By the time Spyer died in 2009, New York courts recognized same-sex marriages performed in other countries. But the federal government didn't recognize Windsor's same-sex marriage, and she was forced to assume an estate tax bill much larger than those that other married couples would have to pay. So, Windsor sued the federal government.
A federal appeals court last year ruled in Windsor's favor, saying DOMA violated the Constitution's equal protection clause.
"Today's DOMA ruling is a historic step forward for #MarriageEquality. #LoveIsLove," President Barack Obama's official Twitter account posted soon after the decision was handed down. Responses form other relevant individuals: Lady Gaga ✔ @ladygaga Let's go DOMA. Supreme Court lets make history & stand for MARRIAGE EQUALITY! #GetItDoneThisWeek #TheWhole WorldIsWatching What does an analyst think about the entire rulling:
The Supreme Court has dismissed a closely-watched appeal over same-sex marriage on jurisdictional grounds, ruling Wednesday private parties do not have "standing" to defend California's voter-approved ballot measure barring gay and lesbians couples from state-sanctioned wedlock. The ruling permits same-sex couples in California to legally marry. The 5-4 decision avoids for now a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutionally-protected "equal protection" right that would apply to all states. The case is Hollingsworth v. Perry (12-144).
I am personally glad that homosexuals basicly now have the same rights as heterosexuals and can also get the same benifits as heterosexuals.I am long believer in equlity for all and this measures reestablishes the United states a country based on democracy and himan rights and puts it along with Netherlands and France at the forefornt of the battle for equlity.It is also a great victory for President Obama since he has always advocated same sex marriage in his speeches and political programs. Not quite, they only have the ability to get married in states which have already signed same sex marriage into law. But like states have to recognize each others' driver's licenses, they have to recognize each others' marriages too. Sure gay people will have to get married out of state so it's not perfect, but they can still get married. No. States do NOT have to recognize out-of-state SS marriages, that is paragraph 2 of DOMA, and was not an issue before the Court, thus the Court didn't rule on it. Texas will definitely not recognize same-sex marriages until a court orders it to do. Of course, the couples can file their Federal Tax Returns as married, but in some states they will not be treated as such. Lawsuit filed in 3,2,1... it'll be a few years, and then this question will be before the justices. Good ruling today, as expected. The 'no standing' is a 50-50 thing, but at least it'll most likely bring SSM back to California. Ah ok. But yeah, a quick lawsuit will clear that up really fast. And it might not even have to go all the way to the supreme court. No, it won't. It's not a citizen's rights being violated by that portion of DoMA, it's the state's right (where the marriage took place) that's being violated. It would be a case between a state and the federal government. That portion of DoMA has been known to be unconstitutional since its inception, yet it hasn't made it to SCOTUS yet. That's part of why it's so stupid they remained silent on it. It should have been a part of the decision. It's plain as day. This is a good victory but unfortunately there's still a very, very long way to go in this country. The worst states are still pulling the country down. DOMA was struck down on equal protection grounds, not federalism grounds. The Supreme Court says that it does violate citizen's rights. Married couples must be treated equally at the federal level. We are not lawyers(well maybe, I'm not) and it will take years to flesh this one out, but it is clear that the court does not approve of laws that attempt provide protections to one set of people while removing them from another.
I think it is pretty clear that any law prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional now. Yes, this opinion directly addresses a federal law (DOMA), but there really isn't anything to stop its application to state laws.
|
On June 27 2013 00:59 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 00:53 Jibba wrote:On June 27 2013 00:31 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 00:29 arie3000 wrote:On June 27 2013 00:21 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 00:20 Jormundr wrote:On June 27 2013 00:18 theking1 wrote:From CNN: Washington (CNN) -- In a dramatic slap at federal authority, a divided Supreme Court has struck down a key part of congressional law that denies to legally married same-sex couples the same benefits provided to heterosexual spouses.
The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.
The vote Wednesday was 5-4.
"Although Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Read the ruling
The case examined whether the federal government can deny tax, health and pension benefits to same-sex couples in states where they can legally marry. At issue was whether DOMA violates equal protection guarantees in the Fifth Amendment's due process clause as applied to same-sex couples legally married under the laws of their states.
The key plaintiff is Edith "Edie" Windsor, 84, who married fellow New York resident Thea Spyer in Canada in 2007, about 40 years into their relationship. By the time Spyer died in 2009, New York courts recognized same-sex marriages performed in other countries. But the federal government didn't recognize Windsor's same-sex marriage, and she was forced to assume an estate tax bill much larger than those that other married couples would have to pay. So, Windsor sued the federal government.
A federal appeals court last year ruled in Windsor's favor, saying DOMA violated the Constitution's equal protection clause.
"Today's DOMA ruling is a historic step forward for #MarriageEquality. #LoveIsLove," President Barack Obama's official Twitter account posted soon after the decision was handed down. Responses form other relevant individuals: Lady Gaga ✔ @ladygaga Let's go DOMA. Supreme Court lets make history & stand for MARRIAGE EQUALITY! #GetItDoneThisWeek #TheWhole WorldIsWatching What does an analyst think about the entire rulling:
The Supreme Court has dismissed a closely-watched appeal over same-sex marriage on jurisdictional grounds, ruling Wednesday private parties do not have "standing" to defend California's voter-approved ballot measure barring gay and lesbians couples from state-sanctioned wedlock. The ruling permits same-sex couples in California to legally marry. The 5-4 decision avoids for now a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutionally-protected "equal protection" right that would apply to all states. The case is Hollingsworth v. Perry (12-144).
I am personally glad that homosexuals basicly now have the same rights as heterosexuals and can also get the same benifits as heterosexuals.I am long believer in equlity for all and this measures reestablishes the United states a country based on democracy and himan rights and puts it along with Netherlands and France at the forefornt of the battle for equlity.It is also a great victory for President Obama since he has always advocated same sex marriage in his speeches and political programs. Not quite, they only have the ability to get married in states which have already signed same sex marriage into law. But like states have to recognize each others' driver's licenses, they have to recognize each others' marriages too. Sure gay people will have to get married out of state so it's not perfect, but they can still get married. No. States do NOT have to recognize out-of-state SS marriages, that is paragraph 2 of DOMA, and was not an issue before the Court, thus the Court didn't rule on it. Texas will definitely not recognize same-sex marriages until a court orders it to do. Of course, the couples can file their Federal Tax Returns as married, but in some states they will not be treated as such. Lawsuit filed in 3,2,1... it'll be a few years, and then this question will be before the justices. Good ruling today, as expected. The 'no standing' is a 50-50 thing, but at least it'll most likely bring SSM back to California. Ah ok. But yeah, a quick lawsuit will clear that up really fast. And it might not even have to go all the way to the supreme court. No, it won't. It's not a citizen's rights being violated by that portion of DoMA, it's the state's right (where the marriage took place) that's being violated. It would be a case between a state and the federal government. That portion of DoMA has been known to be unconstitutional since its inception, yet it hasn't made it to SCOTUS yet. That's part of why it's so stupid they remained silent on it. It should have been a part of the decision. It's plain as day. This is a good victory but unfortunately there's still a very, very long way to go in this country. The worst states are still pulling the country down. DOMA was struck down on equal protection grounds, not federalism grounds. The Supreme Court says that it does violate citizen's rights. Married couples must be treated equally at the federal level.
Just another thing I have to add to this. Federalism doesn't necessarily do you a lot of good here unless federal law expressly permits same sex marriage. States have to kowtow to the fgov, but just because one state allows it doesn't mean that they have to. Federalism only guarantees that if you were married in a state that allows same sex marriage that you would get the same federal benefits no matter what.
|
On June 27 2013 01:12 Bigtony wrote:
Framing the debate in terms of 'equality' and:
"This is a basic human right and anyone who disagrees is a monster."
is dishonest and disgusting.
When did that happen? Or are you just imposing that argument on people who agree with the ruling because it makes it easier to dismiss them?
|
On June 27 2013 01:12 Bigtony wrote:
Framing the debate in terms of 'equality' and:
"This is a basic human right and anyone who disagrees is a monster."
is dishonest and disgusting.
it really is a human rights issue imo.
Its not that people who disagree are monsters, its that they are ignorant 
|
On June 27 2013 01:12 Bigtony wrote:
Framing the debate in terms of 'equality' and:
"This is a basic human right and anyone who disagrees is a monster."
is dishonest and disgusting.
I never said that.All I said it involves human rights.That is just my personal oppinion.Besides I constantly update the OP with opposing views.
|
On June 27 2013 01:12 Bigtony wrote:
Framing the debate in terms of 'equality' and:
"This is a basic human right and anyone who disagrees is a monster."
is dishonest and disgusting.
How else should it be framed? "equality" vs "bigots want to impose their beliefs on other people despite the activities of said people not affecting them in any way but it's cool cause we don't want to hurt their feelings despite their systematic oppression and abuse of minority groups. After all, it's really THEIR feelings that are important here."
Does that framing sound more honest to you?
|
On June 27 2013 01:12 Bigtony wrote:
Framing the debate in terms of 'equality' and:
"This is a basic human right and anyone who disagrees is a monster."
is dishonest and disgusting.
Not really. When there's no valid argument against it, and disagreement amounts to "I don't like it", the fact that you call this a debate is offensive.
|
On June 27 2013 01:15 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 01:12 Bigtony wrote:
Framing the debate in terms of 'equality' and:
"This is a basic human right and anyone who disagrees is a monster."
is dishonest and disgusting. How else should it be framed? "equality" vs "bigots want to impose their beliefs on other people despite the activities of said people not affecting them in any way but it's cool cause we don't want to hurt their feelings despite their systematic oppression and abuse of minority groups. After all, it's really THEIR feelings that are important here." Does that framing sound more honest to you?
On June 27 2013 01:16 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 01:12 Bigtony wrote:
Framing the debate in terms of 'equality' and:
"This is a basic human right and anyone who disagrees is a monster."
is dishonest and disgusting. Not really. When there's no valid argument against it, and disagreement amounts to "I don't like it", the fact that you call this a debate is offensive.
Sounds like an A+ example of what I just described.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
