|
On June 27 2013 02:42 Plansix wrote:
Its because you passive aggressively insulted the people in the thread by saying "Meh, its not really a big deal, other larger things are more important." That's like if your grandmother just recovered from cancer and I went "Meh, shes going to die of something else"
Yeah I know, I apologized for it. My original post didn't really carry the meaning I wanted it to. That's my fault.
On June 27 2013 02:40 Plansix wrote:
Well I am glad you felt the need to tell us all that you think its interesting that we would likely care less about this issue if we were at war and being bombed. We need big picture thinkers like yourself to keep us narrow minded people aware of what we are really looking at.
Well if you've already figured it out no need to be sardonic about it. Perhaps I'm slow to realize the obvious. That should be fine with you and not warrant borderline flaming. To me it's weird that someone could believe in fair marriage and not in being fair in a forum.
|
yeah dont jump to flaming if he isnt flaming anyone
Cecil totally rocks
|
Fitting that this thread appears right above the Rainbow TL logo thread, when looking at the sidebar of General discussions.
|
I would argue it is not a big deal... wait no what I mean is it should not be a big deal. Some people wanna marry? Go ahead! From purely practical perspective I wouldn't even care about constitutions, rights and stuff, they want to marry let them marry it doesn't concern me. Why people put so much of their money and time trying to prevent gays from marrying, why they are making such a big deal out of it, is beyond me.
|
Nice victory. About damn time.
|
|
|
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.
Its a federal statute, and if a Circuit Court throws it out, it is extremely likely that SCOTUS will grant cert. on it. I hope you don't think yourself that Texas (or any other rabiat-South State) would let a Circuit Court decide that they should give state rights to them gays, and nót step to the Supreme Court. This will take at least 2-3 years. The Prop 8 suit took 5 years... (but that was also because of the complicated standing issue, that took about a year to resolve)
However, now that DOMA is off the books, there are probably a flurry of lawsuits incoming against the State-DOMAs that several states have on the books, so within 2-3 years (when only the most deep-red states will not have adopted SSM) we'll probably have Kennedy write another opinion declaring same-sex marriage the law of the land.
|
"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive.
|
On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:Show nested quote +"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive.
That would only be impressive if it hadn't been in a dissenting opinion...
|
On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:Show nested quote +"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive.
It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite.
|
On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite.
10 points for you.
On June 27 2013 02:16 darthfoley wrote:
Good job Supreme Court! Which 5 voted against which 4?
Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan wrote/joined the majority opinion, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas wrote dissents (3 dissents with various joins).
The full quote from the Scalia dissent (it is actually his abstract at the beginning) is:
"This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. 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 leg- islation. 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."
Scalia has a long history of not touching social issues, and leaving stuff to the states or government. Apparently the voting rights of minorities in the South do not warrant a similar gradation of judicial restraint, unfortunately.
Links to the opinions themselves (the DOMA case is fairly readable, and the Scalia dissent is fun)
DOMA: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf
Prop 8: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf
|
On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite.
Hey now, be fair, he wants to limit power when he doesn't benefit from it. He's seriously the lowest form of scum, and thinks he's ten times smarter than he actually is.
|
On June 27 2013 03:32 arie3000 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. 10 points for you. Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 02:16 darthfoley wrote:
Good job Supreme Court! Which 5 voted against which 4? Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan wrote/joined the majority opinion, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas wrote dissents (3 dissents with various joins). The full quote from the Scalia dissent (it is actually his abstract at the beginning) is: "This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. 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 leg- islation. 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." Scalia has a long history of not touching social issues, and leaving stuff to the states or government. Apparently the voting rights of minorities in the South do not warrant a similar gradation of judicial restraint, unfortunately. Links to the opinions themselves (the DOMA case is fairly readable, and the Scalia dissent is fun) DOMA: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdfProp 8: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf
Scalia believes that social issues should be avoided by the federal goverment. Although his writings are generally harsh, he is very pragmatic about change in the country. When asked if the people wanted a social change that he didn't agree with, he said they should elect a president that would appoint a judge would would vote for that change. He is not against change or government involvement with social issues, but he won't be the one to initiate it.
On June 27 2013 03:32 Tibbroar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. Hey now, be fair, he wants to limit power when he doesn't benefit from it. He's seriously the lowest form of scum, and thinks he's ten times smarter than he actually is.
That isn't true. He wrote that knowing the outcome and wanted to point out the dangers of the government delving into social issues. There is no way to know how he personally feels about the law or change.
|
I get sick to my stomach reading government officials using "God's Will" as grounds for anything, it's absolutely disgusting that in 2013 religion is allowed to even be mentioned when considering laws that affect the lives of millions who may not even believe in your god. America, the country who criticizes Muslims and sharia law while at the same time shoving Christianity down the throats of everyone.
Glad we were able to stick it to these morons today.
|
On June 27 2013 03:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 03:32 arie3000 wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. 10 points for you. On June 27 2013 02:16 darthfoley wrote:
Good job Supreme Court! Which 5 voted against which 4? Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan wrote/joined the majority opinion, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas wrote dissents (3 dissents with various joins). The full quote from the Scalia dissent (it is actually his abstract at the beginning) is: "This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. 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 leg- islation. 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." Scalia has a long history of not touching social issues, and leaving stuff to the states or government. Apparently the voting rights of minorities in the South do not warrant a similar gradation of judicial restraint, unfortunately. Links to the opinions themselves (the DOMA case is fairly readable, and the Scalia dissent is fun) DOMA: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdfProp 8: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf Scalia believes that social issues should be avoided by the federal goverment. Although his writings are generally harsh, he is very pragmatic about change in the country. When asked if the people wanted a social change that he didn't agree with, he said they should elect a president that would appoint a judge would would vote for that change. He is not against change or government involvement with social issues, but he won't be the one to initiate it. Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 03:32 Tibbroar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. Hey now, be fair, he wants to limit power when he doesn't benefit from it. He's seriously the lowest form of scum, and thinks he's ten times smarter than he actually is. That isn't true. He wrote that knowing the outcome and wanted to point out the dangers of the government delving into social issues. There is no way to know how he personally feels about the law or change.
That's awful convenient for him. Instead of like...doing his job he gets to tow the party line.
|
On June 27 2013 03:17 arie3000 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. Its a federal statute, and if a Circuit Court throws it out, it is extremely likely that SCOTUS will grant cert. on it. I hope you don't think yourself that Texas (or any other rabiat-South State) would let a Circuit Court decide that they should give state rights to them gays, and nót step to the Supreme Court. This will take at least 2-3 years. The Prop 8 suit took 5 years... (but that was also because of the complicated standing issue, that took about a year to resolve) However, now that DOMA is off the books, there are probably a flurry of lawsuits incoming against the State-DOMAs that several states have on the books, so within 2-3 years (when only the most deep-red states will not have adopted SSM) we'll probably have Kennedy write another opinion declaring same-sex marriage the law of the land.
Yeah I feel like "a quick lawsuit" isn't a thing when it gets to the supreme court  . Thats the issue with using the court as an avenue of change, it takes a while.
|
On June 27 2013 03:43 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 03:39 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 03:32 arie3000 wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. 10 points for you. On June 27 2013 02:16 darthfoley wrote:
Good job Supreme Court! Which 5 voted against which 4? Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan wrote/joined the majority opinion, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas wrote dissents (3 dissents with various joins). The full quote from the Scalia dissent (it is actually his abstract at the beginning) is: "This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. 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 leg- islation. 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." Scalia has a long history of not touching social issues, and leaving stuff to the states or government. Apparently the voting rights of minorities in the South do not warrant a similar gradation of judicial restraint, unfortunately. Links to the opinions themselves (the DOMA case is fairly readable, and the Scalia dissent is fun) DOMA: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdfProp 8: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf Scalia believes that social issues should be avoided by the federal goverment. Although his writings are generally harsh, he is very pragmatic about change in the country. When asked if the people wanted a social change that he didn't agree with, he said they should elect a president that would appoint a judge would would vote for that change. He is not against change or government involvement with social issues, but he won't be the one to initiate it. On June 27 2013 03:32 Tibbroar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. Hey now, be fair, he wants to limit power when he doesn't benefit from it. He's seriously the lowest form of scum, and thinks he's ten times smarter than he actually is. That isn't true. He wrote that knowing the outcome and wanted to point out the dangers of the government delving into social issues. There is no way to know how he personally feels about the law or change. That's awful convenient for him. Instead of like...doing his job he gets to tow the party line.
Supreme Judges are generally not political by nature, look at the recent health care rulings. Scalia is very strict when it comes to his views on the constitution and what the federal government is allowed to do. He isn't averse to social change, but he doesn't see it as his job to be that change. Other Judges can do that.
Remember that once the vote goes 5, the other four judges may decide to oppose it simply to be devils advocate and point out the pitfalls in further rulings. 5-4 votes are not as conflicted as people make them out to be.
|
Believe it or not even with my past post history, I really am happy with SCOTUS. They have given a giant move toward power to the states with the striking down of DOMA and Article 4 states can have freedom to decided their voting process and if they wish to ratify gay marriage.
|
On June 27 2013 03:44 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 03:17 arie3000 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. Its a federal statute, and if a Circuit Court throws it out, it is extremely likely that SCOTUS will grant cert. on it. I hope you don't think yourself that Texas (or any other rabiat-South State) would let a Circuit Court decide that they should give state rights to them gays, and nót step to the Supreme Court. This will take at least 2-3 years. The Prop 8 suit took 5 years... (but that was also because of the complicated standing issue, that took about a year to resolve) However, now that DOMA is off the books, there are probably a flurry of lawsuits incoming against the State-DOMAs that several states have on the books, so within 2-3 years (when only the most deep-red states will not have adopted SSM) we'll probably have Kennedy write another opinion declaring same-sex marriage the law of the land. Yeah I feel like "a quick lawsuit" isn't a thing when it gets to the supreme court . Thats the issue with using the court as an avenue of change, it takes a while.
There is no such thing as a quick lawsuit in the Circuit Court. It takes around 2-4 years for a case to move through that court system.
|
On June 27 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 03:43 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:39 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 03:32 arie3000 wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. 10 points for you. On June 27 2013 02:16 darthfoley wrote:
Good job Supreme Court! Which 5 voted against which 4? Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan wrote/joined the majority opinion, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas wrote dissents (3 dissents with various joins). The full quote from the Scalia dissent (it is actually his abstract at the beginning) is: "This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. 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 leg- islation. 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." Scalia has a long history of not touching social issues, and leaving stuff to the states or government. Apparently the voting rights of minorities in the South do not warrant a similar gradation of judicial restraint, unfortunately. Links to the opinions themselves (the DOMA case is fairly readable, and the Scalia dissent is fun) DOMA: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdfProp 8: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf Scalia believes that social issues should be avoided by the federal goverment. Although his writings are generally harsh, he is very pragmatic about change in the country. When asked if the people wanted a social change that he didn't agree with, he said they should elect a president that would appoint a judge would would vote for that change. He is not against change or government involvement with social issues, but he won't be the one to initiate it. On June 27 2013 03:32 Tibbroar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. Hey now, be fair, he wants to limit power when he doesn't benefit from it. He's seriously the lowest form of scum, and thinks he's ten times smarter than he actually is. That isn't true. He wrote that knowing the outcome and wanted to point out the dangers of the government delving into social issues. There is no way to know how he personally feels about the law or change. That's awful convenient for him. Instead of like...doing his job he gets to tow the party line. Supreme Judges are generally not political by nature, look at the recent health care rulings. Scalia is very strict when it comes to his views on the constitution and what the federal government is allowed to do. He isn't averse to social change, but he doesn't see it as his job to be that change. Other Judges can do that. Remember that once the vote goes 5, the other four judges may decide to oppose it simply to be devils advocate and point out the pitfalls in further rulings. 5-4 votes are not as conflicted as people make them out to be.
Oh please. Do you remember Scalia during the oral arguments of this case? He was committing basic logical fallacies and outright bullying the plaintiff while barely touching the defense.
And yeah, social change is kinda a big part of his job. If we just let the majority decide stuff we'd still be able to own people. Part of the supreme court's job is to force social change when the majority becomes oppressive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
