DOMA struck down by courts, gay marriage likely legal in CA again

[say1988]

Not to get pissy about minutiae, but I'm not thrilled with the way the Supreme got out of giving a real ruling on Hollingsworth.

The reason they took the case was to decide on that issue. There was no intention to actually rule on gay marriage. This wasn't some sort of cop-out, it was exactly why they took it. A lot of people, on both sides hoped it would rule on more, but it most likely wasn't going to happen. The ruling would almost certainly be either, they had standing and the Court of Appeals decision (ruling it unconstitutional) is valid or they didn't have standing so the District Court decision (ruling it unconstitutional in a slightly different way) stands. No matter what it was not going to have an impact outside of California.

As for Windsor, the case had some differences. First, BLAG is part of a US government body that passed the legislation. Second, the refusal of the Treasury Department to fulfill the judgement on behalf of Windsor was important as it meant the Executive was still involved in the case. The judgement also goes on to state that the Windsor case is irregular and is treated as such.

 

[RobAnybody]

In the words of eminent philosopher O'Shea Jackson, today was a good day.

I didn't even have to use my AK.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That could be true for any marriage though. My marriage to my wife is in Ohio. It was recognized with no issue here. I'm saying that jurisdictions should recognize legal marriages unless they violate human rights (so no to moving to the US with a 9-year-old wife).

The thing is that its a license now, not a contract, which means that any solution will be sub-par.

Honestly, amongst the criticism, I think SCOTUS was pretty much right on here: and mark the date because I may well never say it again. The constitution doesn't give the Feds any authority over marriage, so ultimately, they shouldn't have any. If they have to be involved in any way, it should be to support, not to undermine, the decisions of the states.

SCOTUS did the best they could, given the circumstances, and fixed a law that I previously wasn't thrilled with.

I honestly don't care much about the gay marriage debate. I see a bunch of bigger issues, and this one seems strangely dim in comparison, like looking at a sixth magnitude star when Venus is right in front of you.

I do, however, care a lot about federalism.

 

[Dachs]

I didn't even have to use my AK.

fortunately however the Lakers did not beat the Zombie Sonics

 

[madviking]

nevermind.

 

[Miles Teg]

If they wanted to punt on the marriage issue (which is understandable) they should have refused to take the case in the first place. The lower court's ruling would have stood, and California gays would have been marrying again.

I'm honestly not seeing how the two cases are that different though. Defending the government in court is pretty clearly an Executive duty, not a Legislative. The current House doesn't have much continuity with the House 17 years ago except that they both happen to have a GOP majority. It took a party line vote for the BLAG to get involved, and the Dems in the Senate certainly aren't joining. I don't resent them for it, but I don't like the implication that nobody would have able to defend the law if Pelosi had taken back the House in 2012.

And yeah the Executive was still involved in the case. They were enforcing existing law, just like California wasn't tossing out gay marriage licenses.

 

[say1988]

If they wanted to punt on the marriage issue (which is understandable) they should have refused to take the case in the first place.

They wanted to rule on a procedural issue. That it involved gay marriage was irrelevant to the case from their position.

And yeah the Executive was still involved in the case. They were enforcing existing law, just like California wasn't tossing out gay marriage licenses.

California didn't refuse to follow a court order, the US government did.

And why bring up the fact that there is little connection between the legislature now and 17 years ago? There is even less connection in the executive, as abut 85 current House members (1 in 5) were in the house 17 years ago.

 

[Miles Teg]

My point is that the House's decision to defend DOMA was blatantly political in nature. Which is fine, the law is political. But it's silly to say that if Pelosi was the Speaker, nobody would be in a position to defend DOMA. Lots of people think that it's the only thing keeping the gays from fornicating all over the Constitution, and their bigoted views deserve legal representation.

 

[timtofly]

Lots of people pushed for civil unions, but even that seemed bigoted.

 

[squadbroken]

Lots of people pushed for civil unions, but even that seemed bigoted.

yeah, the good ol' separate-but-equal treatment

 

[Formaldehyde]

24% or whatever that was isn't a miniscule number.

That's right. Not all Republicans are clearly partisans on most any issue while being hopelessly stuck in the distant past. But many certainly are. This is clearly a partisan issue with so many Republicans being in favor of DOMA and so many Democrats taking just the opposite perspective.

You seem to disagree with DOMA because it was enacted at the federal level. Do you also have a problem with all the states that now have essentially the same prohibition? Why should states be able to discriminate against homosexuals when the federal government supposedly can no longer do so, at least in this particular matter?

Besides the fact, most Americans are to some extent stuck in the left/right paradigm. Much as I may disagree with you guys, most people on this forum are way smarter than the average American and most of you do understand that there are politics outside that paradigm.

You are "stuck" in that paradigm yourself with a few notable exceptions where you own views don't agree with most others from the far-right. The only real differences are that you aren't as authoritarian as they typically are, and you seem to think the federal government should effectively not even exist except in a few extremely limited matters.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That's right. Not all Republicans are clearly partisans on most any issue while being hopelessly stuck in the distant past. But many certainly are. This is clearly a partisan issue with so many Republicans being in favor of DOMA and so many Democrats taking just the opposite perspective.

You seem to disagree with DOMA because it was enacted at the federal level. Do you also have a problem with all the states that now have essentially the same prohibition? Why should states be able to discriminate against homosexuals when the federal government supposedly can no longer do so, at least in this particular matter?

I support the 10th amendment. I don't really think the government should have any involvement in marriage so a debate as to what marriages they should recognize is pointless to me. All I can really say about this is that constitutionally the states do have jurisdiction here and not the Feds.

SCOTUS ruled correctly.

You are "stuck" in that paradigm yourself with a few notable exceptions where you own views don't agree with most others from the far-right. The only real differences are that you aren't as authoritarian as they typically are, and you seem to think the federal government should effectively not even exist except in a few extremely limited matters.

That's actually a pretty significant difference...

 

[kramerfan86]

In terms of real world results not really. They support actively doing some of these things whereas you support inserting a system where these things are the inevitable end result in many places. The end result for the victims of those policies is the same.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Why is there some kind of implicit armchair policy maker assumption that you can only control the Federal Government?

 

[kramerfan86]

Why is there some kind of implicit armchair policy maker assumption that you can only control the Federal Government?

Sure I can control my state too, but unlike you I consider myself a citizen of the entire country and would like to be able to make sure I have certain base rights once I step over the border into other parts of the country, otherwise US citizenship is meaningless fluff.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Sure I can control my state too, but unlike you I consider myself a citizen of the entire country and would like to be able to make sure I have certain base rights once I step over the border into other parts of the country, otherwise US citizenship is meaningless fluff.

That's nice in a fantasy world.

In real life, I'd love to be able to find one state that's actually, truly free.

 

[kramerfan86]

That's nice in a fantasy world.

In real life, I'd love to be able to find one state that's actually, truly free.

There are over 200 states on the planet, you think creating 50 more is magically going to create that dream one? I dont think Im the one who lives in fantasy land. Then again your dream state is one where businesses can roll back society to early 20th century work rights so hey maybe it would happen.

 

[Dachs]

That's nice in a fantasy world.

In real life, I'd love to be able to find one state that's actually, truly free.

> libertarian implies that it's other people that deal in "fantasy worlds"

 

[JollyRoger]

That's nice in a fantasy world.

I guess we should defer to your expertise.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why is there some kind of implicit armchair policy maker assumption that you can only control the Federal Government?

Most people aren't parochial misanthropes, so they want to enact their desired reforms at the highest possible level. For Americans, in the absence of an effective world government, that means the Federal government. It's not really an ideological conceit so much as a common sense.