DOMA Unconstitutional

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby WTN10 » Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:17 am

And what's awesome about it is the opinion appears to be couched on state's rights. From what I am initially gathering, only the Federal government has to recognize gay marriages in states that have legalized it. States which have not legalized it are not required to, nor are they required to recognize gay marriages from other states.

Huge win for small government and state's rights. Great reasoning for future cases I'm reading so far.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12 ... 7_g2bh.pdf
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14036
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia


Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby Indawoods » Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:08 am

the left will reflexively jump for joy (see slow's post) until they actually grasp the long term repurcussions for their agenda. then they will seethe with righteous indignation. :clapping:

the VRA ruling was a slam dunk. I hope they try to re-authorize article 4 under current criteria. please let them go down that road. please.
assateague wrote:I'm not THAT cheap.


-on the viability of Pabst Blue Ribbon as a thirst quenching barley pop.
User avatar
Indawoods
hunter
 
Posts: 6457
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:08 pm
Location: Gonzales, LA

Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby WTN10 » Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:10 am

I've been opposed to DOMA for some time, and it has nothing to do with what I think of gay marriage specifically. I'm opposed to it on the grounds of Federalism and state's rights to regulate their own selves. I don't care what people in California do as long as they are made to leave Tennessee and me alone. The holding appears to support my approach, but I'm still reading as I can.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14036
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby Indawoods » Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:12 am

WTN10 wrote:I've been opposed to DOMA for some time, and it has nothing to do with what I think of gay marriage specifically. I'm opposed to it on the grounds of Federalism and state's rights to regulate their own selves. I don't care what people in California do as long as they are made to leave Tennessee and me alone. The holding appears to support my approach, but I'm still reading as I can.


still reading as well.
assateague wrote:I'm not THAT cheap.


-on the viability of Pabst Blue Ribbon as a thirst quenching barley pop.
User avatar
Indawoods
hunter
 
Posts: 6457
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:08 pm
Location: Gonzales, LA

Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby shootfirst45 » Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:37 am

I just noticed a sticker on my springfield pistol case, it said illegal in California. Its amazing what they call legal, how many weird people live out there? They need to keep to themselves.
shootfirst45
hunter
 
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:39 am

Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby slowshooter » Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:44 am

I told the wife 4 days ago that SCOTUS was going to kick it to the States.

My reasoning was that the Government is never going to force gay marriage nationwide. That would just incite lone wolf haters to start bombing banks or local Gay Pride parades then poisoning bottles of Gatorade (because we all know inbred trash can't spell).

A nationwide ruling on that is one they are always going to avoid. So, the best that could come out of this is that some states will okay it and some won't. Good for the Gay folks as they have places to be married.

The only thing to ask now is if all the states will recognize the status of marriages in other states. I'm gonna stick with my original speculation and say not any time soon.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby WTN10 » Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:04 am

Listening to a CNN correspondent try to explain this ruling makes me want to club a baby seal. Idiots.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14036
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby ScaupHunter » Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:07 am

Perhaps you should just club the CNN correspondent?
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6654
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby Gunnysway » Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:06 pm

The left is rejoicing that a Clinton bill was struck down? :huh:

Weird...

But it is a win for States rights fo' sho'...
Setting up meetings between geese and God since 1992...

Gud till ära, oss till gagn...
User avatar
Gunnysway
hunter
 
Posts: 3067
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:46 am
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell

Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby clampdaddy » Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:15 pm

WTN10 wrote:I've been opposed to DOMA for some time, and it has nothing to do with what I think of gay marriage specifically. I'm opposed to it on the grounds of Federalism and state's rights to regulate their own selves. I don't care what people in California do as long as they are made to leave Tennessee and me alone. The holding appears to support my approach, but I'm still reading as I can.


Help me out with this one and correct me anywhere its needed. The citizens of Ca voted against gay marriage, the gay community raised a stink and put the outcome of said vote to the courts. Now the court says the DOMA is unconstitutional and that gays can marry. So how can striking down an act deemed as unconstitutional allow gay marriage in the state of California but not in Tennesse?
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby WTN10 » Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:03 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
WTN10 wrote:I've been opposed to DOMA for some time, and it has nothing to do with what I think of gay marriage specifically. I'm opposed to it on the grounds of Federalism and state's rights to regulate their own selves. I don't care what people in California do as long as they are made to leave Tennessee and me alone. The holding appears to support my approach, but I'm still reading as I can.


Help me out with this one and correct me anywhere its needed. The citizens of Ca voted against gay marriage, the gay community raised a stink and put the outcome of said vote to the courts. Now the court says the DOMA is unconstitutional and that gays can marry. So how can striking down an act deemed as unconstitutional allow gay marriage in the state of California but not in Tennesse?


DOMA and the Prop 8 case are two entirely separate lawsuits and tow entirely separate questions. The Court held that it lack jurisdiction to address the Prop 8 issue because the original parties lacked standing to pursue the claim.

The DOMA holding merely means that the Federal government cannot refuse to recognize legal marriages as that term is defined by the several states. If gay marriage is legal in California, the Federal government must recognize it. If it is not legal in Tennessee, the Federal government does not have to recognize it.

The questions left un-addressed are whether states have to give full faith and credit to marriages conducted in other states, and whether a state can refuse to allow gay marriages.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14036
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby clampdaddy » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:22 pm

WTN10 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
WTN10 wrote:I've been opposed to DOMA for some time, and it has nothing to do with what I think of gay marriage specifically. I'm opposed to it on the grounds of Federalism and state's rights to regulate their own selves. I don't care what people in California do as long as they are made to leave Tennessee and me alone. The holding appears to support my approach, but I'm still reading as I can.


Help me out with this one and correct me anywhere its needed. The citizens of Ca voted against gay marriage, the gay community raised a stink and put the outcome of said vote to the courts. Now the court says the DOMA is unconstitutional and that gays can marry. So how can striking down an act deemed as unconstitutional allow gay marriage in the state of California but not in Tennesse?


DOMA and the Prop 8 case are two entirely separate lawsuits and tow entirely separate questions. The Court held that it lack jurisdiction to address the Prop 8 issue because the original parties lacked standing to pursue the claim.

The DOMA holding merely means that the Federal government cannot refuse to recognize legal marriages as that term is defined by the several states. If gay marriage is legal in California, the Federal government must recognize it. If it is not legal in Tennessee, the Federal government does not have to recognize it.

The questions left un-addressed are whether states have to give full faith and credit to marriages conducted in other states, and whether a state can refuse to allow gay marriages.


That makes sense and the unanswered question of whether a state can refuse to allow gay marriage is exactly what I wad trying to get at. Doesn't this ruling along with the ninth courts ruling basically mean that a state can't stop gay marriage? Seems to me that as long as a gay marriage prop makes it to the ballot it can't be stopped. Granted, the ninth courts decision was just on Californias prop but it sure seems like an open pathway to all others who want to challenge a bill that bans gay marriage.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby WTN10 » Wed Jun 26, 2013 5:33 pm

Whether a state can stop gay marriage hasn't been addressed.

There's really two questions that could be at play, and I think the Prop. 8 lawsuit raises the wrong one. The Prop. 8 lawsuit, which was stuck down for a procedural reason and did not reach the merits of the case, essentially asks the question, "Can a state ban gay marriage?"

I think the better question is, "Does a state have to allow gay marriage?"

The Ninth Circuit's ruling is now overturned. The SCOTUS decision vacates everything below it.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14036
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:30 am

Interesting...
DOMA: So You're Partying? Don't.


The first paragraph reads:

In a big day for gay-rights advocates, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a federal provision denying benefits to legally married gay couples and issued a separate ruling that paves the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California.

Well, yes, but don't get to the partying just yet.

See, The Federal Government has no right to enter your bedroom and dictate to you what constitutes a marriage in the first place. Neither do State governments. Both arrogated to themselves powers they did not have and which, at least in the Federal case, violate the 1st Amendment.

Marriage is a religious institution. It always has been. It predates our modern governments. In the early days of what was to become the United States, and through the lands before, you posted your Banns of Marriage on the church door. The only "involvement" the government had historically was in organized bigotry -- that is, making damn sure you didn't marry a Lord if you were a commoner.

That translated directly to the United States; the original marriage "laws" were for the explicit purpose of making sure you didn't marry a white person if you were black, or an American Indian if you weren't one yourself.

Think I'm kidding? I'm not -- go look it up.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=222217
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57517
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby lancej » Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:12 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
WTN10 wrote:I've been opposed to DOMA for some time, and it has nothing to do with what I think of gay marriage specifically. I'm opposed to it on the grounds of Federalism and state's rights to regulate their own selves. I don't care what people in California do as long as they are made to leave Tennessee and me alone. The holding appears to support my approach, but I'm still reading as I can.


Help me out with this one and correct me anywhere its needed. The citizens of Ca voted against gay marriage, the gay community raised a stink and put the outcome of said vote to the courts. Now the court says the DOMA is unconstitutional and that gays can marry. So how can striking down an act deemed as unconstitutional allow gay marriage in the state of California but not in Tennesse?


The two are not even closely related.

Gay marriage will proceed in CA because SCOTUS ruled that the litigants over prop 8 did not have standing thus upholding the court of appeals ruling. The stay on Gay Marriage in CA will be lifted.

DOMA enjoined the Feds from recognizing legal marriages in states that had Gay Marriage. That was struck down by SCOTUS.

Simplified snapshot of complex rulings.

Lance
It is the shared experiences of companionship that make loss bearable.
RIP Orion, May where you are be full of Rabbits.

when you start explaining what you're seeing, you see what you've been looking at
User avatar
lancej
hunter
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 2:19 pm
Location: Mount Aukum, CA

Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby lancej » Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:15 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
WTN10 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
WTN10 wrote:I've been opposed to DOMA for some time, and it has nothing to do with what I think of gay marriage specifically. I'm opposed to it on the grounds of Federalism and state's rights to regulate their own selves. I don't care what people in California do as long as they are made to leave Tennessee and me alone. The holding appears to support my approach, but I'm still reading as I can.


Help me out with this one and correct me anywhere its needed. The citizens of Ca voted against gay marriage, the gay community raised a stink and put the outcome of said vote to the courts. Now the court says the DOMA is unconstitutional and that gays can marry. So how can striking down an act deemed as unconstitutional allow gay marriage in the state of California but not in Tennesse?


DOMA and the Prop 8 case are two entirely separate lawsuits and tow entirely separate questions. The Court held that it lack jurisdiction to address the Prop 8 issue because the original parties lacked standing to pursue the claim.

The DOMA holding merely means that the Federal government cannot refuse to recognize legal marriages as that term is defined by the several states. If gay marriage is legal in California, the Federal government must recognize it. If it is not legal in Tennessee, the Federal government does not have to recognize it.

The questions left un-addressed are whether states have to give full faith and credit to marriages conducted in other states, and whether a state can refuse to allow gay marriages.


That makes sense and the unanswered question of whether a state can refuse to allow gay marriage is exactly what I wad trying to get at. Doesn't this ruling along with the ninth courts ruling basically mean that a state can't stop gay marriage? Seems to me that as long as a gay marriage prop makes it to the ballot it can't be stopped. Granted, the ninth courts decision was just on Californias prop but it sure seems like an open pathway to all others who want to challenge a bill that bans gay marriage.


One of the issues with CA and Gay Marriage was that it WAS legal then it wasn't.

Lance
It is the shared experiences of companionship that make loss bearable.
RIP Orion, May where you are be full of Rabbits.

when you start explaining what you're seeing, you see what you've been looking at
User avatar
lancej
hunter
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 2:19 pm
Location: Mount Aukum, CA

Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby clampdaddy » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:26 pm

Was it legal prior to prop 8? Yes, for the better part of one year, but the state constitution defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. A supreme court ruling is why it was legalized, not the state or its citizens. Seems like there's definitely some wiggle room for litigation there.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3635
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby slowshooter » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:42 pm

clampdaddy wrote:Was it legal prior to prop 8? Yes, for the better part of one year, but the state constitution defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. A supreme court ruling is why it was legalized, not the state or its citizens. Seems like there's definitely some wiggle room for litigation there.


The argument presented in this very forum is the one that SCOTUS used. That folks that are suing don't have standing because they can't show injury.

If someone can tell me how they (or their marriage) are injured by two people getting married I'm all ears.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby assateague » Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:14 am

The same way someone is injured by walking past a copy of the ten commandments hanging on the wall in the courthouse.


If you want to apply the "you gotta have an injury" standard here, it should be applied everywhere. And truthfully, other than "hurt feelings", there's no difference between walking past the ten commandments or walking past two guys holding hands. Except one of these things is the "cause du jour". Well, actually both of them are, only on opposite sides of the spectrum. So why has one been afforded standing and the other not so much?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby cartervj » Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:57 am

BOOM! :thumbsup:
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7336
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby Chilidawg » Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:04 am

WTN10 wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
WTN10 wrote:I've been opposed to DOMA for some time, and it has nothing to do with what I think of gay marriage specifically. I'm opposed to it on the grounds of Federalism and state's rights to regulate their own selves. I don't care what people in California do as long as they are made to leave Tennessee and me alone. The holding appears to support my approach, but I'm still reading as I can.


Help me out with this one and correct me anywhere its needed. The citizens of Ca voted against gay marriage, the gay community raised a stink and put the outcome of said vote to the courts. Now the court says the DOMA is unconstitutional and that gays can marry. So how can striking down an act deemed as unconstitutional allow gay marriage in the state of California but not in Tennesse?


DOMA and the Prop 8 case are two entirely separate lawsuits and tow entirely separate questions. The Court held that it lack jurisdiction to address the Prop 8 issue because the original parties lacked standing to pursue the claim.


I thought that the standing issue was related Not to the original parties, but the third party that took up the appeal after the state declined to pursue it.

The DOMA holding merely means that the Federal government cannot refuse to recognize legal m
arriages as that term is defined by the several states. If gay marriage is legal in California, the Federal government must recognize it. If it is not legal in Tennessee, the Federal government does not have to recognize it.


I'm not so sure about that. If a couple gets married in New York and recieves federal benifits, then moves to Tennessee, I don't think that they will lose those federal benifitts.
The questions left un-addressed are whether states have to give full faith and credit to marriages conducted in other states, and whether a state can refuse to allow gay marriages.


I don't think the FFaCC applies here. It has always been about equal treatment

You may think that this is a victory for states rights, but under the 14th amendment, the states will have to accept the inevitable.
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby Chilidawg » Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:14 am

assateague wrote: So why has one been afforded standing and the other not so much?


Because the parties involved in the appeal of the prop 8 case were not the original parties of the case being appealed, therefore they did not have standing to appeal the case.
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby assateague » Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:52 am

You have no clue what I was even talking about, apparently. Quietly sit down until you catch up, please.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby slowshooter » Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:29 am

assateague wrote:The same way someone is injured by walking past a copy of the ten commandments hanging on the wall in the courthouse.

I don't remember the state adopting a religion. I'll make sure to put a Quran up on the wall next time I go to the courthouse.

Your example is not even close to right.

If you want to apply the "you gotta have an injury" standard here, it should be applied everywhere. And truthfully, other than "hurt feelings", there's no difference between walking past the ten commandments or walking past two guys holding hands. Except one of these things is the "cause du jour". Well, actually both of them are, only on opposite sides of the spectrum. So why has one been afforded standing and the other not so much?


Too bad the reason that people are telling the religious to pack it in is that there isn't a sanctioned state religion. The state has no business proselytizing for any church or deity. Just like there isn't a sanctioned sexual preference. So the heterosexuals have to deal with the idea that there are other kinds of people in this world. Oh boooo hoooo. :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

It appears that some Hets are so butthurt that they are having to make up reasons they aren't being treated fairly. :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
Last edited by slowshooter on Sun Jun 30, 2013 2:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: DOMA Unconstitutional

Postby Chilidawg » Fri Jun 28, 2013 12:33 pm

assateague wrote:You have no clue what I was even talking about, apparently. Quietly sit down until you catch up, please.


Feel free to illuminate us with your encyclopedic knowledge of the concept of legal standing, then.

I bet (50/50) it will be every bit as profound as your theories on probability.
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Next

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests