Are we sure CNN read the WHOLE decision?
Five versus four isn't quite epic, but still certainly a win.
Only Section Three was removed, which leaves:
Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Until someone decides it's their moral duty to enforce it; that's the problem with leaving outdated laws on the books for future administrators to misuse and further their own agendas. It's got to suck for the ones hit by those swinging doors.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But we already know DOMA's going unenforced anyway.
It wasn't defended by the government. The IRS etc. were certainly enforcing it.
Until someone decides it's their moral duty to enforce it; that's the problem with leaving outdated laws on the books for future administrators to misuse and further their own agendas. It's got to suck for the ones hit by those swinging doors.What isn't being enforced? The federal government didn't recognize same-sex marriages. The law did not prevent states from allowing them, just ensured that the federal government did not treat those couples as married.
Ignore it: it was an overly broad statement and I was thinking about something else (and trying to write three posts across three sites).
Only Section Three was removed, which leaves:
Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Nothing surprising there. The Supreme Court is traditionally hands-off to clauses in existing law regarding states' rights to decide.
The actual big issue today is not that. May seem so because that was a federal law. But the California Prop 8 ruling is the real issue here. It was unconstitutional from the get-go and never belonged on the ballot in the first place. The court saw that.
I think if you pay attention, you will see that American society is following a domino-like pattern when it comes to the constitutional rights of its citizens. States are falling in line with a more open, constitutional understanding of the individual, which is a good thing. California was a sticky problem because it is a state that should easily been in line already, yet wasn't. Now it is. It's a big win, and it's important to the momentum of this movement.
Victoly.
|
The biggest issue that the remaining parts of DOMA present is what happens to legally married same sex couples who move to a state that does not recognize their marriage. There is a legal question of whether the federal government will recognize a couple as married if they were legally married in one state but then reside in a state that does not recognize their marriage.
There will, of course, be more federal court cases to follow these.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Prop 8 ruling is less than I hoped for, but exactly what I was expecting.
I love how "the executive branch is not defending it so Congress can step in as an affected party because it is a law they passed" is justification for DOMA defendants having standing but "the executive branch is not defending it so the people who led the referendum can step in as an affected party because it is a law they passed" was denied for Prop 8. I can see this coming in to bite them in the ass as it effectively neuters any state referendum measure that does not have the support of the governor.
|
|
The Prop 8 ruling is less than I hoped for, but exactly what I was expecting.
I love how "the executive branch is not defending it so Congress can step in as an affected party because it is a law they passed" is justification for DOMA defendants having standing but "the executive branch is not defending it so the people who led the referendum can step in as an affected party because it is a law they passed" was denied for Prop 8. I can see this coming in to bite them in the ass as it effectively neuters any state referendum measure that does not have the support of the governor.
I skimmed over the dissent in Hollingsworth, and they expound upon that argument quite a bit. Ballot initiatives are meant to circumvent the state government, therefore it can't be entirely encumbent upon the state government to defend them.
I am inclined to agree with you. I think SCOTUS should have weighed Prop 8 on its merits rather than kicked it out based on standing.
It's interesting that the ruling (and dissent) on the standing issue was "bipartisan". (Not that justices are members of political parties, but there were some left-leaning and some right-leaning justices on both sides of the standing question.)
Today is a good day. After five difficult years, I can once more embrace my conviction that California is superior to all the other states.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Today is a good day. After five difficult years, I can once more embrace my conviction that California is superior to all the other states.
Phbbt, we got gay marriage AND legal pot waaaay before they did. ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Today is a good day. After five difficult years, I can once more embrace my conviction that California is superior to all the other states.Nope still not better than Massachusetts my state. Yes it is mine.
... said orcish warlord after his horde dealt with the last group of human resistance.
Today is a good day. After five difficult years, I can once more embrace my conviction that California is superior to all the other states.Nope still not better than Massachusetts my state. Yes it is mine.
Almost a decade, baby! Not bad for the most Catholic state in the Union.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Today is a good day. After five difficult years, I can once more embrace my conviction that California is superior to all the other states.Phbbt, we got gay marriage AND legal pot waaaay before they did. ;-)
I admit, my conviction is largely based on the persistent self-delusion that Washington state doesn't exist. Which is difficult to maintain, given that I fly up there yearly.
I hate to be the one guy to ruin the parade, but it looks like the empire wants to strike back. Buckle up guys, because we are going to be in it for the long haul.
|
I hate to be the one guy to ruin the parade, but it looks like the empire wants to strike back. Buckle up guys, because we are going to be in it for the long haul.
A constitutional amendment is one very tough hurdle, though...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I admit, my conviction is largely based on the persistent self-delusion that Washington state doesn't exist. Which is difficult to maintain, given that I fly up there yearly.Today is a good day. After five difficult years, I can once more embrace my conviction that California is superior to all the other states.Phbbt, we got gay marriage AND legal pot waaaay before they did. ;-)
Wait, isn't Washington state part of Canada anyway?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I hate to be the one guy to ruin the parade, but it looks like the empire wants to strike back. Buckle up guys, because we are going to be in it for the long haul.Yeah. It is sad that our government does not understand what unconstitutional means. The SCOTUS stated that it was unconstitutional because it was discriminatory. Even if they somehow pass the amendment, it can still be overthrown as discriminatory which is a violation of the Constitution itself. Can't protect against it in one line just to add another line that allows it.
That is not how amendments (or Constitutional/legal interpretation) work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Today is a good day. After five difficult years, I can once more embrace my conviction that California is superior to all the other states.
It is also difficult to embrace because we passed "Prop 8" in the first place. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, because you're just a bag. Bags can't feel love ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate to be the one guy to ruin the parade, but it looks like the empire wants to strike back. Buckle up guys, because we are going to be in it for the long haul.
Nothing will not happen more than this won't.
I hate to be the one guy to ruin the parade, but it looks like the empire wants to strike back. Buckle up guys, because we are going to be in it for the long haul.
This is going exactly nowhere. It may make me a terrible person, but I can't help but take pleasure in impotent tantrums like this amendment.
I hate to be the one guy to ruin the parade, but it looks like the empire wants to strike back. Buckle up guys, because we are going to be in it for the long haul.
On the plus side, it requires 38 states to pass an amendment, but 13 states have passed laws allowing same-sex marriage. They'd have to flip one of those 13 states and do so while public opinion is trending away from them on the issue (and have zero of the other 37 states move over to the pro-same sex marriage side).
I hate to be the one guy to ruin the parade, but it looks like the empire wants to strike back. Buckle up guys, because we are going to be in it for the long haul.This is going exactly nowhere. It may make me a terrible person, but I can't help but take pleasure in impotent tantrums like this amendment.
Yeah I almost agree with that. But then again, we were crazy enough to ban booze as an amendment so... there's always that little nagging voice in the back of my head that says "watch out" ;)
Congrats on the DOMA dying and congrats to the non ruling on prop 8
We in Canada are glad to hear the reasonable people in the States are finally starting to get a voice. Americans aren't backward but sadly some of your politicians are.
No, there certainly are backward Americans. That's how those backward politicians keep getting elected.
Me, I'm actually looking forward to the short news clips featuring twitching, panicky guys, claiming that this decision damages the sanctity of marriage, while they cling to their 4th trophy wife...
Oh, there's already much hullabaloo about it among the regressives.
Unfortunately, where the Supreme Court is concerned, that 5-4 majority isn't much. Still, I know plenty of folks that support marriage equality, even my dyed-in-the-wool Republican parents.
