Same sex marriage SC decisions due Wednesday [Archive]

olevetonahill

6/26/2013, 12:18 AM

Lets see if the justices grew a pair - or several pair - and constructed rulings on Prop 8 and DOMA, instead of wimping out on technicalities.

Oh and I wanta see those Dyke bitches on the SC show their Balls.

SanJoaquinSooner

6/26/2013, 12:28 AM

Splain please?

They could rule the party who appealed the Prop 8 lower court ruling had no standing - sending it back to California.

They could also rule the case only applies to the specific parties, instead of making a broader ruling.

olevetonahill

6/26/2013, 12:31 AM

They could rule the party who appealed the Prop 8 lower court ruling had no standing - sending it back to California.

They could also rule the case only applies to the specific parties, instead of making a broader ruling.

Or they could just say In aint Wrong to say Wimmens Cant marry wimmens and Mens cant marry Mens
It is EQUAL that way ya know?
Which is really the ONLY question that THEY should be addressing

SanJoaquinSooner

6/26/2013, 12:34 AM

Or they could just say In aint Wrong to say Wimmens Cant marry wimmens and Mens cant marry Mens
It is EQUAL that way ya know?
Which is really the ONLY question that THEY should be addressing

You're right ,,,, they could do that ,,,, but ,,,,are you predicting that?

olevetonahill

6/26/2013, 12:38 AM

You're right ,,,, they could do that ,,,, but ,,,,are you predicting that?

Sure, If Im wrong I will revise my stance then

Really tho Whats the Prob? Isnt the deal that a Law has to be EQUAL?
Its Not discriminatory unless it excludes ONE gender or the other.

SanJoaquinSooner

6/26/2013, 01:01 AM

Sure, If Im wrong I will revise my stance then

Really tho Whats the Prob? Isnt the deal that a Law has to be EQUAL?
Its Not discriminatory unless it excludes ONE gender or the other.

Well if they passed a law that said, men can marry only men and women only women ... that would be equal and not discriminatory?

But seriously, it's not equal unless a given individual has the same set of possibilities as another individual does, regardless of gender.

BTW, in the DOMA case, the two ladies were legally married in a state that recognizes same sex marriage, but the widow was not able to take advantage of tax breaks on the inheritance because of her gender. That's just wrong.

olevetonahill

6/26/2013, 01:10 AM

Well if they passed a law that said, men can marry only men and women only women ... that would be equal and not discriminatory?

But seriously, it's not equal unless a given individual has the same set of possibilities as another individual does, regardless of gender.

BTW, in the DOMA case, the two ladies were legally married in a state that recognizes same sex marriage, but the widow was not able to take advantage of tax breaks on the inheritance because of her gender. That's just wrong.

Ya cant please ALL the People ALL the Time .
Personally I DGAS if jaun marries jaun Maria maries Maria,

IF you are Going to have the Rule of Law there needs to be absolutes.

If Not, then **** it and Let me Handle **** MY way, Yall can handle it YOURS. In other words Anarchy

Chuck Bao

6/26/2013, 01:19 AM

olevetonahill

6/26/2013, 01:22 AM

The chatter on the internet is that we should be prepared for mincing steps based on technicalities and not strides based on fairness, equality and rights. So yeah, those of you worried about feeling that your sanctity of marriage in Oklahoma being deflied need not worry, at least not for now.

Chuck, You should know me by now I dont care I have No problem one way or the other, Hell I would be happy to see the entire establishment of Marriage abolished.

SanJoaquinSooner

6/26/2013, 09:05 AM

fox says relevant DOMA portion struck down. 5-4 ruling. sounds like states' rights rationale.

a victory for freedom.

SanJoaquinSooner

6/26/2013, 09:22 AM

I understand Scalia going ape **** over this.

okie52

6/26/2013, 09:24 AM

Supreme Court Strikes Down Defense of Marriage Act in Major Win for Gay Couples
Wednesday, 26 Jun 2013 10:09 AM

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a federal law that restricts the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples in a major victory for the gay rights movement.

The ruling, on a 5-4 vote, means that legally married gay men and women are entitled to claim the same federal benefits that are available to opposite-sex married couples.

The court was due to decide within minutes a second case concerning a California law that bans same-sex marriage in the state.

.

SanJoaquinSooner

6/26/2013, 09:34 AM

sounds like California's Prop 8 is toast, if I'm interpreting Supreme Court's non-decision correctly. -- making same sex marriage legal in California.

badger

6/26/2013, 09:41 AM

sounds like California's Prop 8 is toast, if I'm interpreting Supreme Court's non-decision correctly. -- making same sex marriage legal in California.

You are correct, they are gonna resume marriages in a month.

It will be interesting to see what the fallout is for states with their own same sex marriage bans.

Do states with bans have to recognize marriages in other states?

Will same-sex married couples be able to make important medical, financial and other decisions reserved for closed family members (spouse supercedes all in all cases) in states without same sex marriage?

Will courts overturn other state's bans similar to the Supreme Court overturning California's?

rock on sooner

6/26/2013, 09:43 AM

They kicked Prop 8 back to the State of Cali...effectively letting
the lower court ruling stand.

rock on sooner

6/26/2013, 09:45 AM

Chuck, You should know me by now I dont care I have No problem one way or the other, Hell I would be happy to see the entire establishment of Marriage abolished.

Geez, Vet, I thot yew already did that!:love_heart:

olevetonahill

6/26/2013, 09:46 AM

Geez, Vet, I thot yew already did that!:love_heart:

Heh,

SanJoaquinSooner

6/26/2013, 09:48 AM

You are correct, they are gonna resume marriages in a month.

It will be interesting to see what the fallout is for states with their own same sex marriage bans.

Do states with bans have to recognize marriages in other states?

Will same-sex married couples be able to make important medical, financial and other decisions reserved for closed family members (spouse supercedes all in all cases) in states without same sex marriage?

Will courts overturn other state's bans similar to the Supreme Court overturning California's?

One talking head said if you get married in a state that recognizes same sex marriage and move to a state that doesn't, that state is not required to recognize the marriage, BUT the federal gov't still is required to recognize it (e.g. tax law)

rock on sooner

6/26/2013, 09:55 AM

One talking head said if you get married in a state that recognizes same sex marriage and move to a state that doesn't, that state is not required to recognize the marriage, BUT the federal gov't still is required to recognize it (e.g. tax law)

The LT Gov of Cali says that there will be many lawsuits
around the country, based on the federal thing. Look for
a LOT of nastiness come election time every where. One
talking head said that he thinks at least one, if not more,
Pubs, on a national basis, will come out in favor of same
sex marriage. This same sex thing is similar to civil rights
issues of the '60's, in that it is monumental for the rights
advancement of a very vocal and determined group.

Bourbon St Sooner

6/26/2013, 10:05 AM

jkjsooner

6/26/2013, 10:06 AM

Sure, If Im wrong I will revise my stance then

Really tho Whats the Prob? Isnt the deal that a Law has to be EQUAL?
Its Not discriminatory unless it excludes ONE gender or the other.

Rules against interracial marriages didn't exclude one race or the other. All races were under the same rule - you can only marry within your race. SCOTUS found them unconstitutional.

olevetonahill

6/26/2013, 10:28 AM

Rules against interracial marriages didn't exclude one race or the other. All races were under the same rule - you can only marry within your race. SCOTUS found them unconstitutional.

Like I said, I dont GAS one way or the Other. Marriage should be abolished anyway.

rock on sooner

6/26/2013, 10:37 AM

I think the SC has had a good week. The provision of the VRA that was kicked out yesterday is outdated and needed to go. With the gay marriage rulings they essentially have left the issue to the states. And the discriminatory DOMA provision that targeted a certain group of individuals needed to go.

If I understand it correctly, the section of the VRA WAS outdated
and should have gone. However, that section should be and, most
likely will be, revisited by lawmakers and brought up to date. I
think it is dangerous to remove oversight completely from some
clearly questionably governed states and their efforts to "groom"
their voter roles and rules.

Bourbon St Sooner

6/26/2013, 11:36 AM

If I understand it correctly, the section of the VRA WAS outdated
and should have gone. However, that section should be and, most
likely will be, revisited by lawmakers and brought up to date. I
think it is dangerous to remove oversight completely from some
clearly questionably governed states and their efforts to "groom"
their voter roles and rules.

I doubt if this Congress or any Congress soon will agree upon a formula to replace the old one. You can still sue under the act if you think a voting law is creating a dispirate impact. Roberts brought up a good point in questioning why if Ga wants to pass a voter id law, it has to clear it through the Justice Dept but Pennsylvania doesn't. Laws like this aren't just getting passed in Southern states.

Tulsa_Fireman

6/26/2013, 12:23 PM

Domino. The Supreme Court rules.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-doma-supreme-court-ruling-20130626,0,6846934.story

Regardless of your position or political persuasion, Scalia's and Roberts' dissent is well spoken with deep roots in the history of the place and authority of the Court. I suggest a read of both along with Kennedy's majority opinion.

State's Rights preserved through a very Federalist action. Whodathunkit? Sic'em's probably having a stroke.

Midtowner

6/26/2013, 12:33 PM

Scalia's and Roberts' dissents were mainly pages and pages of gritching about the political bandaid the majority found was good enough to fix the standing issue. The House Republicans authorized and hired lawyers to defend DOMA on their own. I find this very suspect and I know it'll lead to bizarre consequences in the future as now we've basically blessed the House retaining special counsel to argue anything in court, so much so that that special counsel actually has standing. That's pretty outrageous. I would concur with the conservative justices on that point.

That said, I found the dicta to be very interesting. Lots of discussion about how the states have pretty much total jurisdiction over everything marriage related. Of course, the Court cited Loving v. Virginia multiple times. To me, that looked like a shot across the bow. In other words, states have all of the rights except what was said in Loving and possibly other things?

It left the door wide open to argue that a Loving v. Virginia like case would persuade a majority of judges to declare homosexual marriage to be as fundamentally protected as heterosexual marriage by the 14th Amendment.

Tulsa_Fireman

6/26/2013, 01:06 PM

There again lies the question however, how can one establish an equal protection argument when A) the establishment of the premise is not equally enforced (see New Hampshire RSA 457, Arkansas Title 9-11, age and relational differences), B) is now solely the purview of the States due to majority SCOTUS opinion and the preservation of superceding federal law in DOMA Sec. 2 making it ENTIRELY a State's Rights issue, and C) differing rulings from the 9th Circuit to state level appeals courts in the applicability of Loving to this prospect?

It's a rattlesnake of epic proportions. To be honest, I'm glad to see SCOTUS preserving Sec. 2. Hopefully if it does rise to Federal District Court on a premise based on Loving, it gets blown to hell in reference to the SCOTUS decision. The assumption is that this is a bread and butter comparison to Loving and the fact remains it's not. Not YET. Not until Congress can either establish homosexuals as a protected class or establish homosexuality as anything beyond actions of consenting individuals as is found in Lawrence v. Texas.

Midtowner

6/26/2013, 01:17 PM

Section 2 wasn't challenged. The 5th Amendment Equal Protection argument has nothing to do with how states treat people. 5th Amendment Equal Protection applies to the federal government.

The states' rights portion was qualified by Loving, so that door is wide open. So is a 14th Amendment Equal Protection/Fundamental Liberty Interest question. Lots of the dicta seemed to invite a challenge along those grounds.

rock on sooner

6/26/2013, 02:11 PM

I doubt if this Congress or any Congress soon will agree upon a formula to replace the old one. You can still sue under the act if you think a voting law is creating a dispirate impact. Roberts brought up a good point in questioning why if Ga wants to pass a voter id law, it has to clear it through the Justice Dept but Pennsylvania doesn't. Laws like this aren't just getting passed in Southern states.

I'm no expert but, I think questioning GA or AL or MS or most Southern
states has something to do with past, verified "questionable" methods of
passing voter ID laws....

That one can still litigate the issue is good.

I read that there are at least two Senators, one ea Pub and Dem,
pledging to work on said section.

Turd_Ferguson

6/26/2013, 05:11 PM

This thread is ghey

okie52

6/26/2013, 05:21 PM

This thread is ghey

Heh heh...

ouwasp

6/26/2013, 05:56 PM

Midtowner

6/26/2013, 06:18 PM

So how long is it until states like OK may be in jeopardy of losing the reserved right of writing their own laws regarding marriage? Or, put another way, how long until OK is forced to recognize homosexual marriages from another state?

The dicta of the opinion certainly alluded that if there was a challenge to a state law brought on 14th Amendment grounds, they'd follow Loving v. Virginia and even though the states are sovereign here, their sovereignty isn't limited.

So maybe 2-3 years?

If nothing else, section 2 of DOMA is totally unconstitutional. It is a statute which says the Constitutional Full Faith and Credit Clause doesn't apply to the states. A statute can't limit the constitution and states can't refuse to honor the federal constitution. I think that's the next domino to fall.

Turd_Ferguson

6/26/2013, 09:36 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^Listen to him, he's the smartest mother ****er in the world...

landrun

6/26/2013, 10:27 PM

....Hell I would be happy to see the entire establishment of Marriage abolished.

So would the left. That is the true agenda behind all this.

landrun

6/26/2013, 10:29 PM

I think you have to do some mental gymnastics to have a federal court strike down a state's constitutional admendment and the call it a victory for states rights.

Ton Loc

6/26/2013, 10:33 PM

So would the left. That is the true agenda behind all this.

I like to imagine the "left's" secret meetings where their agenda includes things like destroying marriage, pushing the gay agenda (whatever that is), destroying gender bias, etc. Must be a lot like the secret "Man" meetings where we all gather and discuss how to hold women and minorities back.

OULenexaman

6/26/2013, 10:35 PM

Amazing how this **** happens. The whole world must be laughing at us...I don't blame Bush. But someone will.

OU68

6/27/2013, 08:42 AM

I like to imagine the "left's" secret meetings where their agenda includes things like destroying marriage, pushing the gay agenda (whatever that is), destroying gender bias, etc. Must be a lot like the secret "Man" meetings where we all gather and discuss how to hold women and minorities back.

Don't need to be secret - they've got everything on the table now, well except bestiality, but that can't be far.

Midtowner

6/27/2013, 08:52 AM

Explain that bestiality angle there...

Who exactly on the left has ever advocated for that?

--you secretly for it or something?

olevetonahill

6/27/2013, 08:55 AM

Explain that bestiality angle there...

Who exactly on the left has ever advocated for that?

--you secretly for it or something?

Wasnt something said about YOU, Your Dog, and Peanut butter?

OU68

6/27/2013, 09:14 AM

Explain that bestiality angle there...

Who exactly on the left has ever advocated for that?

--you secretly for it or something?

GFY - it hasn't been the conservatives pushing the ghey thing.

ouwasp

6/27/2013, 09:48 AM

jkjsooner

6/27/2013, 10:29 AM

Mercy, the Tulsa World headline/photo was sickening this morning... and the dadgum thing landed that way on my sidewalk! It was quickly turned over and hidden in disgust, as the entire homosexual universe should be.

You act as if gay people chose to be gay. No straight person in their right mind would ever choose to be gay.

badger

6/27/2013, 10:33 AM

You act as if gay people chose to be gay. No straight person in their right mind would ever choose to be gay.

Normal people, yes. Attention (or money, or sympathy) seekers will pretend to have cancer, pretend to be suicidal, pretend to be pregnant, pretend to be disabled, and yes, would probably also pretend to be gay.

SanJoaquinSooner

6/27/2013, 11:03 AM

I think you have to do some mental gymnastics to have a federal court strike down a state's constitutional admendment and the call it a victory for states rights.

Today's victory for "states rights" is in reference to overturning DOMA. The definition of marriage in DOMA doesn't trump a state's definition.

Concerning Prop 8 being overturned by a lower federal court, it really doesn't require mental gymnastics. The 10th "states rights" amendment contains the phrase, "nor prohibited to the States" - which means the states can't deny U.S. constitutional rights. Prop 8 was ruled to violate the 14th amendment's equal protection clause by the lower federal court.

The supreme court didn't overturn Prop 8. It just said the party who appealed the decision wasn't an injured party and had no standing, so the lower court's ruling stands.