DOMA & Prop 8 is DEAD

[Swiper]

The Supreme Court has ruled DOMA to be unconstitutional for violating people's equal rights. Prop 8 appeal has been dismissed as having no legal standing with the Supreme Court and also vacated the Ninth Circuit's decision. This effectively means that gay marriages will once again be allowed in California and that the federal government must recognize all gay marriages performed in states that permits same-sex marriages.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Swiper

[Guest]

I was just thinking that we don't have nearly enough gay marriage threads around here.

[LittleWyvern]

I don't have much to say about this, other than:

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

We may have many differing opinions, but I think we should try to respect the rule of law and the legal process even while we differ in opinion.

[sarah331]

I'm so so thrilled :-D

[annewandering]

blah. Does it even matter any more?

[Jenamarie]

From my reading of it it seems that the "States should get to decide!" people got their way, and the "Federal government should recognize same-sex marriage!" people got their way too. States get to decide if they recognize them. If your state *does* recognize it, you can receive federal benefits; if it doesn't you don't.

[carlimac]

I don't have much to say about this, other than:

We may have many differing opinions, but I think we should try to respect the rule of law and the legal process even while we differ in opinion.

It would have been nice if the judges in CA had thought so, too.

[carlimac]

From my reading of it it seems that the "States should get to decide!" people got their way, and the "Federal government should recognize same-sex marriage!" people got their way too. States get to decide if they recognize them. If your state *does* recognize it, you can receive federal benefits; if it doesn't you don't.

Except the state of CA. Ironic.

[Finrock]

" 1. Israel, Israel, God is calling, Calling thee from lands of woe. Babylon the great is falling; God shall all her tow'rs o'erthrow. Come to Zion, come to Zion Ere his floods of anger flow. Come to Zion, come to Zion Ere his floods of anger flow.

2. Israel, Israel, God is speaking. Hear your great Deliv'rer's voice! Now a glorious morn is breaking For the people of his choice. Come to Zion, come to Zion, And within her walls rejoice. Come to Zion, come to Zion, And within her walls rejoice.

3. Israel, angels are descending From celestial worlds on high, And to man their pow'r extending, That the Saints may homeward fly. Come to Zion, come to Zion, For your coming Lord is nigh. Come to Zion, come to Zion, For your coming Lord is nigh.

4. Israel! Israel! Canst thou linger Still in error's gloomy ways? Mark how judgment's pointing finger Justifies no vain delays. Come to Zion, come to Zion! Zion's walls shall ring with praise. Come to Zion, come to Zion! Zion's walls shall ring with praise.

Text: Richard Smyth, 1838-1914"

Regards,

Finrock

[Just_A_Guy]

The Supreme Court has ruled DOMA to be unconstitutional for violating people's equal rights.

It's a little nebulous as to exactly how SCOTUS got to its conclusion on the DOMA case (I've been laboring through the opinion for the last half hour). There's a lot of talk of federalism in the majority opinion itself, but it also cites to cases representing a hodge-podge of legal theories without really picking one and positively stating "this is what applies here". As Justice Scalia points out,

The sum of all the Court’s nonspecific hand-waving is that this law is invalid (maybe on equal-protection grounds, maybe on substantive-due-process grounds, and perhaps with some amorphous federalism component playing a role) because it is motivated by a “‘bare . . . desire to harm’” couples in same-sex marriages.

I would actually agree with a federalism analysis; and have stated here in the past that I think DOMA needs to go. (I prefer a complete overhaul of all federal bennies--giving spousal benefits made sense when one parent routinely left the workforce to raise the children; but I'm not sure many of those benefits make sense in a modern two-income family).

However, I am concerned as to what might be done with the opinion's language in the future. As Scalia notes:

The penultimate sentence of the majority's opinion is a naked declaration that "[t]his opinion and its holding are confined” to those couples “joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State.” [Citation omitted]. I have heard such “bald, unreasoned disclaimer” before. Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 604. When the Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we were assured that the case had nothing, nothing at all to do with “whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Id., at 578. Now we are told that DOMA is invalid because it “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects,” ante, at 23—with an accompanying citation of Lawrence. It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.

Prop 8 appeal has been dismissed as having no legal standing with the Supreme Court and also vacated the Ninth Circuit's decision. This effectively means that gay marriages will once again be allowed in California . . .

Yes, but the court did something really interesting here. The Prop 8 opponents were trying to extend Judge Walker's district court ruling beyond California itself. The 9th circuit's ruling technically bound not only California, but paved the way for forced recognition of gay marriage in every Pacific Coast state (most of which have admittedly already permitted gay marriage by legislative process) as well as Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Arizona. By vacating the 9th Circuit, SCOTUS basically crammed the genie back into the bottle of California.

I don't have much to say about this, other than:

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

We may have many differing opinions, but I think we should try to respect the rule of law and the legal process even while we differ in opinion.

Naturally. Might makes right, so long as the ones who wield the might think the same way I do.

[LittleWyvern]

Naturally. Might makes right, so long as the ones who wield the might think the same way I do.

Except that isn't at all what I said or meant.

[bytor2112]

Someof Scalia's dessent:

In a ripping dissent, Scalia says that Justice Anthony Kennedy and his colleagues in the majority have resorted to calling opponents of gay marriage "enemies of the human race."

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "dis- parage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

Scalia says that the court's holding – while limited to the Defense of Marriage Act – is a sure sign that the majority is willing to declare gay marriage a constitutional right.

It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress's hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will "confine" the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with.

And, he says, the holding will short circuit the debate over gay marriage that should have been carried out in the states.

In the majority's telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one's political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today's Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.

But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today's decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.

Edited June 26, 2013 by bytor2112

[ElectofGod]

We may have many differing opinions, but I think we should try to respect the rule of law and the legal process even while we differ in opinion.

That article of faith does NOT say we have to live under the law. WE MUST STANDUP for FREEDOM! I will not, nor ever accept the evils that are coming up in the government. Not intentionally

As Finrock posted,

Israel Israel, God is calling.... Its time to attack Babylon.

Proclamation to the Family

we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

The end is very very cose. Dare I say even in our lifetime. Its plausible to say the persecution of the saints is about to begin... Starting with this.,Than the gathering of the righteous amongst great war? or destruciton? than the GREAT destruction killing almost all, than the end will come.

Edited June 26, 2013 by ElectofGod

[Just_A_Guy]

Except that isn't at all what I said or meant.

I must confess myself a little curious as to what you did mean, then. Which post in this thread, or on this forum, led you to conclude that it was necessary to remind us all of the importance of respecting the rule of law and legal process? Would you have made that same post had the Court made opposite rulings today?

I mean, did you really think that someone here was fomenting treason? Or were you just hoping to deter criticisms of the Court's decisions right out of the gate, under the guise of respecting authority?

Edited June 26, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[sarah331]

(Actually it's pretty inarguable that allowing the federal gov't to recognize gay marriage just ENHANCES the freedom we're standing up for. It doesn't hinder anyone's freedom. However DOMA DID hinder an entire population's freedom. So yes -- STAND UP FOR FREEDOM!!! :-D )

[bytor2112]

Oh dear..........well as John Roberts noted when they upheld Obama care..elections matter. No Obama and there would be no Sotomayor or Kagan and I wonder when they will come out of the closet?

“This is a huge day not only for the LGBT movement, but also for the immigrant rights’ movement,” said Jorge Gutierrez, who leads the Queer Undocumented Immigrant Project for United We Dream, a group of young illegal immigrants.

Edited June 26, 2013 by bytor2112

[Just_A_Guy]

Israel Israel, God is calling.... Its time to attack Babylon.

Having just assured LittleWyvern that none of us are fomenting treason, I would ask . . .

Would you like to clarify that a little?

[bytor2112]

(Actually it's pretty inarguable that allowing the federal gov't to recognize gay marriage just ENHANCES the freedom we're standing up for. It doesn't hinder anyone's freedom. However DOMA DID hinder an entire population's freedom. So yes -- STAND UP FOR FREEDOM!!! :-D )

Oh...I think as do many that it is very arguable and as you might note by the activist Obama court rulings that We, as in we the people, don't get to allow....at least not California.

And, not sure how DOMA (a bIll passed by a Bill and a Democrat led Congress as I recall ) hinders freedom for an entire population.

[bytor2112]

Having just assured LittleWyvern that none of us are fomenting treason, I would ask . . .

Would you like to clarify that a little?

Obviously, standing up in defense of what is right..going on the offensive instead of just passively letting the uninformed masses (Babylon) destroy civilization. (just Bytors take on the comment)

[sarah331]

I won't get too into it -- I don't come here for the politics -- but it denied tax benefits and federal legal benefits to legally married couples. Same-sex partners in MA were paying more for health insurance and more in federal taxes (they were filing "married" in MA but had to file "single" on the federal). It discriminated against and targeted a population (LGBTQ).

You don't have to agree with the ruling but I honestly can't comprehend how someone can say that this was a mark against freedom. They didn't rule and say all states had to recognize gay marriage, and this didn't even affect (to my knowledge) civil unions. It affected legal marriages in states that allowed them.

I'm obviously very pro-equal rights and this is the hardest thing I'm reconciling with the church so excuse me if I just leave you with that.

[ElectofGod]

Just what Byorts stated above. Its a quote from Holland. Not to say we have to be open about everything just pick our battles. We must stand up for whats right.

Holland in his talk "israel, israel, god is calling" he says this...

"For more than 4,000 years of covenantal history, this has been the pattern: Flee and seek. Run and settle. Escape Babylon. Build Zion’s protective walls.

Until now. Until tonight. Until this our day."

..."We aren’t going to solve every personal or social problem in the world here tonight. When we leave this evening, there will still be poverty, ignorance and transgression, unemployment and abuse, violence and heartache in our neighborhoods and cities and nations. No, we can’t do everything, but as the old saying goes, we can do something. And in answer to God’s call, the children of Israel are the ones to do it—not to flee Babylon this time but to attack it. Without being naive or Pollyannaish about it, we can live our religion so broadly and unfailingly that we find all kinds of opportunities to help families, bless neighbors, and protect others, including the rising generation." - Holland

LDS Church responds to Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage | Deseret News

"By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates," LDS Church spokesman Michael Otterson said. "Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens.

"In addition, the effect of the ruling is to raise further complex jurisdictional issues that will need to be resolved.

"Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children. Notably, the court decision does not change the definition of marriage in nearly three fourths of the states."

Common! Your representing the church. And they give this answer? Really? Standup for truth!

Edited June 26, 2013 by ElectofGod

[bytor2112]

I won't get too into it -- I don't come here for the politics -- but it denied tax benefits and federal legal benefits to legally married couples. Same-sex partners in MA were paying more for health insurance and more in federal taxes (they were filing "married" in MA but had to file "single" on the federal). It discriminated against and targeted a population (LGBTQ).

You don't have to agree with the ruling but I honestly can't comprehend how someone can say that this was a mark against freedom. They didn't rule and say all states had to recognize gay marriage, and this didn't even affect (to my knowledge) civil unions. It affected legal marriages in states that allowed them.

I'm obviously very pro-equal rights and this is the hardest thing I'm reconciling with the church so excuse me if I just leave you with that.

Maybe because you don't live in California. As I recall MA homosexual marriage laws were passed by activist courts and not we the people....but, you are likely ok taking away the freedom from that population. It is not discrimination when it is not the law of the land or Federal law.

As for being pro-equal right..you seem to be very selective in your support of equal rights and your issue with church is not an issue with the church , but an issue with God.

[LittleWyvern]

I must confess myself a little curious as to what you did mean, then. Which post in this thread, or on this forum, led you to conclude that it was necessary to remind us all of the importance of respecting the rule of law and legal process?

Because previous topics on this forum sometimes included bashing the judiciary branch of government as if that's the solution. Those who want DOMA to be a part of federal law have a clear path forward: remove the parts of the Constitution or federal law that make DOMA unconstitutional via an amendment or law, respectively. Attacking the idea of judicial review or the revocation of unconstitutional law is counterproductive, because that same process is what keeps laws from passing which infringe on our 1st/2nd/etc. Amendment rights (for instance). That's the point I'm trying to make.

Would you have made that same post had the Court made opposite rulings today?

Yes, although it would be geared toward a different group of people.

I mean, did you really think that someone here was fomenting treason?

You can't possibly be serious here. If you are, you are assuming the worst possible meaning of my words. My explanations above answer this question, if it ever was one.

Or were you just hoping to deter criticisms of the Court's decisions right out of the gate, under the guise of respecting authority?

No. I haven't said anything about the Court's decision at all. I haven't had time to read the decision, so I'm not going to state my opinion whether this decision was right or wrong until I do so. I do not feel I know enough about the decision to have an opinion of it.

Edited June 26, 2013 by LittleWyvern
halp cant speel

[annewandering]

Church Responds to Supreme Court Marriage Rulings

[carlimac]

(Actually it's pretty inarguable that allowing the federal gov't to recognize gay marriage just ENHANCES the freedom we're standing up for. It doesn't hinder anyone's freedom. However DOMA DID hinder an entire population's freedom. So yes -- STAND UP FOR FREEDOM!!! :-D )

Hinders a whole bunch of adoptive kids freedom to have a parent of each gender. Who will stand up for these kids?