Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Obviously that's up for debate. I don't think there's a good reason that supporters care about, but that doesn't mean there isn't one altogether. And I think it's wrong to assume the state has to give a good enough reason just because the pro-SSM side doesn't think one exists. I mean, democracy works when you get enough people in favor of something and are willing to stick their necks out to vote for and legalize it. I could say I think the government should give me an unlimited supply of Blue Bell banana pudding ice cream, and there's no good goddamn reason why they shouldn't. I couldn't drag them into court and make them explain to me why it's not a good idea.
Rough example, but you get my point. The state would have to explain itself if it took added measures to criminalize same-sex marriage...they would have to explain how same-sex marriage is so bad that it requires throwing people in jail over it. But it just not being of the law? It is what it is.
The state has to give a good enough reason because equal protection issues are involved.
There are no good reasons, so equal protection has to prevail.
There aren't any equal protection issues involved. It's not like married people are moreso protected than single people, because if they were, it would be unconstitutional for the government to recognize "marital status" altogether. I can see how it's an "equality" issue for some, though I don't necessarily think that's a matter for the courts, but the "equal protection" doctrine has a specific meaning. The Lovings faced imprisonment, fines, and banishment from the state if convicted under Virginia's anti-miscegenation law. Other cases like Redhail and Turner, that also found a fundamental right to marry, revolved around laws intending to punish, like denying a marriage license to someone in arrears for child support and denying a prisoner the right to marry. The state simply defining marriage as one thing, and not as something else, isn't a matter of equal protection.
It seems you have failed to notice that 1972 was a long time before DOMA.
DOMA, in and of itself, presents a substantial federal question.
Nice try.
How so? "Substantial federal question" pertains to the constitution, since the Supreme Court interprets...the constitution. It doesn't mean that the federal government has yet to take a stance on the issue, ergo, therefore, there is no case. Even if they just isolated DOMA, I don't think they would have a case other than maybe on FF&C grounds.
Baker was dismissed in 1972, at that time there was no federal question, the federal government recognized ALL Civil Marriages entered into under State law.
In 1996 DOMA was passed changing that situation, at that point the federal government start picking and choosing which legal, valid, Civil Marriages it would recognize based on the gender composition of the couple. DOMA changed the legal landscape so that now there is a valid federal question.
At least 4 Justices in the SCOTUS agrees with that as this week they will hear oral argument pertaining to selective recognition based on gender under Section 3.
>>>>
The state has to give a good enough reason because equal protection issues are involved.
There are no good reasons, so equal protection has to prevail.
There aren't any equal protection issues involved. It's not like married people are moreso protected than single people, because if they were, it would be unconstitutional for the government to recognize "marital status" altogether. I can see how it's an "equality" issue for some, though I don't necessarily think that's a matter for the courts, but the "equal protection" doctrine has a specific meaning. The Lovings faced imprisonment, fines, and banishment from the state if convicted under Virginia's anti-miscegenation law. Other cases like Redhail and Turner, that also found a fundamental right to marry, revolved around laws intending to punish, like denying a marriage license to someone in arrears for child support and denying a prisoner the right to marry. The state simply defining marriage as one thing, and not as something else, isn't a matter of equal protection.
The DOMA case does involve equal protection. Included in the petitions is an individual in a legal Civil Marriage. In the case the individual was required to pay over $365,000 in inheritance above what other legally Civilly Married spouses would have had to pay in the event of a spousal death. The only difference being the gender composition of the Civil Marriage.
>>>>
How so? "Substantial federal question" pertains to the constitution, since the Supreme Court interprets...the constitution. It doesn't mean that the federal government has yet to take a stance on the issue, ergo, therefore, there is no case. Even if they just isolated DOMA, I don't think they would have a case other than maybe on FF&C grounds.
Baker was dismissed in 1972, at that time there was no federal question, the federal government recognized ALL Civil Marriages entered into under State law.
In 1996 DOMA was passed changing that situation, at that point the federal government start picking and choosing which legal, valid, Civil Marriages it would recognize based on the gender composition of the couple. DOMA changed the legal landscape so that now there is a valid federal question.
At least 4 Justices in the SCOTUS agrees with that as this week they will hear oral argument pertaining to selective recognition based on gender under Section 3.
>>>>
You're reiterating what I already addressed as being false. The lack of a substantial federal question pertained the the federal constitution, meaning that, at least as far as the Prop 8 case is concerned, there is no federal question. DOMA, on the other hand, pertains to federal recognition of marriages by certain states. If it isn't unconstitutional for an individual state not to recognize same-sex marriage, I'm not sure how the federal government is somehow required to do so.
How so? "Substantial federal question" pertains to the constitution, since the Supreme Court interprets...the constitution. It doesn't mean that the federal government has yet to take a stance on the issue, ergo, therefore, there is no case. Even if they just isolated DOMA, I don't think they would have a case other than maybe on FF&C grounds.
Baker was dismissed in 1972, at that time there was no federal question, the federal government recognized ALL Civil Marriages entered into under State law.
In 1996 DOMA was passed changing that situation, at that point the federal government start picking and choosing which legal, valid, Civil Marriages it would recognize based on the gender composition of the couple. DOMA changed the legal landscape so that now there is a valid federal question.
At least 4 Justices in the SCOTUS agrees with that as this week they will hear oral argument pertaining to selective recognition based on gender under Section 3.
>>>>
You're reiterating what I already addressed as being false. The lack of a substantial federal question pertained the the federal constitution, meaning that, at least as far as the Prop 8 case is concerned, there is no federal question. DOMA, on the other hand, pertains to federal recognition of marriages by certain states. If it isn't unconstitutional for an individual state not to recognize same-sex marriage, I'm not sure how the federal government is somehow required to do so.
There aren't any equal protection issues involved. It's not like married people are moreso protected than single people, because if they were, it would be unconstitutional for the government to recognize "marital status" altogether. I can see how it's an "equality" issue for some, though I don't necessarily think that's a matter for the courts, but the "equal protection" doctrine has a specific meaning. The Lovings faced imprisonment, fines, and banishment from the state if convicted under Virginia's anti-miscegenation law. Other cases like Redhail and Turner, that also found a fundamental right to marry, revolved around laws intending to punish, like denying a marriage license to someone in arrears for child support and denying a prisoner the right to marry. The state simply defining marriage as one thing, and not as something else, isn't a matter of equal protection.
The DOMA case does involve equal protection. Included in the petitions is an individual in a legal Civil Marriage. In the case the individual was required to pay over $365,000 in inheritance above what other legally Civilly Married spouses would have had to pay in the event of a spousal death. The only difference being the gender composition of the Civil Marriage.
>>>>
The tax burden isn't about a lack of protection, and you can ask those still miffed about the Supreme Court's upholding of Obamacare last year about that. Not qualifying for a federal tax break or exemption doesn't equate to a lack of protection. It's still a matter for the federal government to recognize that problem and amend the law accordingly. Because Democrats don't want to bet the farm on doing anything about gay marriage at the federal level, and because gays wont hold them accountable for not doing much besides paying lip service to their cause, doesn't mean gays get to go to court to have the Supreme Court just declare DOMA overturned.
The DOMA case does involve equal protection. Included in the petitions is an individual in a legal Civil Marriage. In the case the individual was required to pay over $365,000 in inheritance above what other legally Civilly Married spouses would have had to pay in the event of a spousal death. The only difference being the gender composition of the Civil Marriage.
>>>>
The tax burden isn't about a lack of protection, and you can ask those still miffed about the Supreme Court's upholding of Obamacare last year about that. Not qualifying for a federal tax break or exemption doesn't equate to a lack of protection. It's still a matter for the federal government to recognize that problem and amend the law accordingly. Because Democrats don't want to bet the farm on doing anything about gay marriage at the federal level, and because gays wont hold them accountable for not doing much besides paying lip service to their cause, doesn't mean gays get to go to court to have the Supreme Court just declare DOMA overturned.
That's what the court will be deciding. Whether the government denied equal protection under the law in not recognizing her legally valid Civil Marriage.
Your opinion is noted, now we will have to see of the SCOTUS agrees or disagrees.
>>>>
The tax burden isn't about a lack of protection, and you can ask those still miffed about the Supreme Court's upholding of Obamacare last year about that. Not qualifying for a federal tax break or exemption doesn't equate to a lack of protection. It's still a matter for the federal government to recognize that problem and amend the law accordingly. Because Democrats don't want to bet the farm on doing anything about gay marriage at the federal level, and because gays wont hold them accountable for not doing much besides paying lip service to their cause, doesn't mean gays get to go to court to have the Supreme Court just declare DOMA overturned.
That's what the court will be deciding. Whether the government denied equal protection under the law in not recognizing her legally valid Civil Marriage.
Your opinion is noted, now we will have to see of the SCOTUS agrees or disagrees.
>>>>
I don't see how even Roberts can avoid the equal protection problem of DOMA. And, there's simply no logical comparison of it to Obamacare (not that I'm a fan of that).
Propositon 8 is more interesting and provides the scrotus with more options as to how it'll rule.
Obviously that's up for debate. I don't think there's a good reason that supporters care about, but that doesn't mean there isn't one altogether. And I think it's wrong to assume the state has to give a good enough reason just because the pro-SSM side doesn't think one exists. I mean, democracy works when you get enough people in favor of something and are willing to stick their necks out to vote for and legalize it. I could say I think the government should give me an unlimited supply of Blue Bell banana pudding ice cream, and there's no good goddamn reason why they shouldn't. I couldn't drag them into court and make them explain to me why it's not a good idea.
Rough example, but you get my point. The state would have to explain itself if it took added measures to criminalize same-sex marriage...they would have to explain how same-sex marriage is so bad that it requires throwing people in jail over it. But it just not being of the law? It is what it is.
The state has to give a good enough reason because equal protection issues are involved.
There are no good reasons, so equal protection has to prevail.
There aren't any equal protection issues involved. It's not like married people are moreso protected than single people, because if they were, it would be unconstitutional for the government to recognize "marital status" altogether. I can see how it's an "equality" issue for some, though I don't necessarily think that's a matter for the courts, but the "equal protection" doctrine has a specific meaning. The Lovings faced imprisonment, fines, and banishment from the state if convicted under Virginia's anti-miscegenation law. Other cases like Redhail and Turner, that also found a fundamental right to marry, revolved around laws intending to punish, like denying a marriage license to someone in arrears for child support and denying a prisoner the right to marry. The state simply defining marriage as one thing, and not as something else, isn't a matter of equal protection.
Baker was dismissed in 1972, at that time there was no federal question, the federal government recognized ALL Civil Marriages entered into under State law.
In 1996 DOMA was passed changing that situation, at that point the federal government start picking and choosing which legal, valid, Civil Marriages it would recognize based on the gender composition of the couple. DOMA changed the legal landscape so that now there is a valid federal question.
At least 4 Justices in the SCOTUS agrees with that as this week they will hear oral argument pertaining to selective recognition based on gender under Section 3.
>>>>
You're reiterating what I already addressed as being false. The lack of a substantial federal question pertained the the federal constitution, meaning that, at least as far as the Prop 8 case is concerned, there is no federal question. DOMA, on the other hand, pertains to federal recognition of marriages by certain states. If it isn't unconstitutional for an individual state not to recognize same-sex marriage, I'm not sure how the federal government is somehow required to do so.
There is. In California, an initiative took away rights already granted by the legislature.
Well, the DOMA defenders argue there's a comparison, but personally I don't see one. I just don't see an out for the conservative (hah) court unless it somehow finds a compelling reason to tax gays' estates differently than "breeders'" estates. That's as narrow as I can view the case so as to have the least impact upon anti-gay legislation. And, I just don't see five votes to uphold that discrimination, regardless of the personal poltics of the five socially conservative (some uber) justices.
Argument preview: Marriage and the Court?s ?friends? ? Part II : SCOTUSblog
A pretty clear discussion at "constitutional issues."
There are many federal benefits that are based on marital status. A state that is arbitrarily defining marriage as a union between one male human and one female human is discriminating against the same sex union without being able to offer any relevant cause for doing so -
thus the definition is discriminatory by sexual orientation.
Everything that is legal in a heterosexual relationship outside of marriage is legal in a homosexual relationship, therefore,
the state can claim nothing in regards to any specific unique characteristics of a same sex union that gives the state any compelling reason or justification to legally discriminate against such a relationship.
Well, the DOMA defenders argue there's a comparison, but personally I don't see one. I just don't see an out for the conservative (hah) court unless it somehow finds a compelling reason to tax gays' estates differently than "breeders'" estates. That's as narrow as I can view the case so as to have the least impact upon anti-gay legislation. And, I just don't see five votes to uphold that discrimination, regardless of the personal poltics of the five socially conservative (some uber) justices.
Argument preview: Marriage and the Court?s ?friends? ? Part II : SCOTUSblog
A pretty clear discussion at "constitutional issues."
If the tax laws can discriminate against singles, then there's absolutely no reason it can't discriminate against gay people who are single. The whole point of marriage laws is to protect mothers and children. One way it does that is by making sure marital assets are not taxed away when the husband days. There's no such justification in the case of two fuck buddies shacking up together who couldn't possibly ever have children.
You're reiterating what I already addressed as being false. The lack of a substantial federal question pertained the the federal constitution, meaning that, at least as far as the Prop 8 case is concerned, there is no federal question. DOMA, on the other hand, pertains to federal recognition of marriages by certain states. If it isn't unconstitutional for an individual state not to recognize same-sex marriage, I'm not sure how the federal government is somehow required to do so.
You provided your opinion that it was false, that doesn't mean it was false.
Baker doesn't apply to the Prop 8 case because it isn't a case attempting to justify same-sex civil marriage on a constitutional basis - the premise of the SCOTUS review will be the question of the 9th's ruling that says once the people have exercised a right, can that right be taken away by a referendum target that group.
If the Supreme Court has any intelligence left on its bench, it will not impose same sex marriage by judicial fiat. It will consider that it learned it's lesson from the disastrous Roe decision and leave it alone.
You're reiterating what I already addressed as being false. The lack of a substantial federal question pertained the the federal constitution, meaning that, at least as far as the Prop 8 case is concerned, there is no federal question. DOMA, on the other hand, pertains to federal recognition of marriages by certain states. If it isn't unconstitutional for an individual state not to recognize same-sex marriage, I'm not sure how the federal government is somehow required to do so.
You provided your opinion that it was false, that doesn't mean it was false.
Baker doesn't apply to the Prop 8 case because it isn't a case attempting to justify same-sex civil marriage on a constitutional basis - the premise of the SCOTUS review will be the question of the 9th's ruling that says once the people have exercised a right, can that right be taken away by a referendum target that group.
That argument is idiotic. According to your theory, if a state raises the drinking age to 21, then the people have exercised the right to drink at age 21. Therefor the state can never lower the drinking age again. Even a 5-year-old can see the utter fallaciousness of that theory.
If the Supreme Court has any intelligence left on its bench, it will not impose same sex marriage by judicial fiat. It will consider that it learned it's lesson from the disastrous Roe decision and leave it alone.
Neither case before the court is likely to produce a sweeping national imposition of Same-sex Civil Marriage. That is not the question before the court of either case.
>>>>
You provided your opinion that it was false, that doesn't mean it was false.
Baker doesn't apply to the Prop 8 case because it isn't a case attempting to justify same-sex civil marriage on a constitutional basis - the premise of the SCOTUS review will be the question of the 9th's ruling that says once the people have exercised a right, can that right be taken away by a referendum target that group.
That argument is idiotic. According to your theory, if a state raises the drinking age to 21, then the people have exercised the right to drink at age 21. Therefor the state can never lower the drinking age again. Even a 5-year-old can see the utter fallaciousness of that theory.
That's a pretty dumb statement.
If the State has 21 as the drinking age and then attempts to lower it, say to 18, then those that are 21 would still be able to drink.
Even a 5-year old would now that by lowering an age when you are allowed to start doing something that does not stop those over that age from doing it.
*********************************
On the other hand, if the state has a drinking age of 21 and then attempts to lower it, but only for males, then they would run into gender equality issues. If challenged, in accordance with the right to bring grievance against the government embodied in the 1st Amendment, then the state would need to provide a compelling government interest to justify such a discriminatory law.
>>>>
