and DOMA is...

[GenetoJean]

Woot!!!

 

[[serious]]

indications from the other cases point to punting prop 8 on a standing issue. From the unrelated Sekhar case just released:

We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here

 

[[serious]]

Link?

I'm getting the stuff from live coverage: http://www.scotusblog.com/

 

[AirPo]

indications from the other cases point to punting prop 8 on a standing issue. From the unrelated Sekhar case just released:

Makes me wonder why they took the case in the first place.

 

[[serious]]

PROP 8 is...

Punted on standing grounds:

Held: Petitioners did not have standing to appeal the District Court’s
order

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf

 

[Billnew]

I think people in the legal system would do better to be paid by the word, they love to ramble on.

I will wait to hear what the bare bones ruling is.

I still believe its a states right to define marriage as long as they do it fairly.

If a state defines marriage as a union of a male and a female, then that is what it is.
If a couple can come along and claim descrimination in the limitations then marriage can be what ever an individual wants it to be and goverment has to abide by their definition.
If same sex can claim descrimination, then so can same family(incest) couples wanting to wed, how can you descriminate against the people that want to marry an object? If states can't set limits, then marriage is meaningless.

I fully support a union of two people with all legal benefits of a traditional marriage, but I believe it should be called something else.
I should also say, if a state defines marriage in such a way that same sex couples can marry, the federal goverment should not treat them otherwise. IE it is a state issue, not a federal. I agree with DOMA ruling.

 

[SolomanVIII]

I think people in the legal system would do better to be paid by the word, they love to ramble on.

I will wait to hear what the bare bones ruling is.

I still believe its a states right to define marriage as long as they do it fairly.

If a state defines marriage as a union of a male and a female, then that is what it is.

Contradicts your first point.

 

[[serious]]

I think people in the legal system would do better to be paid by the word, they love to ramble on.

I will wait to hear what the bare bones ruling is.

I still believe its a states right to define marriage as long as they do it fairly.

If a state defines marriage as a union of a male and a female, then that is what it is.
If a couple can come along and claim descrimination in the limitations then marriage can be what ever an individual wants it to be and goverment has to abide by their definition.
If same sex can claim descrimination, then so can same family(incest) couples wanting to wed, how can you descriminate against the people that want to marry an object? If states can't set limits, then marriage is meaningless.

I fully support a union of two people with all legal benefits of a traditional marriage, but I believe it should be called something else.
I should also say, if a state defines marriage in such a way that same sex couples can marry, the federal goverment should not treat them otherwise. IE it is a state issue, not a federal. I agree with DOMA ruling.

The decisions are necessarily long because they need to not only give their opinion bu their basis for that opinion. However, with a bit of practice, most decisions can be read pretty quickly as they like to use kind of topic sentences. My distillation of the Windsor ruling:

Held:
1. This Court has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case. [dismisses a specific legal challenge]
...
2. DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of
persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 13–26.
[under the following rationale]
(a) By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the
separate States.
...
DOMA rejects this long-established precept
....
(b) By seeking to injure the very class New York seeks to protect,
DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.

The Perry case (prop 8) is a bit harder to parse the exact effect of because the SCOTUS refused to rule on it. They instead said:

Held: Petitioners did not have standing to appeal the District Court’s
order.

thus the district court's ruling would be the final word meaning that the appellate court decision is tossed. The district court decision happens to be the same as the appellate court decision which means prop 8 is still dead, but because that decision is district level, it's tossed for California only.

 

[NightHawkeye]

So ... does this clear the way for multi-partner marriage?

 

[[serious]]

Contradicts your first point.

I'm not seeing a contradiction. It looks like he's saying it's a states rights issue. I'm not seeing where he said anything else.

 

[Redac]

Good to hear.

So ... does this clear the way for multi-partner marriage?

No.

 

[Oafman]

So, 4 Supreme Court judges support discrimination based on sexuality? In 2013?

That this vote was not 9-0 is shameful.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Good to hear.



No.

Sure, it does.

 

[Loudmouth]

My favorite minister John Hagee predicted that we could "kiss this country goodbye" if gay marriage became the law of the land. I can't disagree with him.

Segregationists in the South had similar reactions to the Civil Rights Act.

Perhaps those who feel this way can back up their talk and actually leave this country?

 

[[serious]]

So ... does this clear the way for multi-partner marriage?

I know you meant this as a joke, but I'll answer seriously anyway. It could theoretically be used to argue such a case if and only if a state passed a law allowing polygamy at the state level.

 

[AirPo]

Sure, it does.

No it doesn't.

 

[Redac]

Sure, it does.

I wouldn't really have a problem with it, but at this point it changes little with regards to polyamorous marriage.

 

[drew89]

Why are so many who support gay marriage opposed to polygamy? What is the problem if all parties are consenting adults? I might disagree from a religious perspective, but I don't feel the need to regulate it from a legal perspective.

 

[SolomanVIII]

I'm not seeing a contradiction. It looks like he's saying it's a states rights issue. I'm not seeing where he said anything else.

Man/Woman only marriage is unfair on its face. Cannot be passed fairly.

 

[SolomanVIII]

Why are so many who support gay marriage opposed to polygamy? What is the problem if all parties are consenting adults? I might disagree from a religious perspective, but I don't feel the need to regulate it from a legal perspective.

Unfortunately your disagreement with polygamy wouldn't be based on your religious faith as the Bible permits polygamy.