SCOTUS has handed down decisions on DOMA and Prop 8

[Ban]

The DOMA case, US v. Windsor, challenged the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA, which recognized marriage as only between one man and one woman for the purpose of federal laws, including income tax and Social Security. That has now been struck down on Equal Protection grounds as improperly targeting a class for disparate treatment in a manner that furthered no legitimate government interest. The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

The decision for United States v. Windsor is here.

The Prop 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, was in regards to the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, a voter initiated amendment to California's state constitution that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, effectively overturning a California Supreme Court case that held same-sex couples in California had a right to marry. Prop 8 was overturned at the federal district court level by Judge Vaughn Walker, at which point California's government decided to not appeal. The defense of Prop 8 was taken up by proponents of Prop 8, who appealed to the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit asked the question as to whether the proponents of Prop 8 had standing by a certified question to the California Supreme Court, which answered in the affirmative. The SCOTUS has now said this was incorrect as a matter of federal standing law, and has vacated the 9th Circuit opinion as the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. This has left Judge Walker's opinion as the highest authority on the issue, meaning Prop 8 is invalid for California.

The decision for Hollingsworth v. Perry is here.

People have any thoughts on this stuff? It looks like gay marriage is back in for Californians, so, including DC, that means we have 14 jurisdictions that currently recognize it.

[METALFumasu]

Good for them (there wasn't much doubt they'd rule otherwise. I mean, the government refused to defend DOMA for Christ's sake.)

How long will it be before someone tries to overturn bans against same-sex marriage at the federal level after succeeding in defeating DOMA and Prop 8 in one fell swoop.

As the Zen Master says, "We'll see."

[Chieftain Twilight]

I'm extremely excited and happy. biggrin the most important victory today was the ruling overturning section 3 of DOMA. that's the ruling that really allows for equal benefits to occur. this effectively means that all marriages have to be recognized by the Federal Government as long as they are recognized by the government under which the marriage was established.

the Prop 8 ruling is a victory mainly because it brings back another State to recognize gay marriages.

[Goldgato]

METALFumasu

How long will it be before someone tries to overturn bans against same-sex marriage at the federal level after succeeding in defeating DOMA and Prop 8 in one fell swoop.

As the Zen Master says, "We'll see."

I wouldn't be at all surprised if within the next few years a case reaches the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of all sex-based marriage discrimination. And I'd actually even be willing to say that I think with the current Supreme Court such discriminations would be declared unconstitutional.

[The Danguy]

[azulmagia]

So it's a bad week for black people, but a good week for gay people.

I guess that makes this a mixed week for black gay people.

[Ban]

On the topic of tears of impotent rage, perhaps the most interesting bit of the opinion is Scalia's dissent. Scalia, who may not be well-liked by liberals, nonetheless has had a reputation for being well-reasoned and formalistic, to the point of pedantry. To see his dissent reduced to little more than complaining about how oppressed he is for holding the view that homosexuals don't have a right to marriage is startling in a way. He has been considered something of a titan of conservative legal theory, so for him to spend a good portion of his dissent going for the slippery slope argument and calling the majority's opinion "legalistic argle-bargle" seems like something of a denouement.

[Less Than Liz]

Ban

"legalistic argle-bargle"

This was definitely my favorite part.

[Ammo Amy]

And in response, the House Republicans want to introduce a Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage.

Quote:

Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kansas, and other conservative members of Congress say they will attempt to introduce in the coming days a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Following the Supreme Court's ruling deeming the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, several Republicans expressed their disappointment with the decision and vowed to take action. Apparently, this means an amendment to the Constitution.

"This Court has taken it upon itself the radical attempt to redefine marriage," Huelskamp said, standing outside the Supreme Court. "I think what gets lost in this judicial attempt to short-circuit the democratic process is the needs of our children…. Every child deserves a mommy and a daddy and with this decision they undercut the needs of our children."

And although the likelihood of that amendment passing is bleak—amendments need a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, and then ratification by three-fourths of the states—Huelskamp urges congressional leadership to allow the amendment to go to the floor.

Reaction from Republicans, however, took a little while to come by, as many of them avoided the topic on Twitter and other social networks in the immediate aftermath of the ruling. However, their reactions were strong once many of those conservatives gathered for a press conference on the Hill. Here are a few quotes:

"It is a sad day. Some may try to brand us hateful. This is not a hateful group. This is a group that has love and compassion for our country…. What we have today is a holy quintet who goes against the laws of nature." – Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas

"Marriage is a fundamental building block of our civilization. It precedes this nation itself. It's the fiber that keeps our civilization so strong and certainly it's the ideal model from which we raise children." – Rep. John Fleming, R-La.

"I believe that today's decision will have negative consequences for children who should be raised by a mom and a dad."– Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa.

"A court decision cannot decide moral questions for the people." – Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J.

"For the best interest of society itself … we have defined a marriage between a man and woman in the interest of those children…. Society itself is at risk." – Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich.

"Marriage has been debased by this decision…. Decisions like this makes the people's voice muted."—Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif.

"The Supreme Court seems to be in collusion with the president and his Justice Department…. Unfortunately it's been at the expense of children." – Rep. Randy Weber, R-Texas

"The Supreme Court undercut the equal protection of every person who voted for their representative…. Now we have an effective oligarchy of five who decide the most fundamental issues of today." – Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.

Oh, and while they're at it, they probably vote to repeal Obama care for the 38th time, defund Planned Parenthood, make women's health care illegal, and maybe give commemorative names to a couple more Post Offices they are trying to shut down.

Meanwhile, in reality, several job programs will be ignored, student loan rates will double, the Farm Bill lays dead, and the Immigration Bill is likely to follow suit.

[Origin of Wealth]

My favorite part was the butthurt by the far right, especially the defenders of prop 8 who say they will continue the fight in CA despite losing in the trial court by claiming it wasn't a state wide decision. rofl

[Admiral Dardanos]

Is it odd that I actually agree with some of those Republicans in that the ideal situation for a child to grow up is with a mother and a father?

[Ban]

Admiral Dardanos

Is it odd that I actually agree with some of those Republicans in that the ideal situation for a child to grow up is with a mother and a father?

Yes, it is odd. There's no statistical connection between the gender of the parents and diminished health and well-being of the children. Gay couples do just as well, and often better, than straight couples at raising children. In fact, there's probably more evidence of child neglect and abuse for straight couples, because they can get pregnant accidentally and get post-partum depression, financial troubles, increased home life stress, and all that other s**t that comes along with unplanned parenthood.

However, putting all that aside, the point is kind inapposite. The question isn't what is the ideal situation, but what is the better situation. For example, I just woke up and it's fairly early and that's good because I have s**t to do. However, my alarm clock is annoying as hell and I wish I had a better way. The ideal situation, for me, would be to win the lotto and be able to afford to get blow jobs from models to wake me up in the morning, rather than my shitty ******** alarm clock. But, given that getting up at a reasonable time is better than being a lazy a** and sleeping in, I'm going to keep setting my alarm clock regardless instead of holding out for that winning lotto ticket.

[Admiral Dardanos]

Ban

Admiral Dardanos

Is it odd that I actually agree with some of those Republicans in that the ideal situation for a child to grow up is with a mother and a father?

Yes, it is odd. There's no statistical connection between the gender of the parents and diminished health and well-being of the children. Gay couples do just as well, and often better, than straight couples at raising children. In fact, there's probably more evidence of child neglect and abuse for straight couples, because they can get pregnant accidentally and get post-partum depression, financial troubles, increased home life stress, and all that other s**t that comes along with unplanned parenthood.

However, putting all that aside, the point is kind inapposite. The question isn't what is the ideal situation, but what is the better situation. For example, I just woke up and it's fairly early and that's good because I have s**t to do. However, my alarm clock is annoying as hell and I wish I had a better way. The ideal situation, for me, would be to win the lotto and be able to afford to get blow jobs from models to wake me up in the morning, rather than my shitty ******** alarm clock. But, given that getting up at a reasonable time is better than being a lazy a** and sleeping in, I'm going to keep setting my alarm clock regardless instead of holding out for that winning lotto ticket.

I never said I was against gay marriage, or gay parents. On the contrary I support gay peoples rights on both accounts.

I still think that kids should have a mother and a father though, nothing to do with statistics, that's just what I believe.

[Knobist]

Admiral Dardanos

Ban

Admiral Dardanos

Is it odd that I actually agree with some of those Republicans in that the ideal situation for a child to grow up is with a mother and a father?

Yes, it is odd. There's no statistical connection between the gender of the parents and diminished health and well-being of the children. Gay couples do just as well, and often better, than straight couples at raising children. In fact, there's probably more evidence of child neglect and abuse for straight couples, because they can get pregnant accidentally and get post-partum depression, financial troubles, increased home life stress, and all that other s**t that comes along with unplanned parenthood.

However, putting all that aside, the point is kind inapposite. The question isn't what is the ideal situation, but what is the better situation. For example, I just woke up and it's fairly early and that's good because I have s**t to do. However, my alarm clock is annoying as hell and I wish I had a better way. The ideal situation, for me, would be to win the lotto and be able to afford to get blow jobs from models to wake me up in the morning, rather than my shitty ******** alarm clock. But, given that getting up at a reasonable time is better than being a lazy a** and sleeping in, I'm going to keep setting my alarm clock regardless instead of holding out for that winning lotto ticket.

I never said I was against gay marriage, or gay parents. On the contrary I support gay peoples rights on both accounts.

I still think that kids should have a mother and a father though, nothing to do with statistics, that's just what I believe.

Your belief doesn't make any sense, whatsoever. It's preferable to have a mom and dad, though.

[Admiral Dardanos]

Jacque De Molay

Admiral Dardanos

Ban

Admiral Dardanos

Is it odd that I actually agree with some of those Republicans in that the ideal situation for a child to grow up is with a mother and a father?

Yes, it is odd. There's no statistical connection between the gender of the parents and diminished health and well-being of the children. Gay couples do just as well, and often better, than straight couples at raising children. In fact, there's probably more evidence of child neglect and abuse for straight couples, because they can get pregnant accidentally and get post-partum depression, financial troubles, increased home life stress, and all that other s**t that comes along with unplanned parenthood.

However, putting all that aside, the point is kind inapposite. The question isn't what is the ideal situation, but what is the better situation. For example, I just woke up and it's fairly early and that's good because I have s**t to do. However, my alarm clock is annoying as hell and I wish I had a better way. The ideal situation, for me, would be to win the lotto and be able to afford to get blow jobs from models to wake me up in the morning, rather than my shitty ******** alarm clock. But, given that getting up at a reasonable time is better than being a lazy a** and sleeping in, I'm going to keep setting my alarm clock regardless instead of holding out for that winning lotto ticket.

I never said I was against gay marriage, or gay parents. On the contrary I support gay peoples rights on both accounts.

I still think that kids should have a mother and a father though, nothing to do with statistics, that's just what I believe.

Your belief doesn't make any sense, whatsoever. It's preferable to have a mom and dad, though.

My belief doesn't make any sense...yet you believe it too?