FCS Football | Message Board | News
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=35997
∞∞∞ wrote:According to CNN, the decision just came in.
93henfan wrote:∞∞∞ wrote:According to CNN, the decision just came in.
I couldn't help but chuckle at the photo caption: "Plaintiffs Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami attended oral arguments at the Supreme Court in March."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12 ... 7_g2bh.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;2. DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of
persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment
Agreed. DOMA was clearly unconstitutional. Still, much work to do for true equality and personal freedom. Hopefully, those overjoyed by this decision will join the call for more liberty!LeadBolt wrote:A rare victory for the 10th Amendment...
And the 14th.LeadBolt wrote:A rare victory for the 10th Amendment...
By dismissing the Prop. 8 appeal, what I got out of it is that it's a state issue. But now there's a precedent that the SCOTUS agreed with the 9th Circuit's decision, which courts in different states can work off.BDKJMU wrote:What did they say about the 38 or whatever it is states that don't recognize gay marriage?
Gay marriage (and marriage in general) is a right left to the states, not the federal government. And falls under the 10th Amendment.BDKJMU wrote:What did they say about the 38 or whatever it is states that don't recognize gay marriage?
They dismissed the Prop 8 appeal because the people who appealed did not have standing to appeal the previous decision - so no decisions were made on the merit of that case.∞∞∞ wrote:By dismissing the Prop. 8 appeal, what I got out of it is that it's a state issue. But now there's a precedent that the SCOTUS agreed with the 9th Circuit's decision, which courts in different states can work off.BDKJMU wrote:What did they say about the 38 or whatever it is states that don't recognize gay marriage?
My mistake; thanks for that information.tribe_pride wrote:They dismissed the Prop 8 appeal because the people who appealed did not have standing to appeal the previous decision - so no decisions were made on the merit of that case.∞∞∞ wrote: By dismissing the Prop. 8 appeal, what I got out of it is that it's a state issue. But now there's a precedent that the SCOTUS agreed with the 9th Circuit's decision, which courts in different states can work off.
Basically, the Supreme Court ruled in that case that individuals are not allowed to defend the constitutionality of a statute in court. Only the government may do so. So that means the case was deferred down to the decision of the lower state court that ruled that the statute was unconstitutional. Since the government decided not to appeal, that was the final ruling in this case.
Second to last paragraph of the Opinion states "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."
Been a long road, Jon. Happy for you and friends!dbackjon wrote:Crying with joy here
Jon after the ruling:dbackjon wrote:Crying with joy here
Kennedy's opinion seems to indicate that they would look favorably at a challenge to a state's ban, if I am reading it right - concur?danefan wrote:Both correct decisions, IMO and exactly what I suspected.
I'm a little surprised that Roberts did not join the Majority in the DOMA case, but otherwise it all came down as expected.
Can't wait for the conservative State's rights, ruling to be misinterpreted by a whole boat load of so called "conservatives".
If this means I can arrange a "marriage" with another divorced dad and we can both get out of the hellhole of being a single father paying child support (which is not tax deductible, but it also not reported by dear old ex-wife), then I am crying with joy here too! Married status again! Woo hoo!dbackjon wrote:Crying with joy here
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house?LeadBolt wrote:A rare victory for the 10th Amendment...
His ass. You're not supposed to covet his ass.CAA Flagship wrote:Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house?LeadBolt wrote:A rare victory for the 10th Amendment...
If the 10th Amendment says that you are not supposed to covet your neighbor's ass, then how is gay marriage a victory for the 10th Amendment? Wouldn't that be a direct violation?93henfan wrote:His ass. You're not supposed to covet his ass.CAA Flagship wrote: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house?
CAA Flagship wrote:If the 10th Amendment says that you are not supposed to covet your neighbor's ass, then how is gay marriage a victory for the 10th Amendment? Wouldn't that be a direct violation?93henfan wrote:
His ass. You're not supposed to covet his ass.
Well there you have it.93henfan wrote:CAA Flagship wrote: If the 10th Amendment says that you are not supposed to covet your neighbor's ass, then how is gay marriage a victory for the 10th Amendment? Wouldn't that be a direct violation?
Maybe Moses was just messing with those crazy Jews, but it says right here:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.