DOMA is unconstitutional.

[∞∞∞]

According to CNN, the decision just came in. The government has to recognize federal benefits for spouses in states where same-sex marriages are legal.

Prop 8 is next...

[93henfan]

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."

[Ibanez]

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."

But this is great news. A little more equality in America.

2. DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of
persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12 ... 7_g2bh.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dbackjon]

Crying with joy here

[LeadBolt]

A rare victory for the 10th Amendment...

[D1B]

Conk dickheads dealt another blow. They still fail to grasp that they're assholes, they're wrong, and everybody hates them.

[ASUMountaineer]

A rare victory for the 10th 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!

[Ibanez]

A rare victory for the 10th Amendment...

And the 14th.

[BDKJMU]

What did they say about the 38 or whatever it is states that don't recognize gay marriage?

[∞∞∞]

What did they say about the 38 or whatever it is states that don't recognize gay marriage?

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.

[DSUrocks07]

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.

But I'm confused. Are we just making arguments about "protecting the views/rights of the minority" when it's convenient to our "sides" now?

[blueballs]

The real winners in this are the family law attorneys in Californication, who should experience a 25% or more jump in business. They should be happy campers right about now.

[dbackjon]

While same-sex marriage is not yet legal, the language in the opinion on the DOMA case seems very clear that the justices would rule favorably for a couple in say, Alabama.

[tribe_pride]

What did they say about the 38 or whatever it is states that don't recognize gay marriage?

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.

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.

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 a lower 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."

[∞∞∞]

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.

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.

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."

My mistake; thanks for that information.

[Cap'n Cat]

Crying with joy here

Been a long road, Jon. Happy for you and friends!



SCOTUS (majority):

[DSUrocks07]

Crying with joy here

Jon after the ruling:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=nnBXMe_uqTY[/youtube]

[danefan]

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".

[dbackjon]

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".

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?

[93henfan]

Crying with joy here

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!

Maybe this needs to go in the cheapskate thread?

[CAA Flagship]

A rare victory for the 10th Amendment...

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house?

[93henfan]

A rare victory for the 10th Amendment...

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house?

His ass. You're not supposed to covet his ass.

[CAA Flagship]

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house?

His ass. You're not supposed to covet his ass.

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]

His ass. You're not supposed to covet his ass.

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.

[CAA Flagship]

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.

Well there you have it.
So how can clearing the way for gay marriage be a victory for the 10th Amendment? I'm no expert in the LGBT Code of Conduct, but I would think ass coveting is a popular subject. Seems like a huge contradiction here.