Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jun 26, 2013, 09:17 AM   #1
Happybunny
macrumors 65816
 
Happybunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 's-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
DOMA /Prop 8 Both DEAD



Looks like the the USA has joined the 21st Century.

- The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a federal law that restricts the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples in a major victory for the gay rights movement.

The ruling, on a 5-4 vote, means that legally married gay men and women are entitled to claim the same federal benefits that are available to opposite-sex married couples.

The court was due to decide within minutes a second case concerning a California law that bans same-sex marriage in the state.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...95P06W20130626
__________________
'You cannot undo history, but you can learn from it'

Last edited by Happybunny; Jun 26, 2013 at 09:58 AM.
Happybunny is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 09:20 AM   #2
lannister80
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicagoland
HOORAY! But really, 5-4? I thought it wouldn't be so close...
__________________
Early 2008 Mac Pro, 8x2.8GHz, 3.25TB, 18GB RAM
UnRAID NAS, 9TB storage, 3TB parity, 400GB cache
lannister80 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 09:22 AM   #3
DakotaGuy
macrumors 68030
 
DakotaGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: South Dakota, USA
This is great news! Hopefully other discriminatory laws will go away in time as well.
__________________
Mac: 21.5" iMac Core i5 2.5 Ghz "Sandy Bridge"
iPad Air 16 GB WiFi - iPod Classic 80GB - LG G3
DakotaGuy is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 09:23 AM   #4
IGregory
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by lannister80 View Post
HOORAY! But really, 5-4? I thought it wouldn't be so close...
Really, aren't all these social issue cases close.
__________________
The happy owner of a Mid-2012 Macbook Pro w/Retina Display, iPad Air and iPhone 5s .
IGregory is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 09:44 AM   #5
vega07
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Wonderful Wednesday indeed.
vega07 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 09:45 AM   #6
MegamanX
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by lannister80 View Post
HOORAY! But really, 5-4? I thought it wouldn't be so close...
Sadly what should of been a 9-0 ruling turns into this BS. This is crap and we all know it.
MegamanX is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 09:47 AM   #7
costabunny
macrumors 68000
 
costabunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: ~/
Send a message via Skype™ to costabunny
victory for common sense is still a victory

Happy day for equality
__________________
Bunny has an iPhone 5C, an iPad Mini Retina, a PC & a MacBook Pro retina

“There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you.”
costabunny is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 09:51 AM   #8
vega07
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
When is the prop 8 ruling coming out?
vega07 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 09:54 AM   #9
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
A great day fro America. Too bad we couldn't say the same about yesterday's ruling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vega07 View Post
When is the prop 8 ruling coming out?
Already announced. No standing to sue for prop 8 defenders.
__________________
If your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself.
rdowns is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 09:56 AM   #10
KentuckyHouse
macrumors 68020
 
KentuckyHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Lexington, KY.
Send a message via ICQ to KentuckyHouse
Quote:
Originally Posted by lannister80 View Post
HOORAY! But really, 5-4? I thought it wouldn't be so close...
Please. The conservative justices don't vote based on legal arguments...they clearly vote based on their personal politics. How else do you explain Scalia's argument against DOMA? Here's a great tweet I read that sums it up..."Scalia dissenting on DOMA because it's "democratically adopted legislation" the day after striking down the Voter Rights Amendment is simply stunning". He's CLEARLY a hypocrite. BOTH are "democratically adopted legislation"...it's just that neither fall in line with his politics.

A couple of the conservative justices on SCOTUS are complete jokes and frankly, dangerous.
KentuckyHouse is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 10:01 AM   #11
chrono1081
macrumors 604
 
chrono1081's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Isla Nublar
Yay I'm closer to being recognized as a real citizen and not just a paycheck for the government (in the form of taxes).
__________________
Mac Pro (2010): 3.33Ghz Intel Xeon (6 core) - 24 GB RAM - NVidia Quadro k5000
Macbook Air (2010): 2.13 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo - 4GB RAM
chrono1081 is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 10:01 AM   #12
MegamanX
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
A great day fro America. Too bad we couldn't say the same about yesterday's ruling.



Already announced. No standing to sue for prop 8 defenders.
They should of struck down prop 8 completely and said gay mariage is a basic right. Not this crap of not wanting to touch it. But the conservative block does not give a real damn. Those guys need to step down.
MegamanX is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 10:03 AM   #13
ugahairydawgs
macrumors 68020
 
ugahairydawgs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
A great day fro America. Too bad we couldn't say the same about yesterday's ruling.
Still trying to figure out why yesterday was a terrible event. It seems to me that the VRA, while at one point was of the utmost importance, now serves (err...served) to use a 50 year old formula to apply regulation to states that have come a long way int he last half century.

Is everything rainbows and butterflies now? Of course not.....but getting rid of a restrictively antiquated bill with a charge to Congress to come up with something modern and applicable to today's society seems like a prudent step to take.
ugahairydawgs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 10:04 AM   #14
Technarchy
macrumors 68040
 
Technarchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
I called it awhile ago. Not all that shocking really.

Another nail in the coffin of the Bill Clinton Legacy.
Technarchy is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 10:05 AM   #15
tbobmccoy
macrumors 6502a
 
tbobmccoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Send a message via AIM to tbobmccoy
Quote:
Originally Posted by MegamanX View Post
They should of struck down prop 8 completely and said gay mariage is a basic right. Not this crap of not wanting to touch it. But the conservative block does not give a real damn. Those guys need to step down.
That'll be the next step. As soon as a gay couple in another state moves to a state with a ban on their marriage, I.e. doesn't recognize their contract from the other state as the constitution requires, there is standing to sue in court. That case will eventually get to SCOTUS.
tbobmccoy is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 10:09 AM   #16
MegamanX
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbobmccoy View Post
That'll be the next step. As soon as a gay couple in another state moves to a state with a ban on their marriage, I.e. doesn't recognize their contract from the other state as the constitution requires, there is standing to sue in court. That case will eventually get to SCOTUS.
They should od that and come to texas because the dumb ass we have running our gov here will appeal it all the way to SCOTUS
MegamanX is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 10:11 AM   #17
tbobmccoy
macrumors 6502a
 
tbobmccoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Send a message via AIM to tbobmccoy
Quote:
Originally Posted by MegamanX View Post
They should od that and come to texas because the dumb ass we have running our gov here will appeal it all the way to SCOTUS
True. I'm betting Rick Perry is having an awful day, especially after last night's defeat of their abortion ban
tbobmccoy is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 10:11 AM   #18
NewbieCanada
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbobmccoy View Post
That'll be the next step. As soon as a gay couple in another state moves to a state with a ban on their marriage, I.e. doesn't recognize their contract from the other state as the constitution requires, there is standing to sue in court. That case will eventually get to SCOTUS.
But won't go anywhere until at least one Justice dies or retires.
__________________
nMP 6-core, D500, 32 GB, 1 TB rMBP 13" '13 2.4 gHz, 256 GB, 8GB Mini '11 i7, 256 GB SSD & 750 GB HDD, 16GB iPhone 5 64GB iPad Air 128
NewbieCanada is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 10:17 AM   #19
miloblithe
macrumors 68020
 
miloblithe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by ugahairydawgs View Post
Still trying to figure out why yesterday was a terrible event. It seems to me that the VRA, while at one point was of the utmost importance, now serves (err...served) to use a 50 year old formula to apply regulation to states that have come a long way int he last half century.

Is everything rainbows and butterflies now? Of course not.....but getting rid of a restrictively antiquated bill with a charge to Congress to come up with something modern and applicable to today's society seems like a prudent step to take.
Definitely not rainbows and butterflies:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxeO...RwdkZnNjg/edit

State of Texas vs. United States of America

Quote:
Congressman Al Green, who represents CD 9, testified that “substantial surgery” was done to his district that could not have happened by accident. The Medical Center, Astrodome, rail line, and Houston Baptist University — the “economic engines” of the district — were all removed in the enacted plan. The enacted plan also removed from CD 9 the area where Representative Green had established his district office. Likewise, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, who represents CD 18, testified that the plan removed from her district key economic generators as well as her district office. Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson of CD 30 also testified that the plan removed the American Center (home of the Dallas Mavericks), the arts district, her district office, and her home from CD 30. The mapdrawers also removed the district office, the Alamo, and the Convention Center (named after the incumbent’s father), from CD 20, a Hispanic ability district.

No such surgery was performed on the districts of Anglo incumbents. In fact, every Anglo member of Congress retained his or her district office. Anglo district boundaries were redrawn to include particular country clubs and, in one case, the school belonging to the incumbent’s grandchildren. And Texas never challenged evidence that only minority districts lost their economic centers by showing, for example, that the same types of changes had been made in Anglo districts.

The only explanation Texas offers for this pattern is “coincidence.” But if this was coincidence, it was a striking one indeed. It is difficult to believe that pure chance would lead to such results. The State also argues that it “attempted to accommodate unsolicited requests from a bipartisan group of lawmakers,” and that “[w]ithout hearing from the members, the mapdrawers did not know where district offices were located.” But we find this hard to believe as well. We are confident that the mapdrawers can not only draw maps but read them, and the locations of these district offices were not secret. The improbability of these events alone could well qualify as a “clear pattern, unexplainable on grounds other than race,” and lead us to infer a discriminatory purpose behind the Congressional Plan.
miloblithe is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 10:20 AM   #20
Menel
macrumors 68040
 
Menel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Atlanta
Liberals created the law.
Liberal justices struck it down.

Odd.
__________________
iPhone 5 \ iPad Air \ Mac mini i5
Menel is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 10:21 AM   #21
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
DOMA dead? Yes.

Prop. 8 dead? Only for California. Why? Nothing was decided.

Remember that hearing SCOTUS had on the merits in April? That was only to see if proponents had legal standing to even present the case. Those proponents were only for California, and not any other state. Since SCOTUS decided that the proponents didn't have standing, it was if they never saw the case before them to begin with. If they had standing, then they would have to see the case, and rule on the actual proposition. That didn't happen.

So Merits threw the case back to the 9th, where Walker's decision stands. So Prop. 8 is only dead for California. Everywhere else is still back to what the states can do.

If this were federal law, there would be standing if the Attorney General didn't want to defend it. Then SCOTUS would still have to rule on the entire law, which is exactly what they did with DOMA.

Now.. I'm already hearing the continuation of the "Walker had personal interest/legislating from the bench" rants here in Sacramento. But effectively, Prop. 8 is dead for California, as the Governor, Lt. Governor, and Att. General were not going to defend it. But it does still leave the major questions unanswered: Gay marriage bans vs. the 14th Amendment. No case regarding that has made it to SCOTUS yet.

BL.

Last edited by bradl; Jun 26, 2013 at 10:26 AM.
bradl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 10:24 AM   #22
Prof.
macrumors 601
 
Prof.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chicago
The four justices who voted to uphold DOMA and Prop 8 were: Justices John Roberts and Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
__________________
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all"
- John Maynard Keynes
Prof. is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 10:27 AM   #23
yg17
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: St. Louis, MO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. View Post
The four justices who voted to uphold DOMA and Prop 8 were: Justices John Roberts and Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
aka the RATS.
__________________
Barack Obama is not a foreign born, brown skinned, anti-war socialist who gives away healthcare. You're thinking of Jesus.
yg17 is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 10:29 AM   #24
chrono1081
macrumors 604
 
chrono1081's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Isla Nublar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. View Post
The four justices who voted to uphold DOMA and Prop 8 were: Justices John Roberts and Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
What a bunch of twats. They should be removed as justices unless they can give a 100% legitimate reason for denying others rights..

...oh wait, they can't. They're personal beliefs got in the way of real justice.
__________________
Mac Pro (2010): 3.33Ghz Intel Xeon (6 core) - 24 GB RAM - NVidia Quadro k5000
Macbook Air (2010): 2.13 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo - 4GB RAM
chrono1081 is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2013, 10:39 AM   #25
zioxide
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrono1081 View Post
What a bunch of twats. They should be removed as justices unless they can give a 100% legitimate reason for denying others rights..

...oh wait, they can't. They're personal beliefs got in the way of real justice.
They don't have the mental capacity to be qualified to be judges. They should be removed from the bench.

Sadly that will never happen because half of our country is 50-100 years behind the rest of it.
zioxide is online now   3 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I find it sad that the "Apple Responds to DOMA ruling" thread was closed CaptHenryMorgan Site and Forum Feedback 5 Jun 29, 2013 11:56 AM
Prop. 8 and DOMA: Final Round. FIGHT! bradl Politics, Religion, Social Issues 142 Jun 5, 2013 12:59 PM
Prop 8: Final Round bradl Politics, Religion, Social Issues 19 Dec 7, 2012 08:12 PM
Republicans Appeal DOMA Case to Supreme Court leekohler Politics, Religion, Social Issues 119 Oct 28, 2012 09:35 PM
DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional Moyank24 Politics, Religion, Social Issues 50 Jun 7, 2012 07:40 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:39 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC