DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Moyank24, May 31, 2012.

  1. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #1
    Not a huge surprise, but good news nonetheless. Next stop: US Supreme Court

    Source
     
  2. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    Good! Let's get rid of this thing once and for all.
     
  3. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #3
    Now I hope that when the supreme court rules they make it required to give back benefits all the way back to at least when the court case started
     
  4. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #4
    Is that the sound of activist judges exceeding their remit again? :p

    Congress need to hurry up and get rid of this law. They created this travesty, they should clean up their own mess.
     
  5. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #5
    LOL -1 on all the post huh? I see someone has been a little cowardly and downrated post without a response. Man...they don't even try to defend their anti-equality views anymore. As gays and gay marriage come out of the closet, they go in one. I find that funny and also as how it should be. :D

    It was great to see a unanimous 3-0 ruling on this..by two Republican appointed judges no less. As even conservatives start coming around to this issue the opposing side is going to have a more and more difficult time spinning this as some sort of liberal activist court ruling thing.
     
  6. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #6
    The problem isn't the law. It's the homophobic bigots who believe that a book of tolerance and love tells them to hate people who are different than they are.
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    Oh- I'd say the law is part of the problem as well.
     
  8. classicaliberal macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #8
    Personally, I've never understood the viewpoint that government, especially the federal government with it's specific and enumerated powers, should be in a position to outlaw/ban marriage of any kind. If anything, it's an attack on freedom of religion.

    This shouldn't even be something we argue about. Marriage is a religious institution as far as I can tell, and the other components regarding hospital rights, children, etc. should be nothing more than a legal contract between two free individuals.

    Government exists to defend and uphold legal contracts between it's citizens (such as private property, etc.) not to eliminate such contracts, or outlaw them all together.
     
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    (Sigh) why do people think this? Marriage predates religion. Religion did NOT invent it, therefore, they do not own it. How many times does this have to be said?
     
  10. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #10
    This brings up a very interesting situation, that I'm hoping our resident lawyers have some insight on.

    We now have two different rulings striking down gay marriage bans (one State, one Federal), soon to be headed to SCOTUS. The question is, which one will make it there first?

    Prop. 8 was struck down by the 9th Circuit, but the stay hasn't been lifted since gay marriage opponents asked for an en banc review of the case, which could take a year or longer. Have we heard anything similar with DOMA being ruled unconstitutional by the 1st Circuit? They already indicated that "only SCOTUS can decide this."

    Also, since this was passed by Congress, wouldn't this be a case against the United States? If so, the defense of this falls to the USAG, which indicated along with the POTUS that they won't defend it. So again, like Prop. 8, who has legal standing?

    On the other hand, could this lead to SCOTUS refusing to hear the Prop. 8 case, based on the decision it has to make for this one? If not, would they have to delay hearing the arguments for the Prop. 8 case until this one is ruled on, because this one (the DOMA case) could overrule the Prop. 8 decision?

    Finally, how much clout does this give the Prop. 8 supporters in the en banc review at the 9th Circuit? This is pretty big ammo that has been added to their war chest..

    Either way this goes, SCOTUS' term doesn't open until October 1st. More than likely, neither of these would have been decided between 10/1 and the next election in November. Should the Reds win (read: change in administration), the entire field for both cases will change.

    BL.
     
  11. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #11
    Not really. Marriage is a ritualised celebration of a mutual commitment. No religion required, though some do have pretty tasty rituals.
     
  12. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #12
    True, but they embraced it, then tried to make it theirs, to the point that some refuse to recognize civil marriages.

    Control at it's very best/worst.
     
  13. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #13
    I suspect we'll see DOMA overturned in Congress before it makes it to the Supreme Court (this case has been in progress for over three years already).

    American courts move even slower than our legislature.
     
  14. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #14
    For it to be overturn it would require the control of House and a super majority in the senate plus control of the oval office.
    Some how I just do not see that happening.
     
  15. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #15


    As already pointed out, and apparently that's not enough, marriage does not belong to any religion. When you say it's a religious institution, then who's exactly? What religion holds the right to marriage? It seems silly to suggest it's a religious institution without pointing out what one it belongs to. What people like you ignore or are just ignorant of, is that marriage not only predates any current religion but has been apart of almost every major culture around the world. In fact when you start reading up on marriage itself, most who have studied it believe that the act itself predates recorded history.

    As for gov and the legal side of things. The act alone takes care of the legal parts in one full swoop that would other wise take up a greater amount of time and money dealing with the legal aspect of everything that is already covered by marriage. Lastly, allowing gays to marry in no way eliminates such contracts or outlaws them as you put it. DOMA did just that which you said shouldn't be done.
     
  16. APlotdevice, May 31, 2012
    Last edited: May 31, 2012

    APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #16
    Aye. Though arguably religious freedom still applies in this case, since DOMA was clearly motivated by a specific religious ideology.
     
  17. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #17
    Look a little more deeply into it.

    Marriage has not always been a strictly religious institution ...

     
  18. dime21 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    #18
    A disgusting ruling. The Christophobic bigots and their message of hate will not win against those brave enough to defend marriage. The gay fad is winding down, and people are coming to their senses. The recent NC vote is a good example of this. This whole gay fad will fizzle out like a bad fart.
     
  19. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #19
    You're so cute when you flail.

    It's so spastic.

    Adorable.

    :p
     
  20. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #20
    And some tasteless ones as well.

    Gay fad? Gays existed on the Earth before this whole religious fad took off.
     
  21. Sedulous macrumors 68000

    Sedulous

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    #21
    Whaaa?
     
  22. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #22
    Being gay is not a fad, it's a state of existence- a FACT. It's not a religion or some fairy tale. You just lost a major battle, and you will lose the war, believe me.

    And thank you for finally illustrating just what you are.
     
  23. stevenlangley1 macrumors regular

    stevenlangley1

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    #23
    Hope this doesn't take too long to go up to the Supreme Court and get ruled completely unconstitutional. I'm tired of seeing my LGBT family, friends and coworkers getting treated like second class citizens. I'm usually don't say too much about the subject, but this **** pisses me off.
     
  24. FreeState, May 31, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2012

    FreeState macrumors 68000

    FreeState

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #24
    I want the court to overturn it and set president - that way no Congress can't pass laws discriminating against gay citizens and their families.
     
  25. vega07, May 31, 2012
    Last edited: May 31, 2012

    vega07 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #25
    I hope you live on some kind of remote island so we'll never run into each other, or anyone for that matter. :D
     

Share This Page