Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Case could go to a review in CA but it sounds like that is unlikely. The next step to challenge this ruling would be to file with the SCOTUS which only hears about 1% of cases filed. It will need 4 SC justices to vote yes for the case to be reviewed by the SCOTUS.

 

No word yet on if this means gay couples can immediately be married.

Posted

Question for our legal minds: if this does go to the SC, would an affirmative ruling effectively end DOMA and pave the path for legalizing gay marriage across the board or is this something that is tailored to California and this particular proposition (using a referendum to take away the rights of a particular group)? If it's the latter, would the SC even bother with it?

Posted
Question for our legal minds: if this does go to the SC, would an affirmative ruling effectively end DOMA and pave the path for legalizing gay marriage across the board or is this something that is tailored to California and this particular proposition (using a referendum to take away the rights of a particular group)? If it's the latter, would the SC even bother with it?

 

I don't see how DOMA exists now, and I believe that this is the challenge that will destroy it. It is a state's right to govern the general welfare of its people, but the DOMA violates the equal protection rights of homosexuals by allowing state's to take away their fundamental right to marry.

Posted
I don't see how DOMA exists now, and I believe that this is the challenge that will destroy it. It is a state's right to govern the general welfare of its people, but the DOMA violates the equal protection rights of homosexuals by allowing state's to take away their fundamental right to marry.

 

That's something that has always perplexed me about DOMA. It seems it's an obvious violation of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.

Posted
That's something that has always perplexed me about DOMA. It seems it's an obvious violation of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.

 

Not only the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" but if that law were about something other than gay marriage, conservatives would be screaming their heads off about congressional overreach and the Tenth Amendment.

Posted
Marriage is a religious ceremony. The government shouldnt be involved, period.

 

People married by a JP are legally married. As I recall the ceremony often states something about "by the power vested in me by the state of .... I now declare you man and wife." Religion is not always involved.

Posted
People married by a JP are legally married. As I recall the ceremony often states something about "by the power vested in me by the state of .... I now declare you man and wife." Religion is not always involved.

 

I stand corrected. Origins of marriage show many different institutions legitimizing the bond, however, I stand by my belief that the state shouldnt be involved. Especially if the only incentive is tax breaks, benefits, etc.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.