Clyde Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Likely after a Federal Appeals court struck down Califorinia's Prop 8 which banned same-sex marriage. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html
Know It All Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Likely after a Federal Appeals court struck down Califorinia's Prop 8 which banned same-sex marriage. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html Marriage is a religious ceremony. The government shouldnt be involved, period.
woodsrider Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Marriage is a religious ceremony. The government shouldnt be involved, period.My head agrees, my tax return not so much.
formerkywrestler Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 Marriage is a religious ceremony. The government shouldnt be involved, period.The government gives benefits to married couples. That's not going away...
SportsGuy41017 Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 I hear it will not likely be headed to the US Supreme Court. This country, and the world has more important things to worry about!
Clyde Posted February 7, 2012 Author Posted February 7, 2012 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.
Know It All Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 My head agrees, my tax return not so much. You wouldnt need the benefits if we could go by my tax code. : p
Habib Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 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?
mexitucky Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 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.
Habib Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 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.
Getslow Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 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.
75center Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 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.
Know It All Posted February 7, 2012 Posted February 7, 2012 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.
Alabama Larry Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 God doesn't change, man does. Married just doesn't fit with Same Sex. Use something else. Will not see the Kingdom of heaven. God said.
formerkywrestler Posted February 8, 2012 Posted February 8, 2012 God doesn't change, man does. Married just doesn't fit with Same Sex. Use something else. Will not see the Kingdom of heaven. God said.This has absolutely nothing to do with God though.
Recommended Posts