SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN DOMA

In a 5-4 decision the Supreme court has stricken down the Defense of Marriage Act. This means gay couples who are married can get federal benefits. A huge win and a great decision imho. Now lets see what they do with Prop 8.

A truly great day for America!! Great job Anthony Kennedy for being the deciding vote in striking this down

In American history where there is a battle between the status quo and more progressive ideas, the progressive ideas always win out. It has happened again.

This is a great victory for all in favor of marriage equality amongst consenting adults, and is proof that we live in a progressive nation.

Makes me proud to be an American

The Prop 8 suit was also dismissed, so SSM is now legal in California again.

I actually kinda admire that they didn't go for a sweeping broad decision on either case like the SCOTUS at its worst can be at times. It's aware of the momentum behind an issue and applied reasonable judicial restraint without overreaching.

Type in "Gay" at Google and see what easter egg pops up. LOL

D.C. churches ringing bells for gay marriage

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post...log-entry-48985

This is classic.

Mike Huckabee tweeted this:



Gay activist Dan Savage replied:

I catch a little of Huckabee's radio show every week. I will definitely tune in today in about 40 minutes.

As I usually caution about SCOTUS rulings, read the fine print and also what those rulings don't say. I just read about the DOMA ruling on the CNN site. It states that the Court overturned DOMA. No it didn't. It's opinion applies only to the federal recognition of same sex marriages in states where same sex marriage is legal.

As far as I can tell, it did not rule as unconstitutional that portion of the Act that allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other states.

So, be careful.

You are correct Oli, however the application of Federal benefits to gay couples married in one state and then moving to another would ingerently create an equal protection issue down the road.

With the decision in Prop 8, as I read it everything gets kicked down to the District Court that first held it unconsitiutional, thus allowing gay marriage in California.

As more states adopt gay marriage the harder it will be for the court to duck what they avoided today, which was probably a concession to Kennedy.

The corner has been turned.

Weep all you want. Lex lex est.

Anyway you wont have to weep long. Afer all Glenn Beck has promised to reveal something that was going to blow up the whole system. Oh I forgot that was supposed to happen yesterday. Ah well, maybe there's some apocalypse comet out there, or perhaps a natural disaster that can be blamed on these decisions. The deluded will always be among us.


BTW read your ACTS of Apostles, especially the passages from Peter where he says people should ignore old rituals and laws and act OUT.

Okay, I just heard Huckabee's intro remarks on the SCOTUS DOMA decision. I'm so disappointed. He opined that old, stale argument that the Court should not have even heard a case about legislation passed by the Congress and signed by the President. He also referred to the 5 justices who signed the majority opinion as rogue. Madonne!

LOL a majority of the supreme court is "rogue." These people will say anything.

So how about that quote? Isn't it a hint that if a case were to be heard based on equal protection clause that gay marriage would be recognized as constitutional?

Possible, but he doesn't go quite that far. Doesn't have to.

Good for them. If they want to be miserable too, why not?

No. Court opinions are largely a function of the litigants' arguments and precedent. Predicting outcomes is a precarious business.

It only took the U.S. president and the Governor of California refusing to do their duty to represent their jurisdictions, and 5 corrupt Supreme Court justices, to change the definition of marriage; despite this being decided long ago in relation to polygamy.

Obama's comments particularly made me sick. Funny how he has such of change of heart after he's safely in his second term. And it's funny how not one of the liberal hacks on this board have said one word about it. Or about Clinton's flip flop, for that matter.

That said, I can live with the DOMA decision because it should be left up to the states. Therein, however, the Supreme Court is again being hypocritical. They strike down DOMA because New York state law needed to be respected in the plaintiff's case. And yet they turn right around and snub the will of the people in California with their Prop 8 non-decision. Which, in turn, was originally snubbed by a gay judge. Conflict of interest, anyone?

Hide and watch. Now the judiciary will attempt to overrule each state's right to ban gay marriage. And they'll start by trying to force those states to recognize gay marriages that have taken place in other states. This is how our Constitution will come to "hang by a thread" - through corrupt lawyers and judges. For now, I'm grateful to live in a state like Utah where degeneracy isn't enshrined and wickedness celebrated.


"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20

Speaking of random alliances I never thought I would ever see, the ACLU has hired former Dubya advisor/McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt to lead a $10 million effort to bring Republicans into the pro-SSM fold.

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/aclu-hires-steve-schmidt-bring-republicans-same-sex-marriage-push

I don't think it's a conflict of interest any more than if a devoutly religious judge ruled against gay marriage based solely on his or her religious beliefs, although I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with that, hm?

No, put as some will point out- they are not voted in by the people. Like you said before...about replacing some others with ones that feel the same was you do to get the rulings that you want.

Confrimation by a select few, with deals and everything else done behind closed doors make the system even more upstetting by many.

and this passed by one vote, so as always one vote could have turned it either way. But no matter which way it went half the people would be upset.

Lets watch and see how they untangle all this mess now. On all levels and combos that interwind.

The appointment of Supreme Court justices by the executive branch with confirmation by the legislative branch is part of the checks and balances designed to secure separation of powers. Moreover, the Framers recognized that an independent judiciary is necessary to safeguard constitutional rights, which would be opposed by the political majority.

The system is not the "behind closed doors," secretive process you imply. The decision is the result of federal litigation with testimony, a district court ruling and published opinion, followed by a Notice of Appeal that identifies basis for appeal, briefs submitted to the Circuit Court, an appellate decision, citing precedent, fact and Constitutional provisions, a petition to allow an appeal to SCOTUS with briefs a decision granting allowance of appeal, oral argument of the parties before the Court and a final published and read decision with dissent, all of which are done in the public. It doesn't get any more open than that.

If you want an elected Supreme Court, you deal with justiceswho receive large sums of money from nonprofits, who don't disclose their donors, and PACs.

As far as the 5-4 decision, keep in mind that the Heller case, which in 2008 found an individual right to own a firearm under the Second Amendment for the first time in American history, was a 5-4 decision. It's disengenuous to condemn the process only when it yields results, with which you don't agree.

And keep in mind that the DOMA decision is limited in scope. The federal government must recognize the valid marriages of its states. It does not make a broad, sweeping proclamation making gay marriage the law of the land.

What is all this belly-aching about the Supremes being appointed and meeting in secret? This is the origiinal intent by the founding fathers. I thought conservatives loved original intent. I thought they believe it was handed to the founders on tablets by Jesus Himself

Now their ox is gored by a progressive decision on gay rights and they have their collective panties in a wad?

Thank you Kly. You stated it more eloquently and substantively than I could. Also, thank you for pointing out the Heller vote. There are plenty other 5/4 votes that SCOTUS critics wold be loathe to dispense with.

Here in Texas, the election of all judges except municipal judges is lamented because of just what you point out: their vulnerability to fianancial enticement by campaign donors and the influence upon their opinions by those donors. In fact, in the textbook I use for class it has a section that asks Is Justice for Sale in Texas?

And DT, yes, conservatives are so fond of original intent when it results in a pleasing Court opinion, but only then.

In Fla in 2012 there was a concerted effort to unseat two State Supreme Court Justices. I believe Koch money was involved. Fortunately it did not work. I have a good friend who is a circuit Court judge, running unopposed for re-election. He was advised to raise 100K just to scare off opposition. It is a crazy way to select judges.

Pennsylvania elects its common pleas, superior, and supreme court judges. We are presently short a supreme court judge as she is serving time after recently being sentenced for using state employees to campaign for her on the state payroll.

I once had an oral argument before the PA Supreme Court when one justice, who would later be removed from office for corruption, had accused a fellow justice in public of trying to kill him by running him over in a car. It was very bizarre as they were seated next to each other on the bench leaning away from each other.

These judges, once elected to a ten year term, run for retention. It's rare when a judge is not retained.

Judges are almost always retained because no one outside the legal community really knows who they are. Unless one commits a crime or some other dastardly thing, they are pretty much under the radar. Unfortunately there are many mediocre people on the bench.

Electing judges as a concept is just baffling to me.

Pleae take it easy DT we don't want you to have an attack. People do have a right to think and express how they think and feel, right or wrong as you well know from posting here long enough.

I personally understand what Klydon posted but that isn't going to help the people who don't understand the process or agree with their rulings. As I pointed out even you made the comment about getting a certain type on there for some people benifit did you not?
and what does your do to help for that matter? Attacking conservatives even.
Seems like your the one who may have to untwist your panties. and your super happy abut the ruling. so why get so upset?

This has been a very passionate subject for so many. Almost as bad as abortion talk.

Klydon - always a great job postering without the drama. Thanks

But lets face it, lets not ne navie Kay- There are always things happening behind the scenes. No has trust anymore. Just look at what has happened in the news these very days.

I'd have a problem with any judge overruling the will of the people. But this case is especially egregious considering the judge was gay. If you read his decision, him being gay was the driving force behind it. He and the 5 liberal justices on the Supreme Court are cut from the same cloth - imperialist judges (all liberal of course) who overstep their Constitutional bounds to make their own laws out of thin air while ignoring the voice of the people.

Maybe in California's case, but isn't it the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the law as they see fit? You're just unhappy because you think marriage is supposed to be between one and man and one woman. But if a gay couple is legally married by law, should they not receive the same benefits and protection heterosexual couples do? That's what this allowed and it struck down an egregious law.

Imperialist judges overstepping their bounds? Give me a break. That's what every hardcore righty is saying. It's utter nonsense

Of course I think marriage should be between a man and a woman. But that doesn't change the fact that the people in each state should be able to make their own laws and not have them changed or overruled by one judge. Especially a gay judge in a gay marriage case.



It's well known that civil unions can provide all the same benefits and protection for gay couples that heterosexual couples have. But that's not really what this is all about. It's about a shrill part of the gay community, and their liberal supporters, shoving their lifestyle down everyone's throat and forcing everyone to consider their relationships the same and equal.



We have judge (with an obvious conflict of interest) in California overruling the will of the citizens of that state. We also have 5 judges on the Supreme Court completely twisting and stretching the Constitution, making up law out of thin air, in order to justify themselves....once again, just how abortion was legalized in the past. They overstepped their bounds. Both issues should have been left up to the states. Your inability or refusal to look at this objectively is telling.

Not looking at it objectively? That's rich coming from you. Nowhere written in our constitution does it say marriage is between a man and a woman. I agree both issues should be left up to the states and it still is! It merely strikes down the law saying gays can't get benefits. That's all they want ivy, they aren't trampling on anything else. Their relationships are just as equal as straight ones. Love is not limited to straight people.

The judges aren't forcing gay marriage on the states. That part is still up to them. And don't think I'm wrong ivy in saying where you love you got nothing to worry about

Article III of the US Constitution provides the US Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction, in law, equity, and fact. The Congress is free to except any potential litigation it wants from the Court's appellate jurisdiction.

By the way, civil unions do not provide gay couples with federal protections and benefits.

If it's left up to the states, why was the will of the people in California ignored?



No, what they want is to force their lifestyle on everybody. Hide and watch. This federal victory won't be enough. Gay activists, and their liberal supporters like the ACLU, have already said they are going to "take the fight" to each state, one by one.



Unless the liberal wing of the Supreme Court attempt to pull another stunt like they did yesterday.



You must be from the klydon college of legal studies. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret law. Not to create it by twisting, stretching, and perverting the Constitution so much that they create laws (or "rights") out of thin air. That's how we got legalized abortion based on "right to privacy" and now gay marriage based on "equal protection."

Your post above does not manifest a familiarity with either the common law or equity. The common law, which is judge made law, was so important to the Founding generation that it is cited in the 11th amendment to the US Constitution. The concept of Equity, cited in Article III of the US Constitution, predates the Founding generation and was and is intended to provide relief to litigants where the common law does not.

By contrast, no where in the US Constitution does it state or imply that federal courts must only interpret the law.

Anyone who has taken even a high school history class knows that the basic system of checks and balances among the three branches of government involves the legislative branch making laws, the executive branch enforcing laws, and the judicial branch interpreting laws. The 11th amendment in no way means the Supreme Court has the right to ignore large, bipartisan majorities in Congress back in 1996 or the citizens of California. As one scholar recently said, "It is absurd for the court to suggest that Congress doesn't have the power to define the meaning of words in statutes that Congress itself enacts." This is nothing but taking democratic self-government away from the people and putting in the hands of a few legislating-from-the-bench judges.

Looking at this thread I’ve seen arguments for the SCOTUS decisions on gay marriage stated more eloquently and thoughtfully than I could put them. While I support the decision, I appreciate the amount of though put into both sides of the argument.

If you go over to Yahoo comments, it’s a zoo over there.

Having said that, while I DO support state’s right to regulate their own laws, and that those laws reflect the will of the people of those states, the will of the people is a fluid thing. If you look at the will of the people in the 1960’s, it differs GREATLY from current thinking. If you look at some of the protectors of the people’s wills from that time, you’ll find that history is not kind to them.

The job of SCOTUS is to judge the “constitutionality” of that will. Simply because a majority of the people support a law does NOT make it appropriate. As John Oliver nicely said it, “Most Americans would prefer water fountains to flow with Mountain Dew.”

While SCOTUS is made up of those same fallible human beings who are also subject to the fluidity American psyche, in theory the constitutionality of the law is not. While some justices come from points of view that you might find objectionable, it should balance out.

At the end of the day, I believe that if you are unhappy with some of the rulings and agree with others, than you have a pretty good system. IMHO, I believe that SCOTUS got it wrong with Citizens United and the Voting Rights Act, but they made a good, human call with DOMA and Prop. 8.

It’s one of the things that makes us far from a perfect country, but still, IMHO, the best.

I'm not taking a side whether this passed or not. Would it have been the same scenario 4-5. I'm just wondering if one vote of the other side, would change your opinion on it being a fair ruling?

So the Family Research Council released this banner in response to the DOMA decision. Doesn't the stick figure look like it's giving a blowjob?



Sorry I can't unsee that now. LOL

No.

Fair enough then.