Someone tell me how the Supreme Court will rule on DOMA and Prop 8
What's your best guess? They hear arguments in late March. Best guesses encouraged.
Are they STILL dragging this nonsense on? They're going to have to overturn it eventually, so why do they keep wasting time?
State's rights. Then we will be in limbo for decades. Blue states will have equality, red will ban it. No federal rights.
Arguments start in March, but arent they expected to rule much later?
what r2 said.
DOMA is not state law. It's a federal. I think they will rule it unconstitutional 6-3, with Scalia, Alito, and Thomas dissenting.
I hope Scalia drops dead from a brain hemorrhage while he's screaming his opinion at the other justices during their deliberation.
R5 I think Roberts will rule in out favor.
Rumor in Washington is that Justice Kennedy, and possibly Justice Roberts as well, will vote with the four Democratic Justices.
R5 doesn't pay attention.
R7 - I agree. He and Kennedy join the 4 liberals.
Alito, Scalia and Thomas are almost certain to rule DOMA constitutional.
Breyer, Ginsberg, Kagan and Sotomayor are almost certain to rule DOMA unconstitutional.
The swing votes are Kennedy and Roberts. Kennedy has supported gay rights in the past and Roberts supported the health care law so everyone now thinks he's a liberal, BUT they're still traditionally conservative justices so you can't be sure.
Roberts is a smart man, he might rule it unconstitutional because he knows history will view gay marriage as a civil rights issue, and he doesn't want to go down as the last chief justice that opposed gay rights.
Isn't Roberts gay? So of course he will rule it unconstitutional.
If history is a precedent, SCOTUS gets civil rights issues wrong the first time, so...
I really don't know why people think that Roberts is a lock, or even a likelihood. I'd give it, maybe, a 51/49 split for us when it comes to guessing where he will go.
He has his legacy to worry about which goes in our favor. Another thing that goes in our favor is that the Repugs seem to be moving away from gay marriage as their evil du jour.
Working against us is the fact that he's a Repug fucktard conservative.
So, like I said, 51/49.
As for Prop 8, they'll probably hold that it's a regional or state issue as much as they can. Don't want those liberal hippies in California setting federal law, ya know.
Who cares, divorce laws were all over the place for over a hundred year and no one cared. We need this less so that more people don't avoid paying fed taxes.
Since marriage means nothing to 'mos, they will use it to pay lower federal tax and marry illegals for money to let them stay here. It's not like any 'mo will take marriage seriously.
They will use it as a legal tool, like bankruptcy, to avoid doing the right thing.
It will depend on the political clout the Dems have at the beginning of March. If the Pubs re-tread their national image enough to be hated less than cockroaches and dental work, it will provide cover for the cross-over conservatives to vote their prejudices. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito haven't been works in process for years and appear to have no cares about how history will view them.
With two lesbians and a suspected gay guy on the bench we know how it'll go.
I suspect that they won't even bother with the merits of either case, but will simply decide that the Prop 8 backers didn't have standing to appeal it in the first place, and will rule similarly in the DOMA case.
Thus, both Prop 8 and DOMA section 3 will be nullified without the USSC having to address the issue of constitutionality at all.
At any rate, all that will happen is that SSM will resume in California, and the federal gov't will be required to recognize SSM in the states where it's legal. Which is nothing to turn your nose up at, mind you...there just isn't going to be this sweeping national recognition of SSM that some people seem to be expecting.
Equal Protection Clause.
I think R19 is correct.
National Cathedral announces it will perform same sex weddings. Looks like it really IS only the catholic church that hates us.
[quote]State's rights ... No federal rights.
Uh, Negative Nancy, a winning state's rights argument in the DOMA case means DOMA Section 3 is struck down, and federal rights are recognized.
Both cases will be decided in our favor. The rulings will be 5-4 or 6-3, depending on what Roberts does.
One glaring hallmark of victim cultures is their magical thinking --
which they insist upon inflicting on others, especially by points of law.
Another glaring hallmark of victim culture is the abundance of self-haters who carp from the sidelines that people fighting for their legal equality are doing it all wrong, r25.
Are you glued to your chair? Your hands broken? Get off your fucking ass and fight for ENDA that's what you think is worthwhile.
We're sorry that you're single, lonely and bitter, but some of us--including the single and unbitter--think legal equality is important and are willing to fight for it.
Another hallmark of victim cultures is to project their feeling of self-loathing on others
Another hallmark of victim culture is to not recognize when someone loathes you for a legitimate reason.
Assuming that both cases go our way in the narrowest scope possible, which seems the most probable outcome, this is just going to set up a much bigger Loving vs Virginia style case down the line unless the Congress has a demographic shift and realizes that they can either do it themselves or have the SCOTUS do it for them.
The Voice of the Night
[quote]Isn't Roberts gay? So of course he will rule it unconstitutional.
He's not out. He's a Republican. His party is after him. He almost didn't rule in favor of Obamacare. Gay Repugs hate homosexuality.
[quote]DOMA case means DOMA Section 3 is struck down, and federal rights are recognized.
Federal rights? Isn't that an entirely different matter? We're not protected and it has nothing to do with DOMA.
[quote]unless the Congress has a demographic shift
What kind of shift?
DOMA precludes the federal government from recognizing gay marriage, even if those marriages are performed in states where it's legal. That is a blatant violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause.
If the majority finds that's a sound argument, that's going to be the basis for a broader suit like Loving, which struck down the anti-miscegenation laws under the same reasoning.
The Voice of the Night
[quote]What kind of shift?
Basically, a Democratic majority with a few sane Republicans. There are two Republican co-sponsors of the DOMA-repeal bill, but that can't get anywhere in the current Congress.
The Voice of the Night
Given Kennedy's history on gay rights cases, I don't see him voting in favor of either DOMA or Prop 8. Roberts might even be on our side. At any rate, there won't be a sweeping national recognition of SSM with either of these cases, but like VOTN said, it will set the stage for it down the road.
I don't think a Dem majority in the House is going to happen for a very long time. Those districts have been gerrymandered to within an inch of their lives.
A full repeal of DOMA wouldn't necessarily bring recognition of SSM across all states; in fact, it most likely would not. There will have to be incremental repeals of individual state constitutional amendments (which would take about 100 years) or a sweeping USSC decision (which would take about 20).
[quote]sweeping USSC decision (which would take about 20).
I would estimate it as closer to five. If California gets gay marriage back with a final ruling on Prop 8, and Illinois and Delaware push through their legislation, the percentage of the total population that will be living in states where gay marriage is legal is going to jump up to 30%. That's the kind of disparity that no federal court is going to ignore.
The Voice of the Night
I hope you're right, R37...I'm just not quite that optimistic.
If you'd told me five years ago that we'd have nine states that recognize it now, with three of those states having approved it at the ballot box, I wouldn't have believed you.
Hell, if you'd told me ten years ago we'd have a two-term African-American president, I wouldn't have believed you.
The Voice of the Night
Let me amend that: If you'd told me ten years ago that we'd have a two-term African-American president who won re-election AFTER he spoke out in favor of gay marriage, I'd have asked you what you were smoking.
The Voice of the Night
[quote]Federal rights? Isn't that an entirely different matter? We're not protected and it has nothing to do with DOMA.
Uh, a Supreme Court case about DOMA has nothing to do with DOMA?!
Read the title of the thread again. To get you caught up, there are TWO Supreme Court cases under discussion here. Both will be considered by the court beginning in March. One is Prop 8, the other involves the DOMA cases out of New England.
And to get back to OP's original question... The outcome is anyone's guess, but a likely result seems: A decision overturning DOMA section 3 so couples in marriage states have federal rights, and a very limited decision overturning Prop 8 that affects only CA, leaving to another day the question of whether or not the Constitution broadly protects the freedom of citizens to choose a spouse of the same sex.
R23 needs to read a book, desperately. Know anything about the make up of the current court, pollyanna? And striking down DOMA would not legalize gay marriage equality. You're simple.
As is VOTN. Stop setting people up. We got our first AA president because the public feared Sarah Palin to an extent that was greater than their racism.Once he became the incumbent, he was in a stronger position to win, but don't count out the fear of Mittens either.
Change happens slowly, particularly when it involves an institution like marriage. It will happen someday, but it's not going to be for a while.
Votn is right at r40.
Except that Poz Face Obama isn't an African American.
African American in idiomatic.
If a black person from Nigeria moved here today, his children would be AFRICAN not African American.
African Americans are Americans who have roots in slavery.
And in any case, Obama was reared by a white mother and his biggest influence he said was his WHITE grandmother.
He is a mixed race person in any case.
[quote]needs to read a book, desperately. Know anything about the make up of the current court, pollyanna? And striking down DOMA would not legalize gay marriage equality. You're simple.
Uh, it's you who needs to learn to read, dear.
I know quite a lot about the make-up of the Supreme Court, and I never said striking down DOMA would establish marriage equality. Try reading it again.
As I quite plainly said, it's anyone's guess what will happen at the court, but a decision in favor of state's rights would certainly gain federal recognition for marriages performed in equality states exactly as I wrote. THAT IS A FUCKING FACT. Deal.
Hoping for such an outcome is hardly a Pollyanna-like blindness either btw. It is commonly pointed to as one of the several possible outcomes, and it's actually thought to be a likely one among many expert watchers of the Supreme Court on both sides of the fence.
Here's an article from the WaPo about it btw. Since you're the only one in the country who is certain about the outcome while the rest of us are speculating, perhaps you should take it up with the WaPo and the thousands upon thousands of other experts who have weighed in. Don't just waste your brilliance here, Miss Cleo.
Meanwhile, please learn more about the issue before coming to a message board to dish out that serving of cunt. And then please die.
And let me spell it out for you again as simply as possible because looking at it again, I fear the above post might have exceeded your level of reading comprehension.
What the outcome might be at this point is entirely a matter of speculation.
What ISN'T a matter of speculation is your stupid assertion:
[quote]State's rights. Then we will be in limbo for decades. Blue states will have equality, red will ban it. No federal rights
A decision in favor of state's rights in the DOMA case WINS federal rights for married gay couples.
Learn it, know it. TIA.
Im cautiously optimistic about these cases but you never know since it's a majority conservative supreme court. The only thing i would want would be federal recognition of marriage equality. Im not as concerned if Prop 8 is upheld, i think California gets gay marriage back eventually.
5-4 to overturn i'm guessing.
But if they nullify DOMA sec 3, it opens a whole can a worms that SCOTUS will have to decide fairly quickly.
Are they going to give federal recognition only to those legally performed marriages of residents in equality states? So if I live in NY and get married I will get federal recognition of my marriage, but if three years later I move to a non-equality state the federal government would no longer recognize my marriage? I doubt there would be much support on any side for that type of now you are, now you aren't status.
Or if I live in NC and go to NY to get married the feds won't recognize that? The destination wedding lobby would faint dead away.
It would certainly create some future problems for gay and lesbian couples (and possible future litigation) but our government hasn't shown itself to be enormously concerned with the problems patchwork recognition have created for gay couples.
It seems most likely the court will look narrowly at the question before it and imho a majority of the justices will find that, yes, Section 3 does violate the Constitution and intrudes on state's rights to determine who is married.
What the fallout will be for gays and lesbians in inequality states won't be of much concern to them. And the matter of whether there is a broad right for citizens to marry someone of the same sex the court will likely leave for another day imho.
In such a scenario: A couple that travels from NC to NY to be married and then goes back would, I believe, have their marriage recognized at the federal level, but not at the state... Essentially a sort of XY-axis flip of what exists in equality states now. Those in equality states would have full equality at the state and fed level.
[quote] I doubt there would be much support on any side for that type of now you are, now you aren't status.
This is essentially what we have now. It's unjust but there it is. It could exist, if that's what the SCOTUS decides.
"I believe, have their marriage recognized at the federal level, but not at the state..."
That's fascinating. How do the federal benefits differ from the state benefits?
I think it is very naive to think Roberts will vote for marriage equality. Kennedy is on the bubble, and I would not count on him. Yes, he authored Romer and Lawrence, but those cases were about forbidding gay people from acquiting g basic protections from discrimination and being arrested for sodomy. Gay marriage is about Forcing states and the Feds to view gay marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage. He can easily find a way to say there is no such right.
[quote]And the matter of whether there is a broad right for citizens to marry someone of the same sex the court will likely leave for another day imho.
I agree that SCOTUS won't issue a broad right to marriage this time, but I think nullifying DOMA insures that another day will come sooner than later.
It would be hard to list them all, r53, but federal marriage rights include things like shared and inherited social security benefits, immigration, federal income taxes, estate taxes etc. State recognition covers things like adoption, state taxes, etc.
There are actually more benefits at the federal level (over 1000) than the state (300).
Currently gay couples in equality states have state benefits but not federal. If DOMA section 3 is struck down, it seems likely that couples from inequality states who go to equality states to marry will have federal, but not state rights when they move back to their home states.
I searched but couldn't find a website that listed and broke them down by state vs federal rights.
[quote] Gay marriage is about Forcing states and the Feds to view gay marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage.
In the same way that Loving vs Virginia was about forcing states to view interracial marriage as equal to other marriages.
Free citizens should have the right to choose whom they wish to marry without unwarranted government intrusion imho. This hardly qualifies as "forcing" anything. Right now, the government is forcing ME, saying who I can or cannot choose to marry based on the prejudices of others.
But, yes, how this f'ed up court will rule is anyone's guess.
[quote] Gay marriage is about Forcing states and the Feds to view gay marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage. He can easily find a way to say there is no such right.
Neither of these cases are really about that. It's perfectly possible, and indeed, probable, that we'll get a good outcome under the narrowest confines of the law:
-That California, having its duly appointed highest authority, determine that there exists within the California Constitution a right to marry a person of the same sex, it is a violation of Due Process to take away that right.
-That the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in states where, whether by the action of that state's courts, legislature, or electorate, such a marriage is legally recognized, violates that state's rights to its laws receiving Full Faith and Credit by the federal government.
Neither of those has a jot to do with Equal Protection, which would be the SCOTUS saying there is a right to gay marriage.
The Voice of the Night
R58, you are right if the Court accepts your narrow manner of resolving these controversies. The problem is they might review it under a different, broader analysis.
^^ Even reviewing it under a different, broader analysis they'd still have trouble finding that Prop 8 and DOMA are constitutional imho. They might find no inherent constitutional right to SSM, but STILL the majority would likely have to find that Prop 8 and DOMA are unconstitutional along the lines of r58's reasoning.
His reasoning stands even WITHOUT a broad right to ssm. Therefore, it seems unlikely they'd touch the broad question, if they're forced to strike those particular laws down on narrow grounds anyway. 'Let the issue simmer in the states for a little longer and leave the broader question to another day' is a line of reasoning which both liberals and conservatives on the court would likely agree with, which is why many experts are seeing thing along r58's lines.
Gay people in the military who were freed by the end of DADT are pushing against DOMA. The fact that the U.S. government granted them further equality in protecting this nation is expected to weigh into the decision by the Supremes. That's one of the reasons it was so important to repeal DADT.
Ruling DOMA unconstitutional and as a gift to the teabaggers overruling the decision on the Prop 8 case
R45/46...you're simply a moron. this Supreme Court will not find broadly in favor of gay people. PERIOD. They will decide that the states which have gay marriage equality can continue in that vein, and the states that ban it in their constitutions can continue in that vein as well. You're living in a dream world, and we cannot afford your simple-minded stupidity. Gay marriage equality is going to require a lot of work for years to come. It will not be handed down from on high. Moron.
There's also two other problems here...
Sotomayor is recusing herself from one of these cases, which tilts the outcome.
Ginsburg will find, in some measure, against the anti-gay side. But she will not sign on to a broad granting of rights. She has spoken many times about how she feels that Roe V Wade hurt the pro-choice cause, because it was 'too much, too soon'. She has been clear that she would not have sided with the majority for that reason. She is very cautious as a judge, so don't expect her to suddenly become a freedom fighter.
[quote]Sotomayor is recusing herself from one of these cases, which tilts the outcome.
It's not Sotomayor, it's Kagan, who worked on the DOMA case as Solicitor General.
The Voice of the Night
Kagan hasn't and won't recuse herself, r65. That would have been in the announcement that they were going to hear the cases, which is when recusals are generally announced.
And your analysis of Ginsburg's position is predictive supposition based on extemporaneous speech about an unrelated case, not the definitive "She WILL do this..." you're trying to make it seem.
The truth is no one knows how the justices will rule. We can guess with "I think she'll likely say this" along with your supporting evidence, but phrasing it as a certainty is silly imho, especially when your prediction doesn't actually analyze her actual record, but something said in a speech.
[quote].you're simply a moron. this Supreme Court will not find broadly in favor of gay people.
Christ on a hook, learn to fucking read.
I never said they would broadly rule in favor of ssm rights because, as I've said multiple times now: NO ONE FUCKING KNOWS AT THIS POINT HOW THEY WILL RULE.
It is entirely a matter of speculation at this point to opine on it. You can argue about this outcome or that as more likely but that's still what it is: speculation, Miss Cleo.
But THIS is a plain FACT, dipshit: If the justices rule in favor of states rights in the DOMA cases, then gay marriages will be recognized at the federal level. Fact.
Please read up on this issue before participating in discussions on it. And more importantly, learn to think.
And tone it down on the cuntery unless you want to get it served right back at you 10-fold because in addition to being a cunt, you're stupid. It's a lethal combo.
"Let me amend that: If you'd told me ten years ago that we'd have a two-term African-American president who won re-election AFTER he spoke out in favor of gay marriage, I'd have asked you what you were smoking."
[quote]Christ on a hook
A ruling of 5-4 that it's constitutional.
R69...oh shut up already. Loser.
R70...that's magical thinking. It only happened because of decades of hard work.
Gays will lose, AGAIN.
If we lose, there will be a lot of recriminations against those who chose to push this prematurely despite all the warnings not to.
Mark it down, people:
1) no standing for appellants in Prop 8 case, negating the 9th Circuit opinion and letting Judge Walker's ruling stand. Marriage equality in CA
2) DOMA, section 3, unconstitutional. Federal recognition of same sex marriages performed in those states that conduct them--no matter where you live.
I think R77 is probably correct.
Without section 3 of DOMA, doesn't the full faith and credit clause then take precedence and force recognition of marriages performed in one state by all other states.
Without the federal definition creating a specific definition of marriage and spouse, section 2 should be invalidated.
I don't think section 2 can stand on its own as, without the definition provided by section 3, it would be in direct opposition to the full faith and credit clause.
Marines Tell Spouses Clubs: Admit Same-Sex Spouses
NEW YORK January 10, 2013 (AP)
The Marine Corps has advised its legal staff that spouses clubs operating on its installations must admit same-sex spouses if they wish to remain on the bases.
It's a step that the other service branches have not yet announced as they grapple with how to accommodate same-sex couples following repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy that barred gays and lesbians from serving openly.
Underscoring the challenges, the Marines' legal advisory — obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press — refers to an ongoing controversy at the Army's Fort Bragg in North Carolina where the officers' spouses club has denied admission to a same-sex spouse.
The Marine Corps commandant's Staff Judge Advocate, in an e-mail to legal offices throughout the corps, said the Fort Bragg events had "caused quite a stir" and cautioned, "We do not want a story like this developing in our backyard."
The memo noted that spouses clubs and various other private institutions are allowed to operate on bases only if they adhere to a non-discrimination policy encompassing race, religion, gender, age, disability and national origin.
"We would interpret a spouses club's decision to exclude a same-sex spouse as sexual discrimination because the exclusion was based upon the spouse's sex," the memo said.
A Marine Corps spokesman, Capt. Eric Flanagan, said the Marines cannot directly control the actions of independent organizations such as spouses' clubs, but added, "We expect that all who are interested in supporting Marine Corps Family Readiness would be welcome to participate and will be treated with dignity and respect."
The Defense Department has not issued similar guidance covering all service branches, and for now is taking the stance that the Fort Bragg spouses club is conforming with the existing rules because the non-discrimination clause does not extend to sexual orientation.
Stephen Peters of the American Military Partner Association, which advocates on behalf of partners and spouses of lesbian and gay service members, praised the Marine Corps — which had been the service branch most uneasy about repeal of don't ask, don't tell.
"The Marine Corps putting its best foot forward is great news," he said. "They're being proactive about this."
Peters said his organization would urge the Pentagon to implement a military-wide policy that would open all spouses clubs to same-sex spouses.
"You can't have different standards with the different branches," he said.
Peters' organization has been one of several groups advocating on behalf of Ashley Broadway, the wife of Fort Bragg-based Lt. Col. Heather Mack, after Broadway was denied admittance into the officers' spouses club.
The club has said it would reconsider its membership policies at an upcoming meeting.
I've wondered the same thing, r79.
The suit modestly goes after Section 3, and only Section 3, which is the most blatantly unconstitutional and discriminatory part, but it seems like without Section 3 the whole thing might could have to crumbling down.
Your lips, god's ears. all that.
Section 2 appears to be unconstitutional in its own right, but yes, it would have to fall without being propped up by Section 3.
R81 or R82, do either of you happen to be lawyers?
I'm R79 and would like to know if my view is legally correct to the point of being irrefutable. As in, if they strike down section 3, do the Justices automatically know they need to strike down the whole thing. Or, is there wiggle room on that for them?
If there is wiggle room, how could they, or anyone, constitutionally defend section 2 as having any validity absent section 3's definitions?
For the fuckin' last time NO NO NO
The Full faith and credit clause has NEVER been used to force one state to recognize another's marriage.
Marriage is a LICENSE. This is how it has always been viewed. This is WHY you need a MARRIAGE LICENSE.
Does the full faith and credit clause, require, Wisconsin to recognize a driver's license issued by Hawaii? Or a pharmacist's license issued by Hawaii in Florida?
No, states MAY recognize each other's licenses but they don't have to do so.
In fact divorces went highly unrecognized from state to state and so did many marriages into the 60s.
R84 is a fucking idiot.
i don't think so
The fact that Chief Justice Roberts is a closet-case makes it very difficult to predict what he will do in this matter. He must know that if he upholds DOMA, he will go down in history with the same reputation as the court that gave us the Dred Scott decision. On the other hand, prominent closet-cases are desperate to avoid appearance of empathy toward known homosexuals.
I don't think that his position on the Affordable Care Act signals that he has become liberal. I think it means that he is very hesitant to overturn acts of Congress, even if he thinks those acts are ill-advised. This would make him more likely to uphold DOMA.
It will be very interesting to see what he does.
My dos centavos ...
Section 3 re: Federal Recognition is struck 6 - 3 including Roberts, if you accept one marriage license from a state, you gotta take 'em all. He bails on joining the other five on heightened scrutiny to strike mini-Domas nationwide. Full Faith and Credit won't come into play.
I've never heard of such, r84.
You need a license for a marriage to be performed legally, but once you are married, the marriage is not a license, but a legal STATUS.
States recognize the status of heterosexual married couples performed in other states, and they don't, and imho CAN'T according to the constitution, just arbitrarily pick individuals or groups to not recognize as married. Even in the case of pharmacist's licenses, a state couldn't say "We won't recognize the licenses that Wyoming gives to gingers." You speak as if this is a common occurrence, but the only other example I can think of is interracial marriages (where such treatment was ruled as an obvious violation of the constitution).
PLease begin by naming a specific instance or recent case (other than the gays) where someone's marriage was recognized in one state but not in another, and it was ruled as constitutional treatment. A case where it was ruled that a state had the right to arbitrarily ignore someone's marital status. I'm curious. A specific case or instance, please.
[quote] how could they, or anyone, constitutionally defend section 2 as having any validity absent section 3's definitions?
Well, r83, how could anyone defend Section 3? Yet, here we are. It's been the law of the land 17 years now. Segregated schools and businesses were the law of the land for what, a hundred years? Longer? Even blatantly unconstitutional laws can, and have, stood for a long time unfortunately.
The only cases which I remember where it was questioned as to the legality of marriage from one state to another was in the cases of common-law marriage, and this remains the case to this day. And there were cases where the divorce granted by the home state was not final according to the laws of that state, when one of the spouses went to Nevada and took another spouse. The miscegenation laws in the South, prevented interracial marriage in those states, but did not invalidate marriages from another state. However it subjected the interracial married couple to prosecution for miscegenation if they came back to the South.
r87 is right. there's a good chance roberts will vote against "us" because he fears finally being outed.
BTW, as a Libertarian, I would like for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether. If people believe in marriage, then it is up to that person's church to perform marriage, and to say who is married or not married according to that particular religious organization. The Roman Catholics would be married by the Roman Catholic Church according to their beliefs, and the members of the Metropolitan Community Churches would be married by that denomination according to their beliefs. Every person should be equal in the eyes of the government without regard to marriage or any other religious matter. If any two or more people wish to enter into a contract of domestic partnership, then that should be like any other legal contract.
I'm having a hard time believing that a state court could STILL say "We don't recognize your marriage/divorce because you're a Muslim," or "because it happened in Colorado" and that it would be viewed as Constitutional. If marital status has occasionally escaped being protected under full faith and credit, it seems more a weird accident of history allowing for a bit of wiggle room in individual cases when policies differ, not a tested policy of the Const allowing for broad discrimination against disfavored groups.
We'll see, I guess.
But as for likely predictions: I think DOMA section 3 will be struck down (5-4 or 6-3) and that we'll see a limited decision striking down Prop 8 (5-4 or 6-3).
I still wonder if striking down DOMA section 3 could potentially have some sort of domino effect which invalidates other sections, even if that doesn't derive directly from full faith and credit.
It's not the gays you'd have to convince, r92.
Try convincing a roomful of fundamentalists that their marriages will now be called "domestic partnerships" by the government and that this is being done to accommodate the gays. Good luck.
Gay marriage will actually start to look like the easier sell imho.
It's a fair set-up, but a total pipedream.
[quote]The miscegenation laws in the South, prevented interracial marriage in those states, but did not invalidate marriages from another state
You damned well better believe they did.
Mildred and Richard Loving were sentenced to a year in jail because their fully valid Washington, DC marriage license was illegal in the Commonwealth of Virginia. They were given a suspended sentence ONLY if they left the state.
The Voice of the Night
You seem to lack reading comprehension skill, R95. I wrote that the interractial couple would be prosecuted for miscegenation if they came back to the South. This was more heinous than simply not recognizing their marriages.
If you can make it happen, r97, more power to you.
Meanwhile, in my estimation, the fight for equal marriage rights is more viable.
" if you accept one marriage license from a state, you gotta take 'em all."
This site is FULL of morons.
Darling, many state constitutions BAN gay marriage outright. Those states will not recognize the gay marriages from other states because gay marriage is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in those states that ban it. Stop using magical thinking and arguing points that you're pulling out of your ass. Even if DOMA were overturned, that will not prohibit states from BANNING gay marriage equality if it is written in their constitutions. Therefore, those states will absolutely be free not to recognize gay marriages.
R99, you do realize that federal law takes precedence over state law, right? Without section 3, DOMA is meaningless.
Overturning DOMA would not address the issue of the various state constitutional amendments that ban SSM.
The Supremes can do whatever the hell they want -- if Kennedy and Roberts want to decree SSM a legal right (to end any further discussion), they can manage it.
Would someone start a new thread for this?
Gay military spouses continue to face hurdles
Even after the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell,' same-sex marriages are still not federally recognized, restricting families' access to services and benefits.