Supreme Court to issue rulings on DOMA, Prop 8

[Chloe]

Wednesday morning at 10am Eastern may be the most important day in gay civil rights history, perhaps on a par with the Stonewall Riots of 1969.

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court may rule on the constitutionality of both the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA prohibits the federal government from providing benefits to legally married gay couples, among  other things) and California's Proposition 8 (which repealed the state's gay marriage law).

theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/supreme-court-rule-doma-prop-8/66573/

CSpan will be covering this LIVE

"" Governments have notoriously written laws that segregated people whether by race, gender or sexual orientation. This practice was common from the time of slavery until the policy was replaced with affirmative action and forced association in private affairs, thus substituting one set of violations of individual rights with another. Voluntary associations are better "".

source: quotes from "Liberty Defined" ( the implications for TS relationship should be obvious )

[Lorri Kat]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/supreme-court-strikes-down-doma-140330141.html

WOOT!!!!

[Chloe]

Yea!! It's OFFICIAL !! Traditional notions of marriage is DEAD, federal DOMA has been struck down as unconstitutional !!! California will legalize same-sex marriage which means it will be a lot easier for everybody!!

In my opinion divorce law and it's abuses, VAWA and feminism have already effectively destroyed 'one-man' 'one-woman' conventional marriage so a new, more healthy 're-definition' is long overdue and Welcome!!

If same-sex marriage increases foster and child adoption perhaps, just maybe, we can cut down on all the issues associated with 'one-man one-woman' abortion as well.

[Beth Andrea]

This is very good news!

[ZoeM]

And state-based legalization - or illegalization - of same-sex marriage remains. At least until the next Court decides it's a federal right and that states' decisions on this only matter if they're the right decisions...


I am curious what kind of precedent this sets - if any state may make things - any sort of things? - a right, and the Federal Gov't has no right to overturn that state-based legalization... Well, it opens the door to some interesting ideas. Could a state establish a communist economy? A right to medical care? A right to keep all money earned without paying taxes?

[Anna++]

Hooray! 

[Ltl89]

And state-based legalization - or illegalization - of same-sex marriage remains. At least until the next Court decides it's a federal right and that states' decisions on this only matter if they're the right decisions...


I am curious what kind of precedent this sets - if any state may make things - any sort of things? - a right, and the Federal Gov't has no right to overturn that state-based legalization... Well, it opens the door to some interesting ideas. Could a state establish a communist economy? A right to medical care? A right to keep all money earned without paying taxes?

If a state passes unconstitutional legislation, yes the Supreme Court has the right to overturn it.  Remember Popular Sovereignty?  States would have their citizens choose the direction of their path by voting whether to be a slave state or not.  Just because it's voted on by the public doesn't make it right.  A communist economy would not be upheld because it takes away the rights of their citizens and could be easily argued.  Doma and prop 8 did the opposite.  Allowing gay people to get married will not destroy your world.  Relax.  Continue your moral obligation against this, it's your right, but don't make others follow the same standard.  We are a nation of laws, not religious dictates and personal morality.

[Anna++]

Allowing gay people to get married will not destroy your world.  Relax.  Continue your moral obligation against this, it's your right, but don't make others follow the same standard.  We are a nation of laws, not religious dictates and personal morality.

I'm going to agree with learningtolive.  It's not like gay marriages are now mandatory

[JennX]

Tis a good day. Yay! 

[Joanna Dark]

The times they are a'changing! Hooray Hooray Hooray. First the repeal of DADT now this! And yesterday the Pentagon said gays openly serving helps national security. I was in the army, though not for very long for medical reasons, and I love this country and it's great to know the brass supports this. Tangent sorry.

YAY!!!!

[Amy The Bookworm]

I'm torn between if I want to jump up and down and cheer like a maniac out of how happy I am about today's decisions . . . or if I want to scream in frustration that they don't do enough. It's a turning point, but I'm well aware there's still work to do.

I hope this means that this turning point brings about the end of discrimination in all states who don't allow marriage equality.

I hope this means soon it will be illegal for people to discriminate when highering and firing people based on sexuality and gender expression.

I hope this means housing equality will soon be adressed.

I hope soon that society changes so that it becomes taboo for people to judge others for being themselves or snicker at people for who they love.

The work isn't done, and there's still so much to do.

But at the same time . . . this is really good news!

[Lorri Kat]

I'm torn between if I want to jump up and down and cheer like a maniac out of how happy I am about today's decisions . . . or if I want to scream in frustration that they don't do enough. It's a turning point, but I'm well aware there's still work to do.

I hope this means that this turning point brings about the end of discrimination in all states who don't allow marriage equality.

I hope this means soon it will be illegal for people to discriminate when highering and firing people based on sexuality and gender expression.

I hope this means housing equality will soon be adressed.

I hope soon that society changes so that it becomes taboo for people to judge others for being themselves or snicker at people for who they love.

The work isn't done, and there's still so much to do.

But at the same time . . . this is really good news!

The Door has been cracked open now though and this will help push it farther open on the state level. 

We live in a Democratic REPUBLIC  .. NOT  a democracy.   simply what that means for some who think that majority rule thru voting is how it should work are misstaken.   In a Democratic Republic the rights of EACH individual are protected so that  no one group of people can take away from a smaller group.   99% of the people can wont or believe something but in this Rebublic they cannot take away the rights of that 1%.    Today is not the end of the war, it is a few battles won. 

[DriftingCrow]

Yay! I almost hit a tree when I heard the news on the radio 

[Lorri Kat]

Yay! I almost hit a tree when I heard the news on the radio 

LOL  I was screaming and jumping around so much my Mom thought my kid brought a snake into the house!! ...  they totally FrEaK me OUT!!!

[Shawn Sunshine]

This is a good day for equality.

[Jamie D]

And state-based legalization - or illegalization - of same-sex marriage remains. At least until the next Court decides it's a federal right and that states' decisions on this only matter if they're the right decisions...


I am curious what kind of precedent this sets - if any state may make things - any sort of things? - a right, and the Federal Gov't has no right to overturn that state-based legalization... Well, it opens the door to some interesting ideas. Could a state establish a communist economy? A right to medical care? A right to keep all money earned without paying taxes?

That is the essence of federalism.  The federal government deals with issues in it limited responsibility; whereas the states, and the people have control (in theory) of everything else.

Communist economy - yes.  Medical care - yes.  No state taxes - yes.

The Supremacy Clause means the Federal laws trump State laws when there is a conflict.  The Framers of the Constitution envisioned the States as being semi-autonomous and laboratories for experimentation.

[DriftingCrow]

And state-based legalization - or illegalization - of same-sex marriage remains. At least until the next Court decides it's a federal right and that states' decisions on this only matter if they're the right decisions...


I am curious what kind of precedent this sets - if any state may make things - any sort of things? - a right, and the Federal Gov't has no right to overturn that state-based legalization... Well, it opens the door to some interesting ideas. Could a state establish a communist economy? A right to medical care? A right to keep all money earned without paying taxes?

That is the essence of federalism.  The federal government deals with issues in it limited responsibility; whereas the states, and the people have control (in theory) of everything else.

Communist economy - yes.  Medical care - yes.  No state taxes - yes.

The Supremacy Clause means the Federal laws trump State laws when there is a conflict.  The Framers of the Constitution envisioned the States as being semi-autonomous and laboratories for experimentation.

I agree with Jamie above. The prop 8 case didn't quite enshrine state-based discrimination, it just said there was no standing for some of the parties in that particular case. Usually, states follow (eventually) laws/standards set by the US Supreme Court. That's how it all really began with desegregation, then things started applying to the states via the 14th Amendment. I think it'll only be a matter of time before all US states have same-sex marriage, whether they come around on their own or there's another case that makes it apply to the states as well. Part of the way the US Supreme Court works is that there's only so much they can push in the way of progress without loosing the trust of the people (that's what seems to have been there theory since they were created at least), if the country doesn't seem ready for something, they'll often find a way to hold back or create some sort of compromise, they'll often be a well-written and passionate dissenting opinion which will often become the basis for the opinion when the majority opinion is eventually overruled.

I haven't read the opinions yet, but I plan to. (Remember our predictions Jamie? I need to see how close we came  )

[Jamie D]

Find the topic!

[DriftingCrow]

Find the topic!

Here it is: https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,138070.msg1113112.html#msg1113112

I plan on reading the decisions tonight when I get back from work, but so far Jamie was right about the standing issues, I was wrong about them not wiggling out of the prop 8 case. 

[Jamie D]

The issues surrounding the initiative process remain.  It was a progressive reform designed to let the people propose and enact laws through the ballot, bypassing intransigent legislators and state bureaucrats.  However, if someone challenges the validity of the Proposition in Court, and the State officials who were bypassed in the process refuse to defend it, who then represents the People?