bbauska

I never liked DOMA, but said since Clinton signed it; it was law, and should be revoked legislatively. It was cowardice to not do anything about it, and let the Supreme Court deal with

There have been other laws ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. Is that their role or not?
When Loving v Virginia deemed laws against inter-racial marraige unconstitutional was the SCOTUS out of line there? Should those laws have been allowed to stand?

http://www.amsa.org/AMSA/Homepage/About/Committees/GenderandSexuality/StatebyStateLGBTLegislation.aspx#WA

This is a fine usage of state law. COMPLETE rights afforded those who are married, but called something different.

To answer RickyP's statement, the SC can rule, I am not saying they shouldn't have. It could have been solved much earlier by putting forth a bill to rescind DOMA. Maybe it doesn't pass, fine. Let the USSC deal with it then. What do you think of Congress passing a law to revoke an earlier law. Are YOU are against that, or should they have to wait for the Supreme Court.

That is why I think the Congress was showing cowardice. They did nothing but show legislative laziness.

bbauska

What do you think of Congress passing a law to revoke an earlier law. Are YOU are against that, or should they have to wait for the Supreme Court.

Of course not. And I'm sure the Senate had the votes to pass such a law. Just not the House.
Maybe the Senate could have passed their law 37 times though just to make a point?

Gays and Lesbians have been waiting a long time to secure equal protections under the law for their unions. Why should they continue to have to wait?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/27/democrats_and_gay_marriage_no_profiles_in_courage_118998.html

EXACTLY!!!

bbauska wrote:Washington State had the opportunity to have a full rights of marriage, but calling it "civil partnerships. RickyP AND Danivon both said that was not good enough, as the separate terms could be interpreted as not being equal even though the rights were the same.

Washington State did not actually have that opportunity, because federal-level marriage rights would not have applied to civil partnerships, rendering them unequal.

That was my main point, and why DOMA was not simply about wording. The reason that an equal-in-law marriage could not happen was that the 1,000+ federal provisions on marriage did not apply to civil unions etc. Sure, an act could be passed to equate them in law, but DOMA was squatting in the way.

Ricky may have emphasised the point you ascribe to us far more than I did. I do agree that the difference in language can be, and is, seen by homosexuals as a signifier of difference and of inferiority. It does come across as a bit 'separate-but-equal', even if partnerships were also in reality unequal anyway.

What is the main difference? A marriage made in one state is recognised federally and by all other states. A civil union/domestic partnership/gay marriage does not have to be recognised by the federal government or other states. As people are not restricted to live in a single state, but have full freedom to move around, this was (and as far as I can tell still is) a material difference between the two.

I never liked DOMA, but said since Clinton signed it; it was law, and should be revoked legislatively. It was cowardice to not do anything about it, and let the Supreme Court deal with it.

Clinton did sign it into law, but it had also received enough Congressional votes to override a veto so had he refused it would likely have been forced through on the Hill. Also, the Supreme Court has a long history of nullifying laws. I agree that Congress have been cowards, first to put it through, and since to never revoke it, but they do seem scared of the religious / 'moral' lobby...

At least the Marriage Protection Act was never passed, which would potentially have cut off the appeal that led to the USSC decision (although the MPA was dodgy constitutionally itself).

rickyp wrote:the latest polls show support for gay marriage at 55% in the US....
As people get used to having legally wed gay couples in their midst, it will climb to two thirds rapidly. In a few years, the last resistance to acceptance in the whole country will crumble. Scalia's dissent will endure as a hall mark of the last vestiges of ill reasoned dissent. Not some judicial pearls .
(Notwithstanding the criticism of Scalia, I'd agree that the idea that the majority opinion wasn't brilliant clarity .... is true.)

The best argument for Courts NOT intervening is . . . the increase in popularity. If what you are saying is true, the laws will change.

However, consider this: California's elected governor and attorney general declined to represent the State in the Prop 8 lawsuit. No one else has standing. Effectively, the vote of the people was nullified by two individuals. If the polls are as you suggest, why not defend the law and allow the people to vote on a different initiative?

Answer: because the governor and AG don't like the law.

Think of the implications of that. Any law they don't like . . . they just won't defend.

Does that sound democratic?

Doctor Fate wrote:The best argument for Courts NOT intervening is . . . the increase in popularity. If what you are saying is true, the laws will change.

If the Supreme Court views the law as Unconstitutional, why should it wait for democracy and the legislature to catch up? It's Unconstitutional, and part of the USSC's job is to uphold the Constitution in the face of a legislature and/or executive that breach it. In what way are they doing their job if they decide not to bother because the law might get reversed at a later date by a more enlightened Congress?

It's interesting. The conservatives on here are adamant that moves to federally ban hadguns would be unconsitutional. Presumably if laws to that effect were passed, they would be supportive of legislative repeal, but if that doesn't look immediate, there would likely be cases to test at the Supreme Court. Just as happened for earlier gun control measures. So perhaps our resident right wingers would support those court actions?

Or would they just shrug, as bbauska says he did over DOMA (easy to accept a law that doesn't affect you, I guess), and argue it should be enforced until such time as Congress sees fit to undo such a ban

Scalia's position really is quite laughable considering that the same week he's just ruled part of the VRA should no longer apply.

I have said that the USSC should take on the case. You know that. I would call the congress cowards for not dealing with the legislation banning handguns, also; if a law like that was enacted. I expect politicians to stand up and say what they believe in, and try to solve problems in our society, and let the votes decide the issue. It appears you are supporting the lack of inactivity the congress has exhibited by cowardice with your commentary when it comes to the gay rights issue.

Can you explain WHY the current congress, and previous congressional sessions NEVER brought forth any legislation if this is such an important issue that involves civil rights? If Clinton was SO OPPOSED to DOMA, why did he not stand on principle and make the congress override his veto?

That is why I call them cowards. Convince me otherwise, please.

I agreed they were cowards in an earlier reply to you. Do make an effort...

Of course Clinton had been bitten over gays in the military earlier (leading to DADT), and he could do math. Why fight a battle you are sure to lose?

fate

The best argument for Courts NOT intervening is . . . the increase in popularity. If what you are saying is true, the laws will change

Laws banning interracial marriage were popular when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving v Virginia.
By your logic the people affected by that unconstituional law should have just endured a few more decades and eventually people would get around to changing the law.

By your logic people should abandon their constitutional rights, and suffer quietly just to get along....
So much for your love of the constitution.

We went over this before and few have any good reply to this. Liberals want to call this a case of constitutional rights, they claim we are not allowing gay people the same rights as straight people...I get that (and why I am for equal rights in other ways)
But.....
Follow your logic, wouldn't it also be true that we are not allowing multiple partner marriages to those who want it? Because they are polyamorous they can be denied the rights others get? What about not allowing incestual marriages? These groups are not hurting anyone, are in love and want the same rights, do you want to deny them these rights? If your answer has anything to do with the definition of marriage, then you would have to allow both cases. The definition of what marriage is most certainly plays a part in this "discrimination" now doesn't it?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:The best argument for Courts NOT intervening is . . . the increase in popularity. If what you are saying is true, the laws will change.

If the Supreme Court views the law as Unconstitutional, why should it wait for democracy and the legislature to catch up? It's Unconstitutional, and part of the USSC's job is to uphold the Constitution in the face of a legislature and/or executive that breach it. In what way are they doing their job if they decide not to bother because the law might get reversed at a later date by a more enlightened Congress?

Sorry, I was responding to the more general issue of legalizing, or declaring declaring gay marriage as legal. That's not what striking down DOMA did. I never thought DOMA was Constitutional. I firmly hold the Constitution means what it says and the Federal government has no Constitutional ability to legislate restrictions or regulations on marriage. That is for the States.

It's interesting. The conservatives on here are adamant that moves to federally ban hadguns would be unconsitutional. Presumably if laws to that effect were passed, they would be supportive of legislative repeal, but if that doesn't look immediate, there would likely be cases to test at the Supreme Court. Just as happened for earlier gun control measures. So perhaps our resident right wingers would support those court actions?

Or would they just shrug, as bbauska says he did over DOMA (easy to accept a law that doesn't affect you, I guess), and argue it should be enforced until such time as Congress sees fit to undo such a ban

A handgun ban would be unconstitutional. Even a law that effectively banned handguns was overturned.

Scalia's position really is quite laughable considering that the same week he's just ruled part of the VRA should no longer apply.

No, the idea that you can refute Scalia in a sentence is laughable.

The portion of the VRA that was overturned was a perpetual punishment for bad actions occurring many decades ago. Congress ought to be more concerned with any actual discrimination and not long past practices. I heard a stat the other day: during the 2012 election, a higher percentage of blacks voted in Mississippi voted than did whites (in fact, that may be true nationally. http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/2013/04/ ... -election/ ). So, why should the State still be treated as if it's trying to suppress the black vote?

To justify discrimination, we're told concerning gay marriage, the State must be able to demonstrate a compelling reason. Well, the VRA discriminates against certain States, but there is no "compelling reason." Therefore, what the USSC did there was reasonable, cogent, and Constitutional.

danivon wrote:I agreed they were cowards in an earlier reply to you. Do make an effort...

Of course Clinton had been bitten over gays in the military earlier (leading to DADT), and he could do math. Why fight a battle you are sure to lose?

I am making an effort. An effort to agree with you that they are cowards. I did not say you supported congress or anything of the like. Try not to be snide, please.

For policy that you disagree with , and do nothing to change it?... Yes I call that cowardice. You say it is a battle that you are going to lose. Go down fighting. Stand for what you believe in. Both sides should do this. They supposedly are vertebrates. I expect them to stand up for their beliefs. Not hide behind an excuse that you gave, Danivon.

rickyp wrote:fate

The best argument for Courts NOT intervening is . . . the increase in popularity. If what you are saying is true, the laws will change

Laws banning interracial marriage were popular when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving v Virginia.
By your logic the people affected by that unconstituional law should have just endured a few more decades and eventually people would get around to changing the law.

By your logic people should abandon their constitutional rights, and suffer quietly just to get along....
So much for your love of the constitution.

Wrong. Dumb.

Par for the course for you, of course.

If you want to go back in time and show that interracial marriage was approved by a majority of people in all but a few States, you'll have a good argument--IF you can also show that the USSC just declared marriage to whomever one pleases to marry a Constitutional right, which they did not.

Wise up.

fate

--IF you can also show that the USSC just declared marriage to whomever one pleases to marry a Constitutional right, which they did not.

That is entirely true. What they have done is eliminate a law which created two unequal forms of marriage. Legal Gay marriages not having the same federal rights. Therefore unconstitutional.

But it has also opened the door wide open for the use of the same arguement in states where same sex marriage is not allowed. If Unequal treatment under federal law for gays and lesbians is unconstitutional. It isn't a distant step to applying this test to state laws about marriage.
And thats the next legal step for the proponents of gay marriage.

Fate

If you want to go back in time and show that interracial marriage was approved by a majority of people in all but a few States, you'll have a good argument--

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/recor ... iages.aspx
The poll shows the approval for marriage between Blacks and Whites at 4% in 1958.

Now, please advise why you think gays and lesbians should subvert their own constitutional rights in order to appease the majority? The couple in Loving V Virginia faced even more daunting opposition than gays today. (Don't you remember the movie "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner") and yet they took their case to SCOTUS...

tom

The definition of what marriage is most certainly plays a part in this "discrimination" now doesn't it?

Yes. And that definition starts with, between 2 consenting people of a certain age.
And the constittuion allows that there can be discrimination if there is a justifiable reason for that discrimination. Laws restricting marriage between close relations are justified by what we know of genetics... Laws against other marriage arrangements tend to deal with the reality of the marriages. Polygamous arrangements have often contained a deal of coercion..
The question is aways, can the discrimination be justified?