|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Defense of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional

Default Defense of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional

June 26th, 2013, 19:58
A historic day for civil rights advocates.

This 5-4 decision (which surprisingly is supported by Chief Justice Scalia) overturns the DOMA and tells the Mormon morons they have no good argument that gay marriage somehow damages them (duh!). So lower court's ruling that overturns California Proposition 8 (a ban on gay marriage) is upheld.
Last edited by Thrasher; June 26th, 2013 at 20:08.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#1

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,972

Default 

June 26th, 2013, 20:49
This is a very complicated issue. I am all for equal rights but:
  • You are using the highest court in the land to dictate POLICY. This was never the intention of the Supreme Court.
  • You have a Puritan population electing Puritan officials. Progressive policies are enacted at a snail's pace in Congress not simply due to ineptitude and lobbyists, but based upon actual voters' feelings - ignorant or not.

What the country truly needs is a tax code slashed in half - one not reliant on marital status whatsoever. This would then negate the need for a court to police a country's sentiment towards marriage.
Drithius is offline

Drithius

Drithius's Avatar
Misbegotten Alien

#2

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,427

Default 

June 26th, 2013, 20:56
Enforcing the equal protection under the law clause of the constitution is absolutely not setting "policy"; the role of the SCOTUS is to rule on whether the constitution voids any shitty policy proposed by Congress, which includes DOMA.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#3

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,972

Default 

June 26th, 2013, 21:06
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
Enforcing the equal protection under the law clause of the constitution is absolutely not setting "policy"; the role of the SCOTUS is to rule on whether the constitution voids any shitty policy proposed by Congress, which includes DOMA.
Your unabiding love for the Constitution is noted. Appears you're a fickle lover, though.

For my part, more power to 'em. Equal misery for all.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#4

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,281

Default 

June 26th, 2013, 21:16
No, not really love for constitution, just want to be clear on SCOTUS's responsibility and how the constitution applied in this case. There's still a lot of bogus out of date crap in the constitution. However, the "equal protection under the law" clause is not crap, and is gold in my mind.

Yeah, divorce court for all!
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#5

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,972

Default 

June 26th, 2013, 21:51
I'm really not sure what exactly is this about?

Human rights vs law or something like that?

Toka Koka
joxer is online now

joxer

joxer's Avatar
The Smoker
RPGWatch Donor

#6

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,059

Default 

June 26th, 2013, 22:01
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_8

Gee, that was tough. Try google sometime.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#7

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,972

Default 

June 26th, 2013, 22:46
So it's about marriage, not about rights of Mormons to live as they want?

Toka Koka
joxer is online now

joxer

joxer's Avatar
The Smoker
RPGWatch Donor

#8

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,059

Default 

June 26th, 2013, 22:49
Yep. Mormons tried to tell other people how to live. Standard crap.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#9

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,972

Default 

June 26th, 2013, 23:59
Ah, so some minority wants everyone else to live by their standards, instead of respecting others?
IMO, such minority should be banned from this planet. Is a timemachine invented? If yes, send them to the stone age - try to make the arriving location some matriarchy village. Or better yet, send them to old Turkey in a harem. Perhaps they'd learn a thing or two.

Toka Koka
joxer is online now

joxer

joxer's Avatar
The Smoker
RPGWatch Donor

#10

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,059

Default 

June 27th, 2013, 00:42
While I am in no way a supporter of Mormonism, this site does not permit racist and other such comments. Please do not attack minority groups with vitriol; it is unwarranted and not appreciated. Some of our posters may even be Mormons.

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#11

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,405
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

June 27th, 2013, 00:43
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_8

Gee, that was tough. Try duckduckgo sometime.
Fixed. Ah, much better.

A man should never be ashamed to own he has been wrong, which is but saying that he is wiser today than he was yesterday - Alexander Pope
Omega is offline

Omega

Omega's Avatar
Low Profile

#12

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 515

Default 

June 27th, 2013, 01:35
Oh, nice! I need to look into Firefox automatically using it.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#13

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,972

Default 

June 27th, 2013, 01:39
!?!? Prop 8 is not a Mormon law. They were big backers for sure but if they were the only backers that law would never have been passed.

Originally Posted by Drithius View Post
You are using the highest court in the land to dictate POLICY. This was never the intention of the Supreme Court.
Huh? All they did was strike down a portion of a law that they see as unconstitutional. That's what they do.
You have a Puritan population electing Puritan officials. Progressive policies are enacted at a snail's pace in Congress not simply due to ineptitude and lobbyists, but based upon actual voters' feelings - ignorant or not.
To override the constitution of California (or any other state) you need a constitutional amendment, not a simple law passed by the majority at the time. That's why so many states went to the trouble to ban gay marriage in their own constitutions.

What the country truly needs is a tax code slashed in half - one not reliant on marital status whatsoever. This would then negate the need for a court to police a country's sentiment towards marriage.
Eh, sorta. Co-habitation is a pretty strong economic advantage as the couple gets to share so many things. Still, married people may not be living together and unmarried people may be living together so it's not as good an indicator as it was back in the 1950's.


So next on the list would be DOMA's law saying states don't have to recognize another state's marriage license when the couple is of the same gender. Given today's ruling, that doesn't sound too hard to crush. Then, after a mad flurry of out-of-state weddings, this game will be pretty much over.
Zloth is offline

Zloth

Zloth's Avatar
I smell a… wumpus!?

#14

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 2,703

Default 

June 27th, 2013, 01:49
Oh I didn't mean to imply that Prop 8 is Mormon law, just they were the most determined backer. A lot of money came from out of state to get Prop 8 on the ballot and propagandized in commercials and finally defended in court (the state refused to defend it eventually). A big part (almost half) of the funding was pushed by the Mormon church. Nice separation of church and state there, eh? They were not only laughed out of court, but should have their tax exempt status removed.

In 2010, the California Fair Political Practices Commission fined the LDS church for failing to follow campaign disclosure policies during the last two weeks leading up to the election, which amounted to $37,000 in non-monetary contributions. They were fined $5,538
.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#15

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,972

Default 

June 27th, 2013, 01:57
Originally Posted by Thrasher View Post
Oh, nice! I need to look into Firefox automatically using it.
The disadvantage of Duckduckgo is it can't find images. StartPage can, I have no experience with the latter though, just learned about it after having found Prism-Break this evening. Prism-break provides a list of free alternatives to proprietary software if you want to opt out of Prism

A man should never be ashamed to own he has been wrong, which is but saying that he is wiser today than he was yesterday - Alexander Pope
Omega is offline

Omega

Omega's Avatar
Low Profile

#16

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 515

Default 

June 27th, 2013, 04:00
What was interesting to me was that the ruling wasn't really based on equal protection (they specifically did not list homosexuals as a protected class), but rather that they fell back on a Federalism argument, which given the current makeup of the court and our elected officials, is surprising. I think if it had only been argued on the basis of Equal Protection, the ruling would have gone the other way.

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is offline

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#17

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,055

Default 

June 27th, 2013, 04:49
No, not exclusively unless this wiki is wrong.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor
Section 3 of DOMA was ruled unconstitutional "as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" on June 26, 2013.
Here is the ruling and quote from it:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions…2-307_g2bh.pdf
By seeking to injure the very class New York seeks to protect,DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.
Federalism is in the mix, but this statement says that due process in the Federal constitution has precedence over Federalism.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#18

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,972

Default 

June 27th, 2013, 13:16
Hmm, well what I first read (right after the ruling) was different than what you've posted, so maybe I was incorrect.

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is offline

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#19

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,055

Default 

June 27th, 2013, 17:44
There is a lot of bad info posing as journalism. Another detail is that there are separate rulings/opinions on prop 8 vs doma. Different votes, rationale, briefs, etc. I think that's where we are crossing wires.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#20

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 9,972
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Defense of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 21:02.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch