"
Posted on 06/26/2013 7:12:46 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty
Edited on 06/26/2013 7:25:51 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
In 100% agreement.
From Scalia's wonderful dissent:
[Antonin Scalia's dissent] ". . . . But the majority says that the supporters of this Act acted with malice—with the “purpose” (ante, at 25) “to disparage and to injure” same-sex couples. It says that the motivation for DOMA was to “demean,” ibid.; to “impose inequality,” ante, at 22; to “impose . . . a stigma,” ante, at 21; to deny people “equal dignity,” ibid.; to brand gay people as “unworthy,” ante, at 23; and to “humiliat[e]” their children, ibid. (emphasis added).
"I am sure these accusations are quite untrue. To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act. But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” ”injure,” “degrade,” ”demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.
***
"The penultimate sentence of the majority’s opinion is a naked declaration that “[t]his opinion and its holding are confined” to those couples “joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State.” Ante, at 26, 25. I have heard such “bald, unreasoned disclaimer[s]” before. Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 604. When the Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we were assured that the case had nothing, nothing at all to do with “whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Id., at 578. Now we are told that DOMA is invalid because it “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects,” ante, at 23—with an accompanying citation of Lawrence. It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with. . . .
"By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition. Henceforth those challengers will lead with this Court’s declaration that there is “no legitimate purpose” served by such a law, and will claim that the traditional definition has “the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure” the “personhood and dignity” of same-sex couples, see ante, at 25, 26. The majority’s limiting assurance will be meaningless in the face of lan- guage like that, as the majority well knows. That is why the language is there. The result will be a judicial distortion of our society’s debate over marriage—a debate that can seem in need of our clumsy “help” only to a member of this institution.
"In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.
"But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent."
"
Lies like yours are why we lose.
It’d be worth a shot.
in other words the law they voted for was doomed by the people they voted into office"
Correct, that's the "gist" of the prop 8 issue.
Not a bad idea. Let your money do the talking.
That is, until they mandate you purchase something from said states, vis a vis BarryCare.
BTTT :)
Only now, there will be that many more requiring....more fed agents. .gov grows.
I’m up for it!
Marvelous."
That's not what I'm saying, it's what the feds have said and will likely continue to say.
If a state issues a marriage license, the feds will continue to do what they currently do. Doesn't mean that I agree with all the licences that they issue (or that they issue them to begin with). They simply will continue to do what they currently do.
I can't see how this current ruling would change how the feds act with regards to spousal visas...which was your question.
Don’t really see any difference between what you said and what I said, but, whatever.
God help us.
Your basic contention is flawed. Marriage has often been based solely on economic realities, e.g. inheritance, acquisition or exchange of property, social mobility, etc. That has certainly been the case until relatively recently in western societies and in many places it is still the case. My original point however, is that there may be no reason to assume that homosexual couples would be more likely than heterosexual couples to wed only in order to obtain benefits.
The problem is that you’re argument that ‘marriage isn’t a federal issue’ is wrong. Marriage is a federal issue. Reynolds vs the United States makes it clear that the federal government has an obligation to preserve the definition of marriage as one man and one woman.
It’s a part of the common law, no different from, say, Habeaus Corpus.
“I can’t see how this current ruling would change how the feds act with regards to spousal visas...which was your question.”
The feds decide which marraiges count wrt spousal visas. This ruling changes things. Now, it will permit gay couples to bring in their lovers from abroad. Isn’t that just wonderful!
And, because it grants them a visa applicable anywhere in the US - they can choose to live in a state that does not permit gay marriage and try to overturn the laws there.
So what was that about marriage not being a federal issue. Reynolds makes it really clear. The US as a jurisdiction has to have one definition of marriage, not two, and having 2 definitions of marriage is deletorious to social harmony.
But, you’re a liberaltarian. You don’t care about social harmony. You don’t care about tradition. You care a lot about sex though. And laws barring sex = bad.
I hear ya and agree.
Well, so far your side ain’t winnin’ squat.
I hope you took me off the ping list.
So this ruling only applies to California?
“This would also affect their TAX STATUS as well........................”
Finally, a silver lining.
the right thing to do is often unpopular
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.