FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 03/27/2013 10:31:59 AM PDT by C19fan
If the Supreme Court can find its way through a dense procedural thicket, and confront the constitutionality of the federal law that defined marriage as limited to a man and a woman, that law may be gone, after a seventeen-year existence. That was the overriding impression after just under two hours of argument Wednesday on the fate of the Defense of Marriage Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Nothing left but dust. Wait ... no dust, either!
Just a bit overcooked by the Kitties, but a righteous ZOT!
Shouldn't it simply allow the original ruling by the California SC to stand? If it is a state issue then that ruling by the state's highest court should decide it for that particular state. McConnell is having it both ways still, that is homosexuals get everything they want - overturning the voters vote for Prop. 8 and undoing DOMA.
what about single people?
what about the current marriage penalty tax?
this ussc does not “blue line” legislation.
if times are really a-changing, then it is the legislator to change the social policy for the behavior.
it was apparent from the oral arguments, the judges were “duped” into the immutable trait assumption.
I agree with you except that I would think the people changing the state constitution would trump the CA Supreme Court. The decision on what the people can do within a state would then be decided at the next higher level, which would be a federal district court, to ensure that the people of California did not in some way violate the Federal Constitution (and I don’t think they did).
However, I believe that the US Supreme Court will try to thread this needle along the lines of what McConnell wrote. Something narrow, not broad.
I always miss the ZOT.
Oh well, that was an evening zot. I hardly post in the evening. After sitting in this cube box all day the last thing I wanna see is a computer screen, or a telephone... or a computer screen on a telephone.
I was watching Duck Dynasty when this fool got zapped.
But that state authority doesn't necessarily place any burden on the federal government UNLESS the federal government is willing to allow those states to include federal benefits among the same-sex marriage.
This is exactly why the federal government must define marriage. It was the impetus behind DOMA.
I’m almost always IATZ as well. Don’t feel bad!
Yes, if the couple CHOOSES to move FROM a state that supports same-sex marriage to one that doesn't, they lose those federal benefits.
When you read the Constitution, it covers NONE of these issues and the Founding Fathers made the correct choice to leave this to the states. It is then up to the states to decide how these issues will be addressed within their borders. If DOMA is struck down, the states need to have the ability to negotiate disbursement of federal benefits as they apply to same-sex couples.
This issue is no different than the marijuana one. Just because one state defies the federal government and agrees to let people openly purchase and use marijuana does not require another state to honor the same issue, even though they oppoose the use of marijuana.
This whole issue is about choices. Same-sex couples choose to create their lives together, just as heterosexual couples do. If that same same-sex couple chooses to relocate to a state that does not support same-sex marriage or same-sex access to benefits, that's a consequence of the choice they made to move.
We often hear, on FR, that choices have consequences and these issues that you are so passionate about are the consequences of the choices these people have made. If you believe otherwise, then you believe that the government exists to solve every issue that exists. And, some issues just end up sucking for those that don't fit within the mainstream.
If DOMA is struck down, the states need to have the ability to negotiate disbursement of federal benefits as they apply to same-sex couples.
Negotiate what and with whom? You are eligible or you are not and what incentive would the states have to limit such eligibility. It costs them nothing. It will just put more pressure on other states to treat their residents the same thus pushing more states into gay marriage.
I don't know if you understand how SS and Medicare work, but you don't have to go thru a state intermediary now to get benefits. You go to a federal office and apply. The states have no real role--until now with the redefinition of marriage.
This issue is no different than the marijuana one. Just because one state defies the federal government and agrees to let people openly purchase and use marijuana does not require another state to honor the same issue, even though they oppoose the use of marijuana.
It is like comparing apples to organges. There is no similarity between violating a federal law on drug use and the federal government not recognizing gay marriage for the purpose of allocating federal benefits and adherence to existing tax law, e.e., filing a joint federal income tax return.
This whole issue is about choices. Same-sex couples choose to create their lives together, just as heterosexual couples do. If that same same-sex couple chooses to relocate to a state that does not support same-sex marriage or same-sex access to benefits, that's a consequence of the choice they made to move.
It is also a consequence every taxpayer in America must bear if we add more people to the SS and Medicare rolls and allow additional people to collect federal pension survivor benefits. You seem to want to ignore the real costs of overruling DOMA.
We often hear, on FR, that choices have consequences and these issues that you are so passionate about are the consequences of the choices these people have made. If you believe otherwise, then you believe that the government exists to solve every issue that exists. And, some issues just end up sucking for those that don't fit within the mainstream.
You want government, in this case SCOTUS, to overrule state referenda on the issue and a law that was passed overwhelmingly in Congress.
You seemed to have evolved on the issue yourself. From your personal page:
"4. DOMA!! A marriage is between a man and a woman; NOT between John and Larry or Joan and Mary. I believe that Judeo-Christian values need to be re-introduced in our society and practiced in the schools! The Pledge of Allegiance and daily school prayers strengthened our society and did not harm anyone!"
Allowing SSM in California, overturning not just a hotly debated statewide referendum, but also a CA SSC ruling isn’t narrow.
I’m not convinced that democracy is the best way to sort out rights. That the CA SSC affirmed Prop. 8 goes a long way toward telling me that the process was legitimate and that homosexual rights are being retaind in other, acceptable ways in CA. It isn’t like CA is a known hotbed of conservatism. Plenty of pro-SSM money and PR were poured into that campaign. The time to overturn it was at the state supreme court, not SCOTUS.
“I’m not convinced that democracy is the best way to sort out rights.”
There are two types of rights, natural and civil. Natural rights come from God or nature. Civil rights come from law. Laws are made legislatures, or the people can act as their own legislature and make law through the referendum process.
Courts do not hold any legislative, or law-making power. They can adjudicate laws and strike them down when necessary. But they cannot create rights. Though they have, and in doing so they have usurped legislative power.
Hi Sarge. No KABOOM for this guy. He was quietly obliterated and sent to the Viking Kittys’ mess where they left not a trace.
You are missing the point. States will not define marriage with respect to federal benefits, they don't have that right. States that allow same-sex marriage should have the ability to negotiate the disbursement of federal benefits to members of a same-sex marriage. That means whether members of same-sex couples are entitled to draw those benefits and at what amounts and under what circumstances. That's all. The states, themselves, do not and should not have the power to determine how federal funds are disbursed, but, if the states allow same-sex marriage, then they should be able to negotiate with the federal government on whether, when, how, how much and under what circumstances those funds are disbursed to those couples.
Every other comment you made is addressed in that response, except for the last one. I haven't evolved on this issue at all. I still believe the same things as I have on my personal page (interesting that I will post my thoughts there, but you haven't created one, yet). My remarks on this issue simply reflect the fact that conservatives are going to be steamrollered on this issue (as in every other one) because we don't give a rat's ass about standing up en masse and putting a stop to it. And, since we don't care enough to fight back to regain control of an out-of-control government, then, at least, I'm going to put my two cents worth in about how these issues should be controlled and administered.
You are the one missing the point. If SCOTUS strikes down DOMA using federalism as the reason then the state definition of marriage will have to be used to determine federal benefits. DOMA was the federal definition of marriage. If disallowed because it interferes with the states' rights in such matters, then the state definition of marriage becomes the de facto definition to allocate federal benefits.
States that allow same-sex marriage should have the ability to negotiate the disbursement of federal benefits to members of a same-sex marriage. That means whether members of same-sex couples are entitled to draw those benefits and at what amounts and under what circumstances. That's all.
Nonsense. There will be no "negotiation" whatever that entails. The federal government administers these programs period. A spouse will be whomever the state decides and the federal government will use that definition.
In the first, most optimistic scenario, one or several marriage-friendly states might allow anyone from any state to get married there, creating a Las Vegas-style business in same- sex marriage. Gay couples would return to their home states with a piece of paper that should, in principle, entitle them to federal marital tax status, immigration benefits and more. But their home states would probably decline to recognize those out- of-state marriages, and deny them state-level marriage benefits.
If the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down DOMA depended on finding that states have an inherent right to define marriage in which the federal government cannot infringe, then the home states’ policy would probably be upheld. The result would be couples who are both married and unmarried for purposes of the same tax returns, mortgages and hospital visits. Each of these conflicts would be brought to the courts. State and federal courts would probably render divergent conclusions -- across all 50 states and 13 federal circuits. If this isn’t legal chaos, nothing is.
If no state wanted to attract business by becoming the same-sex-marriage hub for out-of-state residents, then the anomaly would arise when legally married gay couples moved to states that didn’t recognize their unions. Presumably they would nevertheless bring their federal benefits with them -- giving rise to the same legal issues just described. The only difference would be that litigation would build up slowly, rather than overnight. And what, pray tell, would happen if some of those couples wanted to get divorced but found themselves in legal limbo because their original states of marriage refused to administer a divorce while they lived far away? Would the federal government treat them as divorced even without a state- issued document to that effect?
Ok, I can see that you are applying interpretations of my comments with things I never said nor intended.
I think we are at a point at which we are both supplying words that, ultimately, don’t appear to be getting us anywhere other than using up a lot of JimRob’s bandwidth.
That said, tht you for an interesting discussion, I enjoyed exchanging views with you.
Happy Easter!
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.