Shockingly, as I look into the ruling I am actually finding myself agreeing with the court — this is a STATE issue not a Federal one.
The Fed Gov should not be involved one way or the other, it should be for each state to decide - and this and the Prop 8 punt both send that message. States can decide whether they are for or against gay marraige and whether to give benefits.
Yes but why would Scalia be against the STATE deciding? And the state DID decide in prop 8 and it sounds like they’re saying the ruling made to over turn prop 8 stands?
Exactly. This ruling sets up a supporting ruling on Prop 8.
Either sates have rights or they don’t. Conservative can’t argue states rights on Obamacare and then argue for Federal Control on marriage because it suits their cause.
IT IS A FEDERAL ISSUE. The feds must decide on spousal benefits for things like SSN, Medicare, survivor benefits for federal benefits, spousal benefits for federal employees, etc. These are major issues with big bucks involved.
I completely agree... if anything it strengthens the states rights argument. DOMA weakend this..
Well, as much as I oppose the notion of same sex “marriage,” I have to agree that the Court probably made the correct decision re: DOMA; after all the people of the State of New York approved this change in the law. And, the Court went to great pains to recognize the obvious: the States have always had virtually unlimited control over the definition of marriage (I say virtually because States may not violate the Constitution or incorporated Amendments thereto in defining marriage, e.g., the federal ruling that States may not prohibit Blacks and Whites from marrying one another). Otherwise, the rules are, and always have been, up to the States to determine.
That is the good part of the “gay marriage” decision today; it recognizes States’ rights in this domain.
I am confused, however, about the decision to avoid ruling on Prop 8 on the basis that citizens of California lacked standing to bring the appeal. I may be mistaken, but I thought it was, in the first instance, a federal court that struck down that portion of California’s amendment to its Constitution, which, as with New York, was voted on by the people. Under the rationale of the DOMA decision, how can the Supreme Court permit a FEDERAL judge to rule on an issue not within federal discretion? I need to find a copy of the decision.
As to homosexuals who are legally married in one State moving to another State that does not recognize such a relationship and retaining their status, that is a good question. Generally, States grant comity between and among the fifty States. However, it is also well-established that States do not have to grant comity if the other State’s law is violative of the other States’ public policy. Where would that leave us? I suppose the “gay” couple could receive federal, but not State benefits. Any ideas?
I wish states could decide about abortion, too, that would be a step in the a consistent direction.
Actually I’d like federal recognition of the unborns’ right to live, but, this decision is inconsistent.
If states can regulate whether two faggots can pretend to be a married man and woman, they should be able to regulate whether or not you can kill your child.
Health care is not a federal issue though it involves Benefits and or taxes so it was ruled okay.
There is no logic to agree with in this ruling. IT is all about promoting and imposing the acceptance of homosexual sex normalcy by the state.