DOMA/Prop 8 decisions

[RblDiver]

So, the Supreme Court just ruled DOMA unconstitutional, but declined to rule on the Prop 8 case due to questions of standing.

This really annoys me. The ruling I wanted was DOMA unconstitutional but Prop 8 constitutional, as a validation of the 10th Amendment. As it stands, what they're saying in the Prop 8 case is that we the people don't have the right to defend what we the people passed into law. That's just.....

[Kraven251]

Actually, they ruled in favor of the lower court's decision. So DOMA dies as it should, and Prop 8 died as the appeal of the lower court's decision was invalid. The process worked, and SCOTUS dodged the 10th issue.

...as I understood the decision

[Ronin13]

Leave it up to the states- that's what I always say... We don't need a big federal power hanging over every little facet of our lives. If Adam and Steve or Ashley and Eve wanna get married, whatever, but they shouldn't be limited by the feds, the states should decide on the legitimacy and recognition. Just like with guns, if a majority of the state (not here obviously) decides they don't like 'em, then they can draft laws (like Illinois!) or not draft laws (like Wyoming!). Of course there are exceptions, like CO, where the legislators don't give a shit what the people they represent want.

[RblDiver]

My reading is that by declining to rule in the Prop 8 case, the lower court's decision that it is unconstitutional stands. Thus, this means (to my mind) that they aren't acknowledging the right of the states by the 10th to decide an issue not addressed in the Constitution. Further, it establishes the scary precedent that, if the state doesn't want to defend a law, then there's no way for the people to defend it. The CA governor and legislature didn't agree with Prop 8 so didn't defend it, and so a group of citizens took up the call. The SC just said that, nope, you can't do that. This is disturbing as hell to me.

[Dave]

I am fine with DOMA being struck down, and really couldn't care who marries who as long as it's two consenting adults. I am miffed by the dodging of Prop 8, since I believe that if a majority of a state's voters pass a law then it should be up to the voters to overturn it later by the same process. As far as I have seen state laws banning gay marriage have been upheld, I just don't think the fed gov should be involved in any marriage.

[Ronin13]

I am fine with DOMA being struck down, and really couldn't care who marries who as long as it's two consenting adults. I am miffed by the dodging of Prop 8, since I believe that if a majority of a state's voters pass a law then it should be up to the voters to overturn it later by the same process. As far as I have seen state laws banning gay marriage have been upheld, I just don't think the fed gov should be involved in any marriage.

THIS! But more often than not the state gov doesn't trust it's voters to be smart enough to know what's best, so they step in and throw a wrench in that...

[Kraven251]

The first court in Cali overturned it ...so the Cali law banning gay marriage died, based on the SC saying the state's court decision stood.

[Ronin13]

So I wonder when the Democrats are gonna be pissed off at Clinton for signing DOMA in the first place... Or are they going to somehow blame this on the Republicans? Somehow...

[3beansalad]

I am fine with DOMA being struck down, and really couldn't care who marries who as long as it's two consenting adults. I am miffed by the dodging of Prop 8, since I believe that if a majority of a state's voters pass a law then it should be up to the voters to overturn it later by the same process. As far as I have seen state laws banning gay marriage have been upheld, I just don't think the fed gov should be involved in any marriage.

How about keeping all levels of government out of marriage? This of course would require some changes in tax code, and may be a fine argument for a flat tax. My opinion is that marriage has always been a contract between two individuals and their God. So the why did the government get involved? To collect a 'tax' on something people wanted to do? If so, the course will hold and all states will continue to push for gay marriage so they can collect based on all citizens. I remember a time when the gay community said what happens in the bedroom of two consenting adults is no ones business... Now it seems the prevailing attitude is that what happens in the bedroom must be accepted by everyone or we'll attempt to force our beliefs/lifestyle upon you. Maybe I'm too old and conservative.

[Ronin13]

How about keeping all levels of government out of marriage? This of course would require some changes in tax code, and may be a fine argument for a flat tax. My opinion is that marriage has always been a contract between two individuals and their God. So the why did the government get involved? To collect a 'tax' on something people wanted to do? If so, the course will hold and all states will continue to push for gay marriage so they can collect based on all citizens. I remember a time when the gay community said what happens in the bedroom of two consenting adults is no ones business... Now it seems the prevailing attitude is that what happens in the bedroom must be accepted by everyone or we'll attempt to force our beliefs/lifestyle upon you. Maybe I'm too old and conservative.

Couldn't agree more. I honestly don't care who loves who, that's between them, and the government shouldn't be involved. As for your 2nd to last sentence, SPOT ON! That is what pisses me off about the gay community- honestly, I couldn't possibly care any less what floats their boat, but when they push for "acceptance" by everyone, thus negating the freedom of choice, religion, and thought, they have crossed a line.