Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 79

Thread: Federal Judge strikes down gay marriage ban in California

  1. #46
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,697

    Default

    ^ I follow, but can and will are very different.

    SCOTUS is all squiffy on the cases relating 10th ammendment (because the ammendment is written poorly and vaguely).

    It will be a few years before either the CA or MA cases get in front of SCOTUS. The process is really slow.



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  2. #47
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    This has more to do with the 14th i believe
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  3. #48
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,697

    Default

    ^ 10th and 14th both.

    States rights vs. federalism (10th)- the MA case, and equal protection (14th)- the CA case.

    Sorry, I'm all over the place between the two cases, and trying to pretend I'm working......

    DOMA also violates the 5th amendment (in conjunction with the14th), maybe we can get a hat trick of cases in front of the court.
    Last edited by witchcurlgirl; August 5th, 2010 at 01:19 PM.



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  4. #49
    Elite Member t13nif's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    i'm in yer manifesto, correcting your spelling mistakes
    Posts
    3,526

    Default

    It absolutely boggles my mind that this is an issue. I seriously can't grasp how people could be against this. Honestly. There is not one fucking rational argument to deny gays the the right to marry. And how a judge or law maker could make any contrary decision amazes me. It doesn't matter whether sexual preference is a protected or not protected minority...the simple fact remains that Joe Blow is being denied the right to do something that most of the population can. Is that not discrimination? I can't see how anyone can argue against it.

    Oh, and mella--seriously? I can't even speak, lest i get an infraction.
    "Hope everyone' shavin a good one!" - Karistiona

  5. #50
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,697

    Default

    Just reading some more on the MA case:


    A FEDERAL judge in Massachusetts, ruling in two related cases, declared the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional on July 8, a victory for supporters of marriage equality.

    DOMA, passed by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton, defined marriage as between one man and one woman and allowed states to not recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states.

    The law denies over 1,100 federal benefits to same-sex couples married in states where gay marriage is legal. These include the right to file joint tax returns (often at a lower rate), share Social Security and food stamps, receive spousal employment benefits (such as health insurance) or sponsor an immigrant spouse for legal residency or citizenship.

    In other words, DOMA relegates same-sex couples legally married in states such as Massachusetts to second-class status in the eyes of the federal government.

    The first case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, was filed by a federal employee whose lawyers from Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders argued that because the bill prevented her and her same-sex spouse from receiving federal employment benefits, DOMA denied her equal protection under the law--a violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

    The second case, Commonwealth v. Health and Human Services, was brought by the state of Massachusetts, which argued that DOMA interferes with a state's right to define marriage as it chooses by requiring it to discriminate against same-sex couples or lose millions of dollars of federal money yearly.

    U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro's rulings apply only to same-sex couples married in Massachusetts, and they only declare unconstitutional the part of DOMA that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, so states will still be able to ignore same-sex marriages performed in other states.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    NOW, THE question is whether Barack Obama's Justice Department will appeal the Tauro's decision to a higher court in the federal system.

    During the 2008 election campaign, Obama repeated again and again that he opposed DOMA. For example, his campaign Web site declared: "I...believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and
 lesbian couples--whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."

    Candidate Obama went so far as to cite his support for a repeal of DOMA as a reason to choose him over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries: "Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)--a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate...Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does."

    Obama renewed this commitment as president when he spoke at the Human Rights Campaign dinner on the eve of the National Equality March in October 2009.

    But despite this record, the Obama Justice Department is widely expected to appeal the decision in the Massachusetts' cases to the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals--and potentially to the U.S. Supreme Court.


    The administration claims that it's up to Congress to repeal DOMA, and in the meanwhile, it has to "uphold existing law." The Gay City News explained the administration's tortured logic in defending a law its chief claims to oppose:
    [T]he Obama Justice Department devised the bizarre claim that DOMA was an attempt by Congress to preserve the status quo "pending the resolution of a socially contentious debate taking place in the states over whether to sanction same-sex marriage." The government argued that DOMA was necessary "to ensure consistency in the distribution of federal marriage-based benefits," and to avoid the disruptions from having to deal with different definitions of marriage in different states.
    If administration officials do appeal the rulings in Massachusetts, it wouldn't be the first time the Obama Justice Department defended DOMA in federal court. In June 2009--within days of Obama declaring LGBT Pride Month--Justice Department lawyers claimed that DOMA was constitutional and non-discriminatory, citing as precedents laws that barred marriage in cases of incest and pedophilia.

    Some left-wing commentators think it would be a good thing for the Justice Department to appeal Tauro's decisions, because if the cases go to the Supreme Court and the Court rules against DOMA, it would strike a blow against the marriage ban at the national level, rather than just Massachusetts.

    Jim Burroway, editor of Box Turtle Bulletin Web site, makes the case that a Supreme Court decision against DOMA following an appeal by the Justice Department is more likely to succeed than passage of a congressional repeal, such as the Respect for Marriage Act introduced in 2009 by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.). "With the next Congress likely to be much more hostile to LGBT issues as this Congress," Burroway wrote, "I've got lottery tickets with better odds than Congress repealing DOMA."

    But the struggle for marriage equality can't depend on hoping for justice from a federal court system stacked with conservative judges. Nor should we accept a lengthy appeals process that could take years before the Supreme Court rules on DOMA.

    Instead, we should use the momentum we have built in the past two years, including the enthusiasm generated by this victory in Massachusetts, to demand full equality now. We should demand that the Obama administration live up to the promises of its president and stop defending DOMA in court, and we should call for Congress to get to work on the job of repealing DOMA once and for all.

    DOMA overturned in Massachusetts | SocialistWorker.org



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  6. #51
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojiita View Post
    They were saying that the actual ruling decision (136 or some pages) was very well constructed, probably anticipating that it would get to the SCOTUS.
    I so love Judge Walker. You could tell from reading through the court proceedings that this guy is everything a Federal Judge should be.

    It doesn't surprise me that his ruling is kick-ass.

    Quote Originally Posted by CornFlakegrl View Post

    Forgive my ignorance, but if it goes to SCROTUS (hah!) then it becomes federal precedent, right? (versus now it's just a state thing?). If it survives that, the rest of the states end up complying or facing similar suits and knowing they'll lose based on precedent?
    Yes, ultimately it has a domino effect.

    Right now, states are compelled to respect the laws of other states - as in my marriage and drivers license are legal in every state even though only one state issued both.

    So if gay marriages are allowed in California, then Utah has to give a married gay couple equal protections should they move there.

    Oh the Southern states are screaming "state's rights!" over this one (even though there is no such thing as a state right.)

    Quote Originally Posted by sputnik View Post

    . it doesn't make it undemocratic because democracy does not mean majority rule on every single issue.
    The majority has no authority over basic human rights. That what a democracy is. Pure majority rule is Fascism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    Anti-gay freaks think about gay sex more than gays do. They're freaking obsessed with it. It's bizarre.
    No kidding! My father started watching reruns of Queer as Folk (I don't know why, maybe he's deeply repressed) and then all he could do is talk about gay sex - with both disgust and fascination.
    CHILLY FREE!
    i have to zero the contain to your level -bugdoll
    you can't even be ogirinal - Mary

  7. #52
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    59,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by olivia View Post


    The majority has no authority over basic human rights. That what a democracy is. Pure majority rule is Fascism.
    i don't know if you were agreeing with me or not but that's what i said.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  8. #53
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sputnik View Post
    i don't know if you were agreeing with me or not but that's what i said.
    Yeah, I was agreeing. It's just my knee jerk response to remind people, again and again, that democracy is not majority rule.

    I'm fighting all Fox News here.
    CHILLY FREE!
    i have to zero the contain to your level -bugdoll
    you can't even be ogirinal - Mary

  9. #54
    Gold Member mella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    1,274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sputnik View Post
    uh.... seriously, do you not realise that you are the one with the problem here? and yes, yes you can change your line of thinking. starting out by getting some pychological help to deal with your deep-rooted issues with homosexuality (i remember the story about your aunt and all that).
    Believe me; I had enough therapy for a life time. I saw my first therapist when I was 3 because I was afraid to sit on a toilet. (Or thatís the story my mother told me, I think my mother just liked the attention), then in elementary school (still not sure why). followed by few years of being a normal kid. Until 7th grade everything was fine, I had my friends and all. Before the summer break we would play together and then they were all into music and boys. Everything changed and I became the idiot of the class. And instead of letting me handle it my mother had to run to my teachers making everything even worse. Then she thought it was time for her favourite sport, put your daughter in therapy, she managed to get my into a psychiatric hospital for 3 months (I was 15 and I have no idea why I was there) Going back to school was embarrassing but I decided to be and behave like everybody else and this kept me of the bullying radar.
    Do I like my life today? No, not really. Do I want to scream and run? Sure, but it will only put you on a stage for everybody to see and to pick apart
    I will never ever see another therapist again because all I learnt is that everything I do, feel and want is wrong and Iím a walking psychiatric condition. I already got low self esteem and intimacy issues out of it, I donít need anything else

  10. #55
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    ... and this explains your homophobia how?
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  11. #56
    Hit By Ban Bus! AliceInWonderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    you already know.
    Posts
    44,439

    Default

    gays and toilet seats duh.

  12. #57
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    *facepalm*
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  13. #58
    Elite Member Beeyotch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    31,310

    Default

    No, no that was her excuse for why she refuses to get therapy to deal with her homophobia. And might I add:

  14. #59
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    I stand by my earlier suggestions which were blithely ignored.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  15. #60
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    34,697

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by olivia View Post
    Yes, ultimately it has a domino effect.

    Right now, states are compelled to respect the laws of other states - as in my marriage and drivers license are legal in every state even though only one state issued both.

    So if gay marriages are allowed in California, then Utah has to give a married gay couple equal protections should they move there.
    States are not currently compelled to recognize laws of other states on gay marriage. DOMA negates that. No state is no needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state.

    That's why DOMA has to go.

    Quote Originally Posted by olivia View Post
    Oh the Southern states are screaming "state's rights!" over this one (even though there is no such thing as a state right.)
    The 1Oth ammendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    The federal government of the United States has the power to regulate only matters delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states, and the states cannot alienate some of these. State's rights are real. That's part of the basis for the MA case. So it's not just southern states screaming about state's rights. MA is using it to argue against DOMA

    It's also why abortion was legal in 13 states before Roe v. Wade


    Whatever argument works- 10th amendment, 14th amendment, creating a new amendment- doesn't matter to me- but DOMA has to go. It's way past due that all people have this basic right.



    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: November 1st, 2009, 01:12 AM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: August 7th, 2008, 01:48 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: October 17th, 2007, 12:25 PM
  4. Replies: 16
    Last Post: December 22nd, 2006, 02:28 PM
  5. Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 21st, 2006, 04:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •