Supreme Court Weighing Gay Marriage Cases (Seattle, retired, single, Washington)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am lazy, so I didn't read everything on here, but if the supreme court rules Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, then what does that mean for the other individual states who voted against it, like North Carolina? Would gays then be allowed to legally get married there? What about in all the other bible belt states?
Only Section 3 of DOMA is being considered in the Windsor case. SCOTUS is not going to issue a broad ruling striking down all of DOMA because that wasn't asked.
In fact, y'all are going to have to get into the legalese weeds to understand what the SC is going to consider. The justices actually added a question to both petitions they agreed to hear. The questions have to do with the concept of "legal standing," in other words, did the individuals who brought the petitions to the SC have the legal jurisdiction to do so? In the case of Windsor, most likely the answer is yes because she was the party directly affected by DOMA. Because of DOMA, she had to pay $370,000 in inheritance taxes on her late wife's estate that she inherited. She and her wife were married in Canada in 2007, they resided in NY state. NY state recognizes Canadian same sex marriages for all legal purposes. But DOMA prevented her marriage from being recognized as immune to inheritance tax law. So she sued the federal government and the federal court of appeals of NY, 2nd district agreed with her that DOMA unconstitutionally denied her right as a widow to not have to pay inheritance taxes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/us...-act.html?_r=0
The California Prop 8 case is more complicated: the question the SC asked is does the US House of Representatives have the right to petition the SC in lieu of the Governor and Attorney General of CA refusing to defend Prop 8 at the Supreme Court? Also, during the several trials in CA regarding Prop 8, the question of legal standing came up - who was legally eligible to defend Prop 8 when the Governor and Attorney General wouldn't defend it at the state level, either.
FYI, not everyone that supports gay marriage is gay. Tread carefully there dude.
You'd think the fact that three states just mustered over 50% in support of allowing same-sex marriage would tip certain people off to that fact, wouldn't you?
I exercised 40 minutes yesterday with the TV in front of me in the gym on CNN and them flashing news about this FOR 40 MINUTES. This subject was not worth even that 40 minutes, let alone having such high priced judges discussing it. Who cares!
The best part about my just seeing the TV was that I could not hear what they were saying. It probably would have made me puke.
I exercised 40 minutes yesterday with the TV in front of me in the gym on CNN and them flashing news about this FOR 40 MINUTES. This subject was not worth even that 40 minutes, let alone having such high priced judges discussing it. Who cares!
The best part about my just seeing the TV was that I could not hear what they were saying. It probably would have made me puke.
Obviously you care because you took the time to post.
For a record, I am left lean independent, and strongly against gay marriage concept. As many may already point out, to break the culture gate sets dangerous precedence and open the gate for all kind of "marriage" concept. I respect concept of union or some other term yet to be invented, but cultural term marriage should be preserved. If this is conservative position, so be it. We always have something to conserve, don't we?
People argued that if women got the vote, pets would then be allowed to vote.
People argued that if blacks and whites were allowed to marry then people would be allowed to marry their pets.
People argued that if women got the vote, pets would then be allowed to vote.
People argued that if blacks and whites were allowed to marry then people would be allowed to marry their pets.
Stupidity is not something we need to 'conserve'.
The dire "It's a slippery slope!" warning is a treasured fallacy. But I guess when someone is so hard up for an excuse to justify what they want, any old bit of nonsense will suffice...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
