Supreme Court Weighing Gay Marriage Cases (Americans, financial, money, federal government)

[HtownLove]

Court rules, that prop 8 supporters didn't have grounds to sue, so prop 8 is gone for now.

[gomexico]

Summary of Prop 8 Case, from SCOTUS Blog:

Amy Howe:
Here's a Plain English take on Hollingsworth v.
Perry, the challenge to the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8,
which bans same-sex marriage: After the two same-sex couples filed their
challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California
government officials who would normally have defended the law in court, declined
to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and
the California Supreme Court (in response to a request by the lower court) ruled
that they could do so under state law. But today the Supreme Court held that
the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a
result, it held, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the
case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case.

[TheDragonslayer]

Originally Posted by summers73

It will be difficult for states to get away with revoking something that could offer federal benefits, unless the state makes accommodations such as "civil unions".

And those have been denied us too in all states that ban ssm. Separate is never ever equal.

[barkomatic]

Finally, we're moving forward toward a more compassionate and fair society.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by NCN

What is DOMA? One of the first things I learned in accounting class is to identify the subject. It does not matter the dollar amount beside the subject if you don't know what the subject is. Spell it out!

Some people type 4 letters into a Google and get smarter, some people go to political forum and type a paragraph about how they can't be expected to know the name of a piece of legislation in front of the Supreme Court.

[Chimuelojones]

Originally Posted by summers73

It will be difficult for states to get away with revoking something that could offer federal benefits, unless the state makes accommodations such as "civil unions".

The far-far more important outcome is that the Federal government can no longer claim marriage is between one man and one woman.

If the Federal government can't do that, then States will no longer be allowed to either.

[Finn_Jarber]

This means that those people of faith who believe homosexuality is immoral will be forced to support gay marriage financially. They will no longer be free to live as their faith demands.

[gomexico]

Originally Posted by Chimuelojones

The far-far more important outcome is that the Federal government can no longer claim marriage is between one man and one woman.

If the Federal government can't do that, then States will no longer be allowed to either.

From SCOTUS Blog:

Amy Howe:
More from Roberts: "The Court does not have before
it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether
the States . . . may continue to utilize the traditional definition of
marriage."

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by barkomatic

Finally, we're moving forward toward a more compassionate and fair society.

Yeah, by 5-4 we became more compassionate. Kennedy once again gives cover to the court's four dirt bags.

[nurider2002]

A BIG win day! With the current Court, DOMA could have easily gone the wrong way. By far the biggest legal victory for the gay community since Lawrence vs Texas ruling in 2003.