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.
So now that they've destroyed the meaning and concept of marriage, they will be able to "marry". A lot like dropping a 2000 lb. wrecking ball on a car before you steal it.
But that's not what the decision said - so I think it will continue to be an issue. The decision said that the States decide independently what defines marriage, not the Federal gov't. In a lot of ways, this is very much a state's rights decision.
However the states are bound by the same constitution that the federal government is bound by. So the state DOMA laws can, and will, be taken to court based on the same reasoning that the federal DOMA law was found to be unconstitutional.
However the states are bound by the same constitution that the federal government is bound by. So the state DOMA laws can, and will, be taken to court based on the same reasoning that the federal DOMA law was found to be unconstitutional.
However, the decision today gave SCOTUS an 'out' on that for later. By saying that states are allowed to define marriage and not the Federal gov't, they have not settled the issue of same sex marriage in those states where it is banned. It would, of course, depend upon the argument they present to the court. If they use DOMA, I think that will be a mistake.
So now that they've destroyed the meaning and concept of marriage, they will be able to "marry". A lot like dropping a 2000 lb. wrecking ball on a car before you steal it.
Considering the fact that each couple defines their own marriage, I don't see how MY marriage will destroy the meaning of YOUR marriage.
So now that they've destroyed the meaning and concept of marriage, they will be able to "marry". A lot like dropping a 2000 lb. wrecking ball on a car before you steal it.
OMGZ, the Christian right's defintion of marriage is forever ruined!
However, the decision today gave SCOTUS an 'out' on that for later. By saying that states are allowed to define marriage and not the Federal gov't, they have not settled the issue of same sex marriage in those states where it is banned. It would, of course, depend upon the argument they present to the court. If they use DOMA, I think that will be a mistake.
It doesn't matter. The states are bound by the 5th, and the 14th amendments too, so laws that are unconstitutional, will be found to be unconstitutional. The DOMA case just adds judicial precedence.
"We are a nation of laws, not men. We exist under the concept of limited government."
-Ok!
"The Supreme Court 'ironically' denied equal protection to all Americans by undercutting the other branches of government, asserting it's supremacy over them in constitutional matters."
-But...that's...precisely it's function in our limited government's system of checks and balances....as established and laid out in the Constitution!
"And, this means that they are placing themselves above god."
-Say what?
"We are here standing in support of our constitution."
-Which I thought was just upheld by the court?
It doesn't matter. The states are bound by the 5th, and the 14th amendments too, so laws that are unconstitutional, will be found to be unconstitutional. The DOMA case just adds judicial precedence.
I think perhaps you are reading something additional into this decision. The court deemed 5th was appropriate because they deemed states define marriage. Federal gov't deemed those state defined marriages were not marriages with DOMA and that was the violation of the 5th. So, the key here is that they decided the states define marriage. In other words, SCOTUS was clear that the Federal gov't does not define marriage and if a state deems a marriage is banned, then per this decision, that is legal and allowed.
To have same sex marriages recognized in states where it is not legal would need an application of the Full Faith and Credit clause, which has never before applied to marriage.
A Kalifornia judge has decided that freedom of speach cannot be mentioned as defence of a man accused of writing anti bank statements in front of a Bank of America in childrens sidewalk chalk.
The man is facing 13 years in prison. In my opinion the Judge and the prosecuting attorney are the ones who need to be facing jail time.
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”- Voltaire
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.
Judge decides constitution no longer in effect in california
