Thank you Supreme Court...

The US Supreme Court ruled Section 5 of the so called "Voting Rights Act" unconstitutional

No they didn't, they ruled that the formula used to apply Section 5 was out of date.
So they issue no ruling on section 5 but ruled that section 4(b) was unconstitutional unless it is updated.

[Tchocky]

Here come the Prop 8 and DOMA decisions

[Tchocky]

DOMA unconstitutional under equal protection
Opinion here http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-307_g2bh.pdf

Well that's good news

[Tchocky]

Prop 8 case dismissed on standing

[CaptainHaplo]

These two rulings are quite interesting. Prop 8 was dismissed on a standing issue because it was a state matter - not a federal one. DOMA as written was unconstitutional - regardless of your views on gay marriage.

The SC simply punted. I find that funny.

[AVGWarhawk]

Skirting the issue. The federal way!

[CaptainHaplo]

What will happen now is some states will allow gay marriage, others wont.

The States have been determined to be able to decide - at this point - the issue on their own - but only if upheld by state judicial proceedings.

So basically no "state" decision - once ruled on by the State Supreme Court - can be challenged at the federal level.

However - what WILL be the next step for the pro-gay side will be to sue (through a couple that was married in a state recognizing such unions) a state that does not allow recognition of same sex marriage - using the full faith and credit Federal law.

That the SC's will have a hard time punting on.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

These two rulings are quite interesting. Prop 8 was dismissed on a standing issue because it was a state matter - not a federal one.

DOMA as written was unconstitutional - regardless of your views on gay marriage.

The SC simply punted. I find that funny.

Is this okay to point out some facts about the prop 8 and the DOMA ruling in this thread?

and by the way I also agree that the SC punted, but they used some funny punters.

I love the Jews and I even like gay girls due to the fact that we like the same things ... gay men is another subject, but this is about the laws that were just turned over by the SC.

First of all the lawsuit against DOMA (defense of the marriage act) enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Cliton was brought to the awareness of the supreme court by a Jewish couple married in Canada with the marriage recognized by the same sex law in the state of New York where they were living at the time of her partners death.

Mrs Edith Windsor (83) was charged a federal estate tax of over $300,000 upon the death of her wife and she brought the lawsuit to the SC. I wonder how much that cost her to sue?

She was the injured party and the DOMA was ruled by Justice Kennedy and four other SC justices as unconstitional, of whom three of the other four justices were Jewish, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer.

again it's just a small point and I am not against the Jews or the catholics, but yet the other case prop 8 was ruled to have no injured party and was denied a ruling sending the case back to the lower courts in California where a pro-homosexual judge had already invalidated the prop 8 ruling passed by a majority of California voters back in 2008.

Now gay marriage will be okay soon and very soon in the state of California with the options of stopping very slim.

I noticed that in the DOMA ruling however that over and over again SC justice Kennedy said that the DOMA case was over ruled, but only applied to the 12 states that had already approved of same sex marriage for the purposes of obtaining federal benefits, which in turn kept it from being approval of same sex marriage in all 50 states.

Do they then go back and make a correction that it includes California ... a fine point indeed, but isn't it the fine points of the law that have to be obeyed?

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No they didn't, they ruled that the formula used to apply Section 5 was out of date.
So they issue no ruling on section 5 but ruled that section 4(b) was unconstitutional unless it is updated.

Of course, you would jump on a typo. 4 not 5* They did say it was unconstitutional, read the decision.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...12-96_6k47.pdf

[Bubblehead1980]

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the states, decision is correct in it takes feds out of marriage but the sweeping activist language is troubling.Court did not define homosexuals as a suspect class either.

[August]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the states, decision is correct in it takes feds out of marriage but the sweeping activist language is troubling.Court did not define homosexuals as a suspect class either.

Marriage is not a privilege granted by the states. They may withhold their official recognition of a marriage but they cannot stop someone from marrying.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by August

Marriage is not a privilege granted by the states. They may withhold their official recognition of a marriage but they cannot stop someone from marrying.

Yes, it is a privilege.Sure, they can't stop you from having a ceremony but the privilege is the legal benefits and recognition that come along with it, they may grant or deny based on if you meet the criteria they set for a marriage license.Some state's say you must have different equipment, other's do not, it's up to them as long as it is not denied on basis of race, gender, etc.

[August]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Yes, it is a privilege.Sure, they can't stop you from having a ceremony but the privilege is the legal benefits and recognition that come along with it,

Sorry, government handouts will never be what defines a commitment as intimate as a marriage between two people.

Of course, you would jump on a typo. 4 not 5* They did say it was unconstitutional, read the decision.

Perhaps you should have read the decision.
Even your attempt at correcting your mistake fails.
Perhaps you are right, maybe those people teaching you law really do know nothing. It would certainly explain a lot.

Sorry, government handouts will never be what defines a commitment as intimate as a marriage between two people.

So being "next of kin" is a government handout?????

For example, both Christianity and Islam claim Adam and Eve as the "origins" of humanity. While neither text states clearly that they were married, they both show a picture of a married couple. Their son, Cain is the first specific mention of marriage in religious texts. There are no known non-religious texts or records that would predate the religious claims.

You are correct that it doesn't state that they were married, however it doesn't imply that they were married either so that picture is one you are drawing for yourself.
Cain is indeed the first mention of marriage, but he had to go to the land of Nod to get married. Which suggests that the religious community in Eden didn't have marriage but the ungodly masses living in the other place did. So your religious text clearly undermines the claim you are trying to put on it.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the states.

Gotta disagree with you. Marriage is a civil contract between consenting parties. As such, it should not be the realm of the state to decide who can or cannot consent to enter into a contractual understanding with another (or other) consenting person.

The idea that it is a "right" or a "privilege" are both part of what has caused the issue to even exist. The issue is not about what people do in their bedrooms - if it were you would have the "bible thumpers" demanding that sodomy laws be enforced. The issue is an attempt to redefine a traditional word that has its earliest significant references found in religious texts. For example, both Christianity and Islam claim Adam and Eve as the "origins" of humanity. While neither text states clearly that they were married, they both show a picture of a married couple. Their son, Cain is the first specific mention of marriage in religious texts. There are no known non-religious texts or records that would predate the religious claims.

There are truly 2 different issues here - one is an intentional attack on a religious commitment in an attempt to redefine in and thus modify the religious acceptance of homosexuality. That is simply a wrong action attempted by proponents of "gay marriage". The second is the reality that a civil union between two (or more) consenting adults is not the business of anyone else - be it the church, the state, or the neighbors down the street. As such, society (including churches and states) should back the heck out of what people do in their own bedrooms provided it is between consenting adults.