snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Soapbox Derby

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 26 June 2013, 03:05 PM
rujasu rujasu is offline
 
Join Date: 07 May 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,811
Cheer Supreme Court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

In a landmark ruling for gay rights, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law blocking federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

The decision was 5-4, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news...riage-act?lite
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 26 June 2013, 03:41 PM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 14,165
Default

Some good news from the court this week. (But we won't forget the Voting Rights Act....)

From a political point of view, these may have been the best rulings we could have hoped for. I would have been gratified by a ruling on Prop 8 that struck down all laws banning same-sex marriage, but that might have set off a nasty backlash. Still, leaves me sad for those in states with such laws in place - they're still going to have to fight.

(There's also part of me that would have liked to have had another shot at legalizing same-sex marriage in California by popular vote, rather than court decision. I'm still kind of annoyed that we didn't have it on the 2012 ballot; I think it would have won. But I think proponents of gay marriage were hoping for a broader ruling here.)

Interesting majority on the Prop 8 ruling: Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan. Kennedy's dissent seems to be based on the idea that the court is unreasonably interfering with the initiative process.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 26 June 2013, 03:48 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,331
Default

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council:

Quote:
"Time is not on the side of those seeking to create same-sex 'marriage.' As the American people are given time to experience the actual consequences of redefining marriage, the public debate and opposition to the redefinition of natural marriage will undoubtedly intensify."
Don't hold your breath, Mr. Perkins.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 26 June 2013, 03:53 PM
Arriah's Avatar
Arriah Arriah is offline
 
Join Date: 15 August 2005
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 3,663
Blow Your Top

Yes, just like the opposition to interracial marriage eventually led to it being banned again.

I'm overly happy for a couple of my friends. They've been married for a some time but this just seems to make it a tiny bit better for them.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 26 June 2013, 04:02 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

Does this mean if you get married in state X and move to state Y your marriage is still recognized?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 26 June 2013, 04:04 PM
Nick Theodorakis Nick Theodorakis is offline
 
Join Date: 05 November 2005
Location: Fishers, IN
Posts: 6,657
Default

As for recognition by the state, I don't think that's clear yet, but at a minimum, it means the federal government will still recognize the marriage.

Nick
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 26 June 2013, 04:07 PM
justusfour's Avatar
justusfour justusfour is offline
 
Join Date: 22 March 2006
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 2,193
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Blue View Post
Does this mean if you get married in state X and move to state Y your marriage is still recognized?
According to SCOTUS blog, no, not if Y has a law that does not recognize same sex marriage; that point will probably be brought up next. I don't know how any state could possibly defend their not recognizing a marriage from another state. That is full violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 26 June 2013, 04:08 PM
dfresh dfresh is offline
 
Join Date: 11 November 2005
Location: Oxford, PA
Posts: 4,189
Default

Lainie, I am starting to agree with Mr. Perkins. Gays being able to marry is starting to have a major impact on my life, and my marriage. Our friend C is going to marry her girlfriend S this summer, and my wife has stated we are going to attend. That means we have to travel several hours away, get a hotel, and buy them a wedding present. This is just plain WRONG. Sure, banning marriage equality would be wrong and relegate C and S to second class status, but it would open up a nice weekend and save me the cost of a hotel and wedding gift.

And NOW, our friends M and J announced they are getting married. Where will this madness end? Mr. Perkinds and the FRC, save me!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 26 June 2013, 04:08 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,122
Canada

Quote:
"Time is not on the side of those seeking to create same-sex 'marriage.' As the American people are given time to experience the actual consequences of redefining marriage, the public debate and opposition to the redefinition of natural marriage will undoubtedly intensify."
Much like how God smited Canada after we legalized gay marriage.

Actually, it's been 10 years. My patience with the Almighty is wearing thin. Where is the Gay Apocalypse?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 26 June 2013, 04:09 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,331
Default

dfresh, YOMANK!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 26 June 2013, 04:23 PM
Rebochan's Avatar
Rebochan Rebochan is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2002
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 11,611
Default

Not too surprised about either. I had a hunch they were simply going to declare no standing on Prop 8 - it was the simplest way to avoid them having to set a major precedent in favor of Civil Rights but didn't actually cause them to wade too deep into the quagmire. Not so much a roadblock as it is a punt. But it does give us some baby steps ahead.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 26 June 2013, 04:40 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfresh View Post
Lainie, I am starting to agree with Mr. Perkins. Gays being able to marry is starting to have a major impact on my life, and my marriage. Our friend C is going to marry her girlfriend S this summer, and my wife has stated we are going to attend. That means we have to travel several hours away, get a hotel, and buy them a wedding present. This is just plain WRONG. Sure, banning marriage equality would be wrong and relegate C and S to second class status, but it would open up a nice weekend and save me the cost of a hotel and wedding gift.

And NOW, our friends M and J announced they are getting married. Where will this madness end? Mr. Perkinds and the FRC, save me!
My marriage has been feeling the sting too, fortunately we were vaccinated against it by having a gay man (friend of mine) officiate our wedding.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 26 June 2013, 04:53 PM
jayjaybear jayjaybear is offline
 
 
Join Date: 07 February 2004
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E. Q. Taft View Post
Interesting majority on the Prop 8 ruling: Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan. Kennedy's dissent seems to be based on the idea that the court is unreasonably interfering with the initiative process.
Since the majority opinion was a standing issue, neither the concurrences nor the dissents are on the merits, but on whether or not to allow the proponents standing. My guess is that Sotomayor dissented with Kennedy, Alito and Thomas because she wanted to get into the merits. That was possibly Kennedy's motivation as well. Don't ask me about Alito and Thomas...I never have been able to understand the RATS.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 26 June 2013, 05:49 PM
hambubba's Avatar
hambubba hambubba is offline
 
Join Date: 30 June 2000
Location: Gonzales, LA
Posts: 10,715
Default

In the simplest terms - gays technically don't reproduce. All the outcry seems to be from the terms of them being able to adopt and have a family.

This is a law that really doesn't affect very many people. The cries from traditionalists, and states not allowing gay marriage, will be long and hard.

Personally, I am typically "no gay marriage", but, on the other hand, what people do isn't decided by me, nor do I want to make enemies by spouting my position - which I do not do. People have enough trouble without adding gasoline to the fire. The concept is way overthought in Christian circles, for sure. It's on the "do not do list" of many churches. Not mine - ours says "don't sin". Take that for whatever it's worth, it fingerpoints everybody (myself included), not just a specific group. My position is that people need to know God - there are no prerequisites. Hey, I think Jesus taught that...

My tax dollars go to way more important and very useless things, lol.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 26 June 2013, 06:36 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,331
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hambubba View Post
In the simplest terms - gays technically don't reproduce. All the outcry seems to be from the terms of them being able to adopt and have a family.
I don't understand what you mean. All what outcry? The interest in marriage equality is not limited to people wanting to adopt.

Quote:
This is a law that really doesn't affect very many people.
I don't know if you mean DOMA or the SCOTUS decision striking it down, but in either case, your statement is incorrect. Many people are affected.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 26 June 2013, 06:44 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,331
Default

Just one example of an issue unrelated to adoption & childrearing:

Minutes After Supreme Court Strikes Down DOMA, Immigration Judge Stops Deportation Of Married Gay Man
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 26 June 2013, 06:46 PM
Errata's Avatar
Errata Errata is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 13,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hambubba View Post
gays technically don't reproduce.
Lots of gays reproduce, just not with one another. Lots of heterosexual couples don't reproduce for various reasons or have to resort to non-traditional means due to fertility issues, so that's not the defining characteristic of marriage.

Those are hardly the only issues at stake with DOMA. There are property and tax benefits that federally recognized marriages benefit from. Immigration status and other important rights that make a huge difference in the lives of millions of people.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 26 June 2013, 06:49 PM
crescent crescent is offline
 
 
Join Date: 13 August 2008
Location: Right here
Posts: 2,518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hambubba View Post
All the outcry seems to be from the terms of them being able to adopt and have a family.
And insurance benefits, immigration, inheritance and other matters relating to jointly held assets, health insurance, shared living space, hospital visiting rights, questions of who has authority to make decisions on behalf of medically incapacitated people, and quite a few other things.

Frankly, your statement makes me think you have not been paying much attention to this issue.



ETA: Spanked by Errata. Does that mean I was erratically spanked?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 26 June 2013, 06:57 PM
Simply Madeline's Avatar
Simply Madeline Simply Madeline is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Errata View Post
Those are hardly the only issues at stake with DOMA. There are property and tax benefits that federally recognized marriages benefit from. Immigration status and other important rights that make a huge difference in the lives of millions of people.
In fact, the case before the SC, United States v Windsor, dealt with inheritance taxes.

Quote:
In 2007, Edith "Edie" Windsor and Thea Spyer, residents of New York, married in Toronto, Ontario, after 40 years of romantic partnership.
Quote:
Spyer died in 2009, at which time New York legally recognized same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. After Spyer's death, Windsor was required to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes on her inheritance of her wife's estate. If federal law accorded their marriage the same status as different-sex marriages recognized by their state, Windsor would have qualified for an unlimited spousal deduction, and paid no federal estate taxes. Without the benefit of a spousal deduction, Windsor did not owe any taxes on the first $3.5 million she inherited from Spyer, but the remainder was subject to federal estate tax.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 26 June 2013, 07:03 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is online now
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,941
Default

Also, with the repeal of DODT, doesn't this mean that homosexual spouses of armed service members will now be able to get the benefits previously denied them?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BIL strikes again Not_Done_Living Rantidote 27 28 September 2013 08:05 PM
Sperm Donor Case Won't Be Heard By Supreme Court Sue Moot Court 17 01 June 2013 11:56 PM
US supreme court leans towards striking part of Voting Rights Act firefighter_raven Soapbox Derby 19 01 March 2013 10:37 AM
Gay marriage opponents take unusual tack with Supreme Court E. Q. Taft Moot Court 106 13 February 2013 01:41 AM
Iranian Air Defense robbiev Military 14 05 April 2011 03:40 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.