Defense of Marriage Act Struck Down as Unconstitutional (5-4)

This is breaking news now, I'll post a newslink when I have a good one.

http://www.scotusblog.com

Edit:

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/26/19151971-supreme-court-strikes-down-defense-of-marriage-act?lite

another victory of fed over state.

this i like.

About time.

I'm more concerned that 4 justices honestly believed that it was okay in the first place, and I find myself often agreeing with the 4 who voted that way too.

another victory of fed over state.

 

 

this i like.

frannkzappa

I'm more concerned that 4 justices honestly believed that it was okay in the first place, and I find myself often agreeing with the 4 who voted that way too.

Boston_Boyy

Any day where the courts rule in favor of equality is a good day.

Any day where the courts rule in favor of equality is a good day.

Serraph105

My dad's going to be so pissed off when he listens to the radio this morning. :smw:ghoklebutter

Any day where the courts rule in favor of equality is a good day.

Serraph105

Good news. Hopefully they don't screw it up with a shitty Prop 8 rulingRing_of_fire

A real come from behind victory

As a straight dude I got goose bumps when I read the news minutes ago.  

A real come from behind victory

lostrib

SCOTUS declines to take Prop 8 case, meaning gay marriage is legal again in CA, but that doesn't provide anything more to discussion. More of a punt from the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS declines to take Prop 8 case, meaning gay marriage is legal again in CA, but that doesn't provide anything more to discussion. More of a punt from the SCOTUS.

jimkabrhel

SCOTUS declines to take Prop 8 case, meaning gay marriage is legal again in CA, but that doesn't provide anything more to discussion. More of a punt from the SCOTUS.

jimkabrhel

Okay, for some reason not a lot of prop 8 news is popping up on google yet.  So they declined the case, which basically upholds the previous ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional? Thus, gay marriage is legal in California or at least not defined as a man and a woman

Both decisions today were mixed and didn't rule on the Constitutionality of gay marriage. States can still ban it is the outcome.KC_Hokie

in this case i rescind my previous statement.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

SCOTUS declines to take Prop 8 case, meaning gay marriage is legal again in CA, but that doesn't provide anything more to discussion. More of a punt from the SCOTUS.

lostrib

Okay, for some reason not a lot of prop 8 news is popping up on google yet.  So they declined the case, which basically upholds the previous ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional? Thus, gay marriage is legal in California or at least not defined as a man and a woman

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

SCOTUS declines to take Prop 8 case, meaning gay marriage is legal again in CA, but that doesn't provide anything more to discussion. More of a punt from the SCOTUS.

Boston_Boyy

Okay, for some reason not a lot of prop 8 news is popping up on google yet.  So they declined the case, which basically upholds the previous ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional? Thus, gay marriage is legal in California or at least not defined as a man and a woman

A lot of people were expecting a broader ruling on the issue of gay marriage.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] A lot of people were expecting a broader ruling on the issue of gay marriage.DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] A lot of people were expecting a broader ruling on the issue of gay marriage.KC_Hokie

SCOTUS declines to take Prop 8 case, meaning gay marriage is legal again in CA, but that doesn't provide anything more to discussion. More of a punt from the SCOTUS.

jimkabrhel

Yes, but doesn't the language they're using seem to indicate bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional?  Phrases like "depriving them of personhood," and "right to equal liberty protected under the fifth amendment."  When you phrase it like that I really don't see how that isn't applicable to the entire nation.

Also, props to Kennedy for coming down on the right side.  And Scalia being a tremendous douche as usual.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] hahahahahaDroidPhysX

In the end both were mixed decisions punting the issue back to the states.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Yea...people for years were expecting a ruling on the Constitutionality of gay marriage. They punted on both cases.KC_Hokie

In the end both were mixed decisions punting the issue back to the states.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Both decisions today were mixed and didn't rule on the Constitutionality of gay marriage. States can still ban it is the outcome.frannkzappa

in this case i rescind my previous statement.

still though between this, the DOMA ruling, and the momentary victory in Texas I may have to do the bad thing and tune into Fox News.

Is it too soon to predict this sort of thing?

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

SCOTUS declines to take Prop 8 case, meaning gay marriage is legal again in CA, but that doesn't provide anything more to discussion. More of a punt from the SCOTUS.

theone86

Yes, but doesn't the language they're using seem to indicate bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional?  Phrases like "depriving them of personhood," and "right to equal liberty protected under the fifth amendment."  When you phrase it like that I really don't see how that isn't applicable to the entire nation.

Also, props to Kennedy for coming down on the right side.  And Scalia being a tremendous douche as usual.

the prop 8 ruling dismissed the case and vacated the appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court (federal), meaning the CA district court (state) ruling is upheld

You mean we can not restrict the rights of a minority in the land of the free? SHOCKING .:P

roulettethedog

nope, still can,

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Both decisions today were mixed and didn't rule on the Constitutionality of gay marriage. States can still ban it is the outcome.Serraph105

in this case i rescind my previous statement.

still though between this, the DOMA ruling, and the momentary victory in Texas I may have to do the bad thing and tune into Fox News.

Is it too soon to predict this sort of thing?

Crying about liberal, activist judges or some shit, probably.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] hahahahahah, no they weren't. People knew this was going to be a narrow ruling for years. More so even after how the ninth circuit didn't issue a broad ruling themselves.DroidPhysX

In the end both were mixed decisions punting the issue back to the states.

Didn't happen.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Hunh? With these two cases a lot of gay marriage activists were expecting a final ruling on the Constitutionality of gay marriage which would apply nation-wide.

In the end both were mixed decisions punting the issue back to the states.

KC_Hokie

Didn't happen.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] >a lot of people >a lot of gay marriage activists pls stop floppingDroidPhysX

Didn't happen.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

SCOTUS declines to take Prop 8 case, meaning gay marriage is legal again in CA, but that doesn't provide anything more to discussion. More of a punt from the SCOTUS.

lostrib

Yes, but doesn't the language they're using seem to indicate bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional?  Phrases like "depriving them of personhood," and "right to equal liberty protected under the fifth amendment."  When you phrase it like that I really don't see how that isn't applicable to the entire nation.

Also, props to Kennedy for coming down on the right side.  And Scalia being a tremendous douche as usual.

the prop 8 ruling dismissed the case and vacated the appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court (federal), meaning the CA district court (state) ruling is upheld

Right, I get that, but what I'm saying is that in the DOMA ruling they're saying that it deprives homosexuals of personhood and restricts their liberties.  Shouldn't that establish gay marriage as a right for the whole country?  I get that it doesn't, I'm not getting why.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Whatever. A lot of people said "wait until the Supreme Court rules on these issues for a final outcome on the Constitutionality of gay marriage".

Didn't happen.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

SCOTUS declines to take Prop 8 case, meaning gay marriage is legal again in CA, but that doesn't provide anything more to discussion. More of a punt from the SCOTUS.

theone86

Yes, but doesn't the language they're using seem to indicate bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional?  Phrases like "depriving them of personhood," and "right to equal liberty protected under the fifth amendment."  When you phrase it like that I really don't see how that isn't applicable to the entire nation.

Also, props to Kennedy for coming down on the right side.  And Scalia being a tremendous douche as usual.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Yes, but doesn't the language they're using seem to indicate bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional?  Phrases like "depriving them of personhood," and "right to equal liberty protected under the fifth amendment."  When you phrase it like that I really don't see how that isn't applicable to the entire nation.

Also, props to Kennedy for coming down on the right side.  And Scalia being a tremendous douche as usual.

theone86

the prop 8 ruling dismissed the case and vacated the appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court (federal), meaning the CA district court (state) ruling is upheld

Right, I get that, but what I'm saying is that in the DOMA ruling they're saying that it deprives homosexuals of personhood and restricts their liberties.  Shouldn't that establish gay marriage as a right for the whole country?  I get that it doesn't, I'm not getting why.

i think they get around it by saying that once the state determined gays can marry, the Feds cannot discriminate between the marriage of a same-sex couple vs hetero couple. But obviously I'm not a lawyer

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] On these two cases combined. The issue was supposed to be ruled on Constitutionally. Instead it was mixed punting it back to the states.KC_Hokie

What was hoped for by the public and what was expected in legal terms are two very different things. No one expected the court in its current makeup to make sweeping statements about gay marriage.