Supreme Court.......STRIKES DOWN...Defence of Marriage Act !

This has nothing to do with the states. This has to do with Federal recognition of marriages is states that permit them. So far as I have read the states have no say in this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
Face it folks Liberty is popular. People in the United States have the right to live as they choose.
 
Face it folks Liberty is popular. People in the United States have the right to live as they choose.

Barely. Had the court been skewed the other direction liberty would have fallen. Given the same court make up, should a case like Prop 8 come the court again and both parties have standing, gay marriage will be allowed in all 50 states. The court will decided it not the states because there are still too many states who do not believe in individual liberty even though there is now a slim majority of voters nation wide who support equal marriage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
But those headlines proclaiming that the federal marriage law has been overturned are going a bit too far in their analysis. While it is true that the heart of the provision has been ruled unconstitutional, some parts of DOMA still stand. Policy Mic has more:

Section 2, which was not considered by the Supreme Court in the Windsor case, declares that states and territories of the United States have the right to deny recognition of same-sex marriages that originated in other states or territories.
Same-sex couples face several major problems that arise from Section 2 of DOMA. If a same-sex couple is married in Vermont, for example, and moves to Pennsylvania, their marriage is no longer valid.​
Sec. 2 reads, “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”
Consider that a gay couple marries in New York, but then moves to a state where same-sex unions aren’t legal. Their marriage would then essentially (and potentially) not be legally recognized.
Clearly, there’s still much to be hashed out on the gay marriage front. Considering that the Supreme Court didn’t tackle this portion of the bill, it’s likely that another challenge could unfold down the road. The issue — which, like the DOMA marriage definition mandate that was overturned — involves states’ rights, is sure to carry with it a great deal of controversy.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/26/hold-on-doma-wasnt-totally-thrown-out-heres-the-provision-that-could-lead-to-another-gay-marriage-battle/
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
D O M A....is.....D E A D !!!!!!!!!!!

Any BETS on which State will be FIRST to announce that it will NOT abide by Federal Statute ?

This is a 'tuffy', but I'm going with South Carolina / Texas .
"Please do not applaud the government for ruling DOMA unconstitutional. Implicit in this ruling is that the government has the authority to determine which mar...riages are valid and which ones are not. LGBT people do not have a RIGHT to get married. Heterosexuals do not have a RIGHT to get married either. However we do have a right to associate and disassociate as we see fit. We DO have a right to enter into voluntary contracts.

Noone has the right to tell a clergy man or any other individual for that matter that he either MUST or MUST NOT marry any two or more individuals. Let's wake up and strike the root!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
I understand your point but I think you are splitting hairs. Since we are entitled to enter into contracts and marriage is a legal contract (so far as the state is concerned) they we do have the right to marry as marriages are contracts. Now if you are addressing religious marriages then I agree that there is no constitutional right to enter into marriages.

No one is arguing that any religious institution must do any thing. Not sure why people keep trying to bring that into the argument unless they are intentionally being disingenuous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
I understand your point but I think you are splitting hairs. Since we are entitled to enter into contracts and marriage is a legal contract (so far as the state is concerned) they we do have the right to marry as marriages are contracts. Now if you are addressing religious marriages then I agree that there is no constitutional right to enter into marriages.

No one is arguing that any religious institution must do any thing. Not sure why people keep trying to bring that into the argument unless they are intentionally being disingenuous.
Liberty NEVER splits hairs. You have 2 choices, there is no neutral. The choices are the Tyranny of the Federal Government or Individual Liberty. Which side are you on?
 
Liberty NEVER splits hairs. You have 2 choices, there is no neutral. The choices are the Tyranny of the Federal Government or Individual Liberty. Which side are you on?

I never said that liberty was splitting anything. I said you were. The government is not being given any authority to validate one marriage over another. All the decision is doing is saying that any marriage in a state that recognizes them must also be recognized by the Fed. The denial of Prop 8 just had to do with standing and nothing with the merit of the case. I think if you read the DOMA decision it is easy to see what will happen when a legitimate same sex marriage reaches the court, assuming the court make up does not change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
str8-ppl-gay-babies.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person