SCOTUS on gay marriage: DOMA falls, no standing on Prop 8

Post Reply New Topic

Not true - as I read it the decision today does not say that if the state doesn't defend the law, then no one can. The decision today indicates that only parties who can demonstrate that they themselves have been harmed may defend the law. That doesn't mean the people defending the law would necessarily have to be from the state, only that the people defending the law must demonstrate that they've been harmed - something that Prop 8's defenders failed to do.

From the official syllabus of today's decision: "One essential aspect of this requirement is that any person invoking the power of a federal court must demonstrate standing to do so. In other words, the litigant must seek a remedy for a personal and tangible harm."

No such power is actually granted to court by the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution exercising is appelate jurisdiction can only decide -cases- and the decision must be based on fact and law. The Supreme Court was never given the power to decide whether a law in its general scope is constitutional or not and the court has no power to nullify laws. This power was usurped by Justice Marshall in Marbury v Madison and no subsequent court has taken any step to rule that Marshall was out of line (I wonder why?).

A law can be judged valid or not -ONLY- in the context of a particular case on appeals that the Court is willing to hear. The Court need not hear every case submitted to it for appeal. It must grant a writ of certiori for cases that it is willing to hear.

ruveyn

A gay couple could go to any other state to marry, shouldn't they then not have "standing" to challenge Prop 8?

Every person to followed the letter of the law to get Prop 8 put on the ballot and passed was harmed when the state (then federal district court) ruled against it. If the Supreme Court is going to say only the state has "standing" to DEFEND Prop 8, it harms every person who worked to have Prop 8 put into force.

and other states have made it a crime to refuse services to a gay/lesbian couple even though that couple is free to go anywhere else to get the exact same service.

In a nation where your right to follow your religious convictions is the highest right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, we are allowing people who do that to be prosecuted for doing just that because an alleged right not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution is supposedly offended by it.

I'm happy that everything worked out with the SCotUS, but being from Massachusetts, we figured all this out a decade ago. My only regret is that it wasn't fifty decades ago.

Could someone please tell me what happened and whats going on and what it means. From both points of view.
If you have trouble being simple pretend you don't want me to know which side you are on.

There was only two ways the Supreme Court could have properly resolved the issue with Prop 8.

1. The U.S. Constitution says NOTHING about marriage as a civil right. At best it is inferred, but it is not expressly enumerated. As such, it is not within the federal government's authority to define what constitutes "marriage" within the US. This is affirmed by the fact that you cannot marry a minor without parental consent, have more than one legal spouse at a time or be married to multiple spouses. None of these limitations are overturned, and none of them exist because of federals laws or regulations to the contrary. Whom you may marry has always been a state rights issue, and it must remain thus UNLESS the PEOPLE push for a constitutional amendment adding the definition of what is a "marriage" as a protected right to our list of guaranteed rights.

2. The Court would have to find a way to impose a radically new definition of "marriage" on an entire nation with absolutely not one shred of case or historical data to support it.

Loving v. Virgina DOES NOT APPLY here. In Loving, you had a ban on interracial marriage. Interracial marriage has been a historical norm for most all of human history. Denying an otherwise "traditional" marriage because of ethnicity or color (or religion) by a state is a violation of the Constitution's right to equal protection under the law.

Same-sex unions ARE NOT the historical norm for all of human history. Whenever you can document them, they are always the exception, not the norm.

The definition of "marriage" in a constitutional context must be based on what is said in the US Constitution and what can be inferred from the history of the document when it was written and amended. From the day the Declaration of Independence was written to the latest added amendment to the US Constitution, same-sex marriage was not allowed in western society. Indeed, homosexual behavior was still criminalized in pretty much every state of the union. THERE IS NO WAY TO INFER SOMETHING AS A RIGHT UNDER THIS FACT PATTERN.

I am annoyed with today's ruling because it was just a way for the court to kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with. The only correct legal ruling they could have made was to say it was a state rights issue and keep the federal government out of defining marriage from the bench. There is a process to add new rights to the Constitution, and it should be utilized as intended rather than seek it imposed by an activist court's agenda. If society really is okay with same-sex unions, then such a proposed amendment would pass Congress, the White House and get the needed number of ratifications to become part of our Constitution.

Indeed the court's ruling is problematic. If the defenders of Prop 8 didn't have standing, I would argue that the District Court ruling calling it unconstitutional should not stand...after all, a party with standing was never present to defend it in court, right? However, today's ruling allows the opponents of Prop 8 to get what they want when the underlying legal issue is still unresolved...all because California REFUSED to do its duty and present to defend its laws and constitution from legal challenges. In light of how merchants who choose to not provide services for gay weddings based on religious convictions (protected by the First Amendment) can be criminally prosecuted for doing so, how can you say that a citizen of California who worked to get Prop 8 passed IS NOT an affected party who has standing? The Supreme Court routinely takes on cases with not a single identifiable "victim" because the law being challenged is egregious enough that its mere existence makes "victims" inevitable. In a moon bat state like California, don't tell me that the defeat of Prop 8 won't result in prosecutions of people who want to refuse to be involved in activities they see as fundamentally sinful and immoral. Well, maybe THEN the court will revisit the issue of "standing."

More so, this shows a troubling agenda within the Supreme Court itself. There is no good reason why the court should be afraid to make a move one way or the other, but I do see that the political forces may have made the "no standing to appeal" ruling a way to strike a happy medium within the court itself.

Clearly, the support for same-sex marriage exists prominently on the court...but they knew there was no way they could create it as a right via judicial fiat without a lot of political blowback. Likewise, those who feel the federal court has no business deciding what is "marriage" could not gain the support of pro same-sex justices because such a ruling would instantly negate every federal court ruling to date saying gays and lesbians have a civil right to marriage.

My honest opinion is that the court hopes this ruling will keep a "what is marriage" case off their docket long enough for the states to work out the issue on their own...either by every state adopting it or at least granting legal recognition to same-sex unions performed in other states...making the need for a federal position moot.

Not surprised, but taking the easy way out on Prop 8 was wrong.

The executive is obligated to defend the law. Obama refused to do his job with DOMA, and CA refused to do it with Prop 8. This means the courts are not beholden to the people when the government fails to do its job, and the people are a party harmed when the state fails or refuses to do its duty.

I'm sorry but that argument is inane. A gay person would only have a valid grievance regarding California's anti-gay marriage law if and only if all other states were also banning gay marriage? That's like saying that a slave in the pre-civil war south wasn't being harmed by slavery - all they had to do, after all, was head to one of the northern states and - poof! - problem solved.

Not true. The standard is "personal and tangible harm". That means there must be some real harm that goes beyond merely that "my feelings are hurt" or "I wasted my time". No one is harmed in any tangible way if gay marriage is legal.

Again, absurd. Let's say members of your race were only allowed to obtain drivers licenses in, say, Rhode Island. Or that the local Denny's decided that, hey, its just going to refuse service to all black people, because, aw, screw it, they can just go down the road to IHOP. And, hey, landlords can refuse to rent to Mexicans because the apartment owner down the street isn't refusing to rent to Mexicans, and besides, if they don't like it, they can just go back to Mexico and get an apartment there.

Sorry, but again this makes no sense. No one is being forced to do something against their religion if the government recognizes the marriage of two people of the same sex. Yes, you may not want to have gay people married, but it doesn't impact you any more than, say, I am impacted by having Christmas thrown in my face everywhere I go from early November to early January even though I'm not Christian.

Despite being happy with the effect of this ruling, I actually agree with you to a large extent. I don't think that the executive branch is obligated to defend laws that it disagrees with, but I really dislike this court's habit of effectively making large sections of law untouchable by declaring that the claimant has no standing. If the originators of the bill had no standing to defend the law, then who does? How else does one 'petition one's government for redress'?

I find this all so interest because there are so many different things here like seperation of church and state and how view shift. I believe in smaller government any way and that this should not even be up to the federal system all of this should be decided on a state level. each state should be able to have laws that the people want. other states should have to bring their ideal where they arnt wanted we already fought one war over it lets not fight another.

Fifty decades ago, Massachusetts didn't exist.