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

Post Reply New Topic

I don't see a civil war happening over this, but the issue about same-sex marriage is that it is not a historical norm, and marriage is not defined or established as a "right" at the federal level. Certainly, the right to marry is INFERRED, but then you must look to when the laws were drafted...at time when there was no such thing as same-sex marriage.

Should a COURT be allowed to redefine a central pillar of society when it is clear the populace is not unanimous in support for the new standard? Should a court be allowed to claim something is a right when the authority to decide such a matter is not enumerated to that court's jurisdiction?

Normally, when something so fundamental needs to be changed, you must change the Constitution to make it so. Even slavery was NOT abolished by anything Lincoln did as president. They had to amend the Constitution to eradicate the practice once and for all. That's how our government is set to function...in order to prevent the whims of society or the hubris of presidents and judges from turning the system on its ear to suit their agendas.

Some STATE courts have done just that, and it has met with varied resistance...one being states moving for constitutional amendments defining "marriage" so that the courts can not impose their individual interpretation.

Also please keep in mind that the issue of same-sex marriage has involved a lot of "forum shopping" in the USA. Forum shopping is when you seek a court and justice that will be most favorable to your position and arrange the case to be filed so that you get that specific judge. If I recall correctly, the district court ruling on Prop 8 was just that and NOBODY was surprised it went the way it did. The people challenging Prop 8 sought a judge who held positions favorable to their own, and it was not a jury decision...the judge had all the power.

I don't seriously see a civil war breaking out over this, either. My point was, for civil rights to truly work, it has to be nationwide, not just in certain states. Slavery being allowed in some states but not in others proved to be unworkable. So will forbidding gay marriage in some states, but not in others.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Agree with this. It is an issue at the state level, not the federal level. That is in fact the way it is, and that is the proper way for it to be, per the U.S. Constitution. But this is why DOMA was inappropriate - it was basically saying that while the states themselves can each decide what marriages will be recognized, the federal government will not abide by the states' decisions and instead only recognize certain marriages. This was inappropriate since the federal government was attempting to define marriage for its own purpose, by refusing to recognize some marriages that some of the states were recognizing. The federal government should not have the power to do this, per the constitution.



The problem is that DOMA was doing basically exactly what you are saying - Congress was imposing a definition of marriage on an entire nation, when it was not in Congress's power to do so. The court did not impose any definition of marriage yesterday, it merely said that its up to the individual states to do so, and said that congress may not impose a definition of marriage on the whole country, whether or not that definition would be a traditional one, or a radical one. Congress cannot define marriage, period.



This is where I have a problem - the use of the word "traditional" and the concept of tradition. This suggests that because something has done in a certain way in the past, we must therefore do it that way in the future, always and in perpetuity. There is no possibility or allowance for any change. Whether or not something works well, or not, also becomes irrelevant under such thinking - if something is being done in a horrible, awful way with tons of negative consequences, we must continue to do it that way because that's how its always been done. We, as a society should never lock ourselves in to an inflexible position like this, if for no other reason that we cannot predict the future and no one can say with any certainty if what worked in the past is going to work 50 years from now, 5 years from now, or even 5 weeks from now. Why would tradition ever be an excuse to continue a bad policy that does not work well?




This is utterly irrelevant. As you've admitted above, the Constitution does not address marriage. On the other hand, it does address freedom and personal liberties, the idea being that unless something is specifically precluded, you are free to do it. The framers of the Constitution did not do this lightly, and the idea that you seem to be promoting is that the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says - you have freedom to do stuff, yes, but only freedom to do stuff that would have been considered 'acceptable' at the time the Constitution was written.



But this is exactly what was done in the case of DOMA. DOMA was the federal gov. attempting to define/restrict marriage. The court struck it down specifically because this is a power reserved for the states. The court did not define marriage from the bench, it invalidated the federal government's attempt to define marriage from Capitol Hill.



Yes, but the rights in question are already provided for in the Constitution, even if they are not specifically mentioned (for instance, the 9th amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.") The Constitution need not enumerate every right a state or a person has when it goes to great pains to state that simply because some rights are enumerated, all other rights are denied.



But no such thing occurred. The Supreme Court imposed nothing. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress may not impose its definition of marriage on the people. In the absence of DOMA. the only imposition of marriage definitions onto the people have been done by the various states, which is proper and allowed for under the Constitution. A court is not activist when it is properly interpreting the law, or at least making a good-faith attempt to do so without regard to its own agenda. There is no evidence here to suggest that anything other than a proper attempt to interpret the law occurred here. Any disagreement that you might have with the decision does not constitute evidence that anything other than a good faith attempt was made to interpret the law and the constitution, all it constitutes is that you disagree with what they did, which is your right, but it does not mean the court acted in a maliciously improper manner.



Not true. The barriers to amending the Constitution were made far higher than the mere support of 50.1% of the people - for good reason. A mere majority should not be able to trample the rights of a minority. Unfortunately, that's exactly what's been going on here - anti-same-sex marriage advocates have been denying same sex couples their right to marry. Allowing gay people to marry does not infringe upon anyone else's rights, and a Constitutional amendment is not required because any proper interpretation of the Constitution in its current state allows States to define marriage as they see fit, including or excluding same-sex marriage as they see fit.



At first glance I tend to agree. But what I think the Supreme Court did (and what I tend to think was a bit of hair splitting, even though there may have been judicial precendence for it) was basically say that the proponents of prop 8 had standing to take the case to federal district court, but then did not meet the requirements to have standing to appeal a case in the federal appelate court. From the decision: "[A]ny 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. Although most standing cases consider whether a plaintiff has satisfied the requirement when filing suit, Article III demands that an “actual controversy” persist throughout all stages of litigation ... Standing "must be met by persons seeking appellate review, just as it must be met by persons appearing in courts of first instance." ... The parties do not contest that respondents had standing to initiate this case against the California officials responsible for enforcing Proposition 8. But once the District Court issued its order, respondents no longer had any injury to redress, and the state officials chose not to appeal. The only individuals who sought to appeal were petitioners, who had intervened in the District Court, but they had not been ordered to do or refrain from doing anything. Their only interest was to vindicate the constitutional validity of a generally applicable California law. As this Court has repeatedly held, such a “generalized grievance”—no matter how sincere—is insufficient to confer standing."



I disagree - if I feel that a law is clearly unconstitutional, and I have sworn an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution, I would not go to court to advocate said law. And if I did go to court to advocate for said law, I would probably intentionally blow the case regardless.



Simple - they must have suffered some "real and tangible" harm. Again, wasted time and hurt feelings are not real harm. None of the proposition 8 proponents have had their rights violated, or have had any other form of harm inflicted upon them. The only real and tangible harm suffered in this case was suffered by same-sex couples in California who had their right to marry unjustly suspended while this shameful effort to manipulate the state ballot initiative process to try and perpetrate an unconstitutional revocation of their rights played out over many years.




I agree, it would have been better for everyone had the court grown a pair (6 of the 9 justices are male, but I doubt there's even one ball shared between all of the cowards) and ruled one way or the other. But, as I see it, then they would have had to sidestep the issue of standing, and as I understand it, its a requirement that standing be established before any rulings on the merits can occur. In other words, if they'd ruled on the merits of Prop 8, they'd have established a precedent that the advocates of a ballot initiative had standing to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court - since they seem to have felt that there was no such standing, they had no wiggle room to rule on the merits.




My guess is that eventually a case concerning same-sex marriage and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment will eventually come before the court by a party who has standing. At that point the court will have to decide. As I see it, even though the states have the right to define marriage, they cannot define it in such a way that treats people unequally.

no, The civil war was fought over a right for a state to make its own laws. And exercise their constitutional rights to no longer be part of the union. And then they got invaded by the federal government.
My point is that the federal government should not be able to make these choices. it should be up to the state government to decide what goes on in there state. So each state can do what is best for their people. whether that is same sex marriage or anything else. What happens when Texas says no they wont. but the feds say they have to? Its only a matter of time until a state finally gets the votes to succeed, and we get to see what the feds do.

But what about the rights of minorities in those states who have those rights violated? If states rights reign supreme, then a state could run roughshod over the rights of any unpopular minority. It's the federal government's job to protect the rights of every citizen - even if it's against the wishes of a state's majority.
Please, don't get me started on the Civil War and it's causes, or else we're really going to get off topic.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

No state has the right to establish laws which violate the Constitution. As the Constitution states, it is the supreme law of the land. Per the 10th amendment, any power not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved for the states, so states should be able to do what they want, so long as they do not exercise powers reserved for the federal government, and only to the extent that what they do is consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

No state has the Constitutional right to exit from the Constitution or from the Union.

As Abraham Lincoln said in his 1st Innaugural Address:

Interesting perspective. One of the major causes of the Civil War was a case that went straight against the concept of state's right. When the Dred Scott case was decided the south could not have been more happy about it. Scott was found to still be a slave, even in states where slavery was illegal. Surely supporters of state's rights can see the issues in working out such significant issues in compromise? On the one hand supporters of slavery were perfectly happy to foist their views on the matter upon the rest of the union, denying states like Massachusetts the right to decide for themselves who was and was not a slave within their territory. they then conversely claimed that their state's rights were being infringed when the same Federal power was being wielded against them in defence of the union.

Yesterday was a sad, sad day for American society. This country will be judged by God, and it won't be pretty.

Finally, someone with a backbone.

I too, have had it with all of this "Equal Protection" and "Establishment Clause" nonsense...

History has shown - again and again - that peace, liberty and prosperity can only thrive in societies founded upon Divine Law.

Translation: Yesterday the Supreme Court did something I disagree with. The country will now suffer the judgement of my imaginary friend who is described in detail in a 2000 year old book of children's stories. You must now all cower in fear.

Let him judge.

I fancy myself a Christian, and not only did I vote for legalizing gay marriage here in Washington state, but I also dedicated some of my time working for it.
Gay marriage is a civil rights matter, plain and simple, and we are a nation of laws, not of a certain religion.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

/\ When the left votes in favor of property rights and gun rights I WILL vote in favor of gay rights.

You mean like Saudi Arabia? Or perhaps Afghanistan? Are we discussing the freedoms enjoyed under Ferdinand of Spain, during the Grand Inquisition? Or perhaps the joys of being a Catholic during the reign of James I of England?

For that matter, that "historical" definition of marriage - would that be the one where only the nobility got married? Or the one where marriage was defined as one man and as many women as he could talk into it? Did you mean dynastic marriages, or perhaps arranged marriages? I'm pretty sure you don't mean my marriage, as it was illegal in seventeen states as recently as 1967, and frowned on for some time after that ("what will the children be like?" Pretty cute, actually).

It never ceases to amaze me how many people are willing to pontificate on "history" and "tradition" when they're blissfully ignorant of both.

I do not know why people bring up human rights about the civil war when no mention of slavery showed up until 2 years into the war. Slavery is bad. And each state should deal with it. But im not saying that, The war was started over a states right to succeed. not slavery. slavery was a cause that they used. So the north (where black people were treated poorly and there weren't many at all) decides something economically crucial to the south is bad, But where this is needed it was seen as a bad thing but no fix could be found.

And because of that war it crated a flux resulting in a scocitey where blacks were treated poorly.

My point is that states have rights that are taken away from them little by little until they have none, and no power.
Also at the point that the war started the southern states were no longer bound by the Constitution as they were another country entirely and then invaded. So it doesn't matter. This is like invading another country because we disagree with how they treat women. We may disagree but its not your country. Help them not fight them. slavery was fine until The CSA formed. Then it was an issue.

If there's one thing I learned from the civil war, it is that those people are all dead.

And I fail to see how the civil war is apropos.