The Supreme Court of the United State struck down the part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that called for the federal government to deny benefits to same-sex couples married in states that recognize same-sex marriage. In other words: States Rights.
Now, the SCOTUS ruling is being cheered by the left. I’m not seeing a lot of news reports about cheering from the right. I’m not sure why that is. Maybe no one in the media is asking conservatives what they think about it. Or, maybe they’re just asking conservatives who don’t understand what the ruling means.
Now, the four conservatives on the Court were in the minority in the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissent, argued that the case in question was not a question for the Supreme Court.
So, what we now have is the four liberals and the squish on the Supreme Court issuing a ruling that effectively says the states, not the federal government, define what marriage is. And we have a bunch of liberals cheering it.
We have a lot of Democrats that voted for the Defense of Marriage Act cheering its gutting.
I’m wondering: what other conservative causes can we get the liberals to embrace?
If it is “States rights” as you suggest then why is Gay marriage moving forward in 29 days in California? We voted to ban Gay marriage… Youre very wrong in your interpretations…
Or do you mean “States rights” as in Jerry Brown is now the “State” and has the right to do what he wants regardless of what the voters of the state wanted?
Different case. Got nothing to do with the DOMA ruling. The case you’re confusing it with is one where Kennedy sided with Scalia, et al, in saying neither the Supreme Court or the Federal Court had jurisdiction. The ruling at the state level (which threw out the law voters approved) was the proper jurisdiction.
State’s Rights.
Don’t know if the fed sup court can say if a state is legally dysfunctional. No, I really don’t know this. I understand the feds can say a state is doing fed things wrong (like not upholding voting rights for fed elections) or when they’re doing them right (which seems to be why the court decided against part of the Voting Rights Act — The Constitution done outlived Jim Crow.) Anyone know for sure if the fed sups could’ve told the cats in Sacremento they have to do what the voters say about things in the Califorinia?
The ruling itself, as Scalia pointed out in the dissent, has nothing to do with states rights. Kennedy based his opinion on the 5th Amendment. If anything, the majority’s rationale will eventually be used to nullify states’ rights to not recognize same-sex marriage.
My understanding is that the appeal of Prop 8 went all the way to the Supremes who kicked it back and also ruled it didn’t belong in the 9th circuit either. Which, help me out here, means that Prop 8 still stands?
Here’s the deal. No matter how matter what they rule. No matter what obama says. No matter how many people agree, homosexuality is still wrong. Three hundred years ago, most people believed that Africans were sub human and that slavery was for their own good. We all know that was not true, but enough people believed it that battles were fought over it and people died because of it.
I’m also a mom and the whole “well everybody’s doing it” holds no water for me. If everybody was going to jump off a bridge into dirt would you do it. DUH.
You forgot the part where the majority said that any law that separates two groups of citizens in regards to rights (ie, marriage and civil unions), it is inherently bigoted, and those that support it are hateful bigots. (You know, people like Bill Clinton.) Any law based on animosity towards one group is unconstitutional, by the 5th Amendment (funny how those robed old libs can find that stuff in there). Basically, any opposition to gay marriage is hate, and any law (state or fed, you just watch) based on that is illegal.
Of course that is ridiculous. But that’s libruls for you.
Nope. It was the defenders of Prop 8 that appealed to the federal courts because the state supreme court ruled it invalid. The Supremes said that, as it wasn’t the governor or his agents that fought to protect the law, and the defenders had no personal injury from the action of the state, they had no standing to appeal. Basically, if the governor of any state doesn’t like the laws as passed (particularly through the proposition process), they just have to not enforce it, nor defend it in court.