SCOTUS takes on Prop 8 & DOMA!

[redfox]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/us...rriage.html?hp

Blog with very interesting commentary.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/11/sa...ourts-options/


"The case concerns two New York City women, Edith Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer, who were married in 2007 in Canada. Ms. Spyer died in 2009, and Ms. Windsor inherited her property. The 1996 law did not allow the Internal Revenue Service to treat Ms. Windsor as a surviving spouse, and she faced a tax bill of some $360,000 that a spouse in an opposite-sex marriage would not have had to pay.


Ms. Windsor sued, and in October the federal appeals court in New York struck down the 1996 law. The decision was the second from a federal appeals court to do so, joining one in May from a court in Boston. The New York decision was the first from a federal appeals court to say that laws treating same-sex couples differently must be subjected to heightened judicial scrutiny.


The Windsor case made its way the Supreme Court unusually quickly because the parties had filed an appeal from the trial court’s decision in the case, also striking down the law, even before the appeals court had ruled."

[bunnys]

I just hope this finishes off the issue once and for all. This is such a non-issue now for most of the public.

[redfox]

I just hope this finishes off the issue once and for all. This is such a non-issue now for most of the public.

Indeed! May it not become our generations Plessy. We shall see.

[bae]

Nice graphic:

http://graphics.latimes.com/usmap-ga...ge-chronology/

[gimmethesimplelife]

Being a gay man myself, I gotta say it is high time these cases were taking up by the Supreme Court. Given also that public opinion has shifted on this issue, (there was an interesting article on the front page of yesterday's USA Today about this), if DOMA is not struck down, I wonder how can anyone take seriously the US Constitution? Remember that bit about all men being created equal? We shall see what happens, for obvious reasons I wait with interest in the decision. I expect nothing - but then also have hope as I was 100% certain ObamaCare would be struck down. So we shall see - maybe on this one we will get closer to all men (and women, too) being created equal - I remember no clauses in the US Constitution about sexual orientation nullifying this. Rob

[Alan]

Being a gay man myself, I gotta say it is high time these cases were taking up by the Supreme Court. Given also that public opinion has shifted on this issue, (there was an interesting article on the front page of yesterday's USA Today about this), if DOMA is not struck down, I wonder how can anyone take seriously the US Constitution? Remember that bit about all men being created equal? We shall see what happens, for obvious reasons I wait with interest in the decision. I expect nothing - but then also have hope as I was 100% certain ObamaCare would be struck down. So we shall see - maybe on this one we will get closer to all men (and women, too) being created equal - I remember no clauses in the US Constitution about sexual orientation nullifying this. Rob

While I have no issues with same sex marriage, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, I think anyone conflating it with constitutional equality is missing the boat. As an individual, all persons are equal under the constitution.

The issues of same sex marriage are those of acceptance and benefit, neither of which are constitutionally guaranteed.

[bae]

...if DOMA is not struck down, I wonder how can anyone take seriously the US Constitution? Remember that bit about all men being created equal?

Yes, I remember that bit. It's in the Declaration of Independence though. Another one of those bothersome musty old documents nobody cares for anymore....

Note also that further along in the Declaration, it says (bold is my emphasis...):

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I think there is a boringly simple constitutional argument that follows from reading the 9th and 10th Amendments (almost forgotten text these days too..). Where in the Constitution is the Federal government ceded the power to regulate marriage in any way?

[gimmethesimplelife]

While I have no issues with same sex marriage, I think anyone conflating it with constitutional equality is missing the boat. As an individual, all persons are equal under the law.

The issues of same sex marriage are those of acceptance and benefit, neither of which are constitutionally guaranteed.

I disagree, Alan. Completely.

Let me put it this way.....If you believe in the Constitution (?) that states all men are created equal, then should it not be legal for me to marry another man - and have it be the same as you yourself marrying a woman? Both should have the same set of rights and responsibilities - and the unfortunatey messy potential for divorce. To me this is all men being created equal. I can't tell you for how many years I have felt disconnected from society - as I said, just going through the motions - here is another reason - the reality for some is that not all men are created equal. Walk a mile in these shoes.....you might very well see this differently. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

Well my bad.....LOL and I have a college degree too.....I am sure you are right and this is stated in the declaration of independence.....point being if this clause is true and real, maybe it's time to be true and real for another class of people? Rob

[Alan]

I disagree, Alan. Completely.

You're conflating state entitlements or benefits (recognized by the federal government) for rights. You and I share the same constitutional rights as well as the same rights to marry. The issue is not the recognition of our individual abilities, but our individual desires.