Supreme Court appears likely to strike down DOMA

[gabosaurus]

As they should.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...,1092273.story

[fj1200]

They should also strike marriage from the Federal Register.

[Robert A Whit]

They should also strike marriage from the Federal Register.

I used to enjoy benefits of marriage. I speak in this context those about tax deductions and mortgage deductions and others directed mostly to married people.

Having been not married for almost as long as Gabby has lived, weaned me off needing any of that.

I paid child support to my past wife for about 17 years and that ended at least 8 years back and the former wife took all tax deductions though she too did not get married again.

She was a glutton for having sex and quit once we divorced. I bet that was rough on her.

Marriage to me never was something to be approved or not approved by the Feds. I respect states rights far too much since that is what is near to me. I am remote from the Feds.

[gabosaurus]

I used to enjoy benefits of marriage. I speak in this context those about tax deductions and mortgage deductions and others directed mostly to married people.

Having been not married for almost as long as Gabby has lived, weaned me off needing any of that.

I paid child support to my past wife for about 17 years and that ended at least 8 years back and the former wife took all tax deductions though she too did not get married again.

When you get divorced, you still have a responsibility for your children. That does not end. If you don't want to pay the bill while getting nothing in return, don't get divorced.

Otherwise, the first paragraph of your statement is exactly why homosexuals are fighting the DOMA. They want the same financial benefits that are given to heterosexual married couples. These benefits are NOT extended to those in civil unions.

[Robert A Whit]

Originally Posted by Robert A Whit

I used to enjoy benefits of marriage. I speak in this context those about tax deductions and mortgage deductions and others directed mostly to married people.

Having been not married for almost as long as Gabby has lived, weaned me off needing any of that.

I paid child support to my past wife for about 17 years and that ended at least 8 years back and the former wife took all tax deductions though she too did not get married again.

When you get divorced, you still have a responsibility for your children. That does not end. If you don't want to pay the bill while getting nothing in return, don't get divorced.

Otherwise, the first paragraph of your statement is exactly why homosexuals are fighting the DOMA. They want the same financial benefits that are given to heterosexual married couples. These benefits are NOT extended to those in civil unions.

My children were always highly supported by me and I was more than happy to have done that. I went well overboard on lavishing benefits on both daughters so your take away should not be that I did otherwise.

DOMA is federal but states of course make rules that are highly exclusive and rule out many people from marrying. Homosexuals can't act like they are picked on.

Matter of fact, they can simply adopt the other party and case closed. They collect the benefits of married people's off springs so they do have the full rights if they select adoption over marriage.

As to Civil unions, they apply to the state and were not able to reach to the Federal level.

[jimnyc]

These benefits are NOT extended to those in civil unions.

And if everyone agreed, all of our politicians as well, to give identical benefits to homosexuals with civil unions, would things end there? Naive little Gabriella!

[Little-Acorn]

Supreme Court appears likely to strike down DOMA


The LA Times also reported the Supremes were likely to strike down Obamacare, when those oral arguments were going on.

[avatar4321]

The Supreme Court looked ready to strike down ACA too. That monstrousity is still law and going to end up resulting in people being killed so who the heck knows what they will decide with this.

[Missileman]

And if everyone agreed, all of our politicians as well, to give identical benefits to homosexuals with civil unions, would things end there? Naive little Gabriella!

That's a bridge yet to be built, let alone crossed.

[gabosaurus]

And if everyone agreed, all of our politicians as well, to give identical benefits to homosexuals with civil unions, would things end there? Naive little Gabriella!

You are arguing semantics here. If identical benefits were extended to civil unions, why would anyone (straight or gay) bother to get married? Society places a lot of emphasis on identification. You are looked up a lot different if you are someone's spouse instead of someone's partner.

Also, if you are willing to grant identical benefits to civil unions, what would make that different to you than marriage? It's like you are attempting to create a lower class of people.

[Robert A Whit]

You are arguing semantics here. If identical benefits were extended to civil unions, why would anyone (straight or gay) bother to get married? Society places a lot of emphasis on identification. You are looked up a lot different if you are someone's spouse instead of someone's partner.

Also, if you are willing to grant identical benefits to civil unions, what would make that different to you than marriage? It's like you are attempting to create a lower class of people.

I should not give Jim cover since he makes hateful comments directed my way, but he is correct that civil unions do the job so long as the Feds include this in law. Homosexuals with civil unions certainly can have the law do for them what so called marriage laws do. But the court is acting like the Feds should play no role in marriage.

The difference in myself and Jimmy is that I fight for his rights, even if he offends. He refuses to accord me the same courtesy.

By the way, just what did marrying do for you? Really, you appear to support marriage and the Fed court claims they play no role, why do you want them to play any role?

[avatar4321]

I would also think that it will be interesting to see how they will respond to these cases. If they do strike down the DOMA section (only one part is actually being considered to be struck down), it sounded like they were going on an argument of state's rights.

But can they rule in favor of striking down the DOMA section on the basis of state rights, while at the same time striking down the State of California's Constitutional Amendment? It's going to be difficult to have a consistant basis to strike down both for gay marriage.

If a non-important section of DOMA has to get struck down for the Court to uphold the voice of the people in California, I think it's a very small price to pay.

[logroller]

I would also think that it will be interesting to see how they will respond to these cases. If they do strike down the DOMA section (only one part is actually being considered to be struck down), it sounded like they were going on an argument of state's rights.

But can they rule in favor of striking down the DOMA section on the basis of state rights, while at the same time striking down the State of California's Constitutional Amendment? It's going to be difficult to have a consistant basis to strike down both for gay marriage.

If a non-important section of DOMA has to get struck down for the Court to uphold the voice of the people in California, I think it's a very small price to pay.

I would think that the argument for striking down the DOMA would rest upon its violation of the Second Section of the Fourth Article of the Constitution, which declares that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States." I don't imagine DOMA will survive Constitutional scrutiny for just this reason.
So assuming DOMA does not survive, even if prop 8 is upheld California would still be required to recognize gay marriage from other states, thus relegating prop 8 to little more than red tape. But as prop 8 clearly states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California", if DOMA falls for abridging the privileges and immunities clause, so would prop 8.

[Robert A Whit]

I would think that the argument for striking down the DOMA would rest upon its violation of the Second Section of the Fourth Article of the Constitution, which declares that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States." I don't imagine DOMA will survive Constitutional scrutiny for just this reason.
So assuming DOMA does not survive, even if prop 8 is upheld California would still be required to recognize gay marriage from other states, thus relegating prop 8 to little more than red tape. But as prop 8 clearly states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California", if DOMA falls for abridging the privileges and immunities clause, so would prop 8.

I do like your argument but for one problem. If the FEDS can't defend marriage, then they can't reward marriage by giving married people special privileges over those not married. The IRS will be forced to get rid of a lot of things they currently do. They can't give homosexuals any of those tax privileges either so in the end, they got nothing by taking this to court. I understand that attorneys, even in CA determined Proposition 8 is legal. Even the left leaning Supreme court of CA upheld the law. This is being infringed upon not by state courts but by the very Feds who may rule they have to wash their hands of marriage in all respects.

[logroller]

I do like your argument but for one problem. If the FEDS can't defend marriage, then they can't reward marriage by giving married people special privileges over those not married. The IRS will be forced to get rid of a lot of things they currently do. They can't give homosexuals any of those tax privileges either so in the end, they got nothing by taking this to court. I understand that attorneys, even in CA determined Proposition 8 is legal. Even the left leaning Supreme court of CA upheld the law. This is being infringed upon not by state courts but by the very Feds who may rule they have to wash their hands of marriage in all respects.

A- correct me if I'm wrong, but prop 8 is an amendment to the California constitution that resulted from a similar law being overturned as unconstitutional. Its the supreme courts' responsibility to uphold the CA constitution, including the prop 8 amendment. They did so.
B- As for the charge before the US Supreme Court, I'm not aware a challenge to marriage is under consideration, only its scope of qualification. So while you may see it as a demise of marriage, gays getting married doesn't require tax benefits to be forsworn. You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.