DOMA STruck Down by SCOTUS

[Zaac]

Well it is what it is.

Preach the word!!!

A divided U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal law that defines marriage as a heterosexual union, saying it violates the rights of married gay couples by denying them government benefits.

The vote on the Defense of Marriage Act was 5-4. Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the four Democratic-appointed justices in the majority.

The law “places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage,” Kennedy wrote for the court. “The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, and whose relationship the state has sought to dignify.”

The court will act momentarily on a second gay-marriage case, involving California’s Proposition 8, which bars same-sex couples from marrying.

The historic cases, which marked the first time the high court had ever considered gay-marriage rights, reached the justices as the movement was showing unprecedented momentum. Twelve states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage, six of them in the last year.

Joining Kennedy in the majority on the Defense of Marriage Act ruling were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Dissenting were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Bye Bye DOMA

 

[Tom Bryant]

Well it is what it is.

Preach the word!!!

Yes and preach that marriage is between a man and a woman as the Word clearly states.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The post title isn't entirely accurate. Only the portion of DOMA that bars same-sex couples from collecting benefits under federal guidelines (insurance, death benefits, etc.) is struck down. The portion that allows states to refuse to recognize such marriages performed in other states remains.

 

[Crabtownboy]

On Kennedy's reasoning:

Justice Anthony Kennedy, speaking for the 5-4 majority, said DOMA was unconstitutional because it violated the right to liberty and to equal protection for gay couples.

"By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute" violates the Constitution, he said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-doma-supreme-court-ruling-20130626,0,6846934.story

This was a ruling on legality not morality.

 

[sag38]

Crabby, how can you separate the two? Are they not two side of the same coin. Are not most laws no matter their focus or intent based upon some standard of right and wrong?

 

[Zaac]

On Kennedy's reasoning:



This was a ruling on legality not morality.

It still seemingly opens the door for people to make marriage into whatever they want.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Crabby, how can you separate the two? Are they not two side of the same coin. Are not most laws no matter their focus or intent based upon some standard of right and wrong?

Absolutely! Watch who is celebrating the victory and understand that it is about both. We are accepting what God condemns.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Crabby, how can you separate the two? Are they not two side of the same coin. Are not most laws no matter their focus or intent based upon some standard of right and wrong?

While I agree with your sentiment I have to say that legality and morality do not necessarily have much to do with each other. It would be nice if they did. There is nothing new about laws not abiding to morality.

For example:

The Separate but Equal Laws were legal until ruled illegal, but always immoral.

The Constitution, the 3/5 compromise was legal until it was changed, but it was always immoral.

FDR's executive order 9066 that resulted in the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent was legal, but immoral.

A pharmacists refusing to fulfill prescriptions for the "morning after pill" may be morally correct, but may be committing an illegal act.

Slavery was legal, but always immoral.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

This was a ruling on legality not morality. [/SIZE]

That's because the law is not based on morality. Morality should never figure into constitutional interpretation.

 

[Revmitchell]

All law, constitutional or otherwise, is based on morality.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

All law, constitutional or otherwise, is based on morality.

Not its interpretation, only its motivation.

 

[Crabtownboy]

All law, constitutional or otherwise, is based on morality.

Are you saying that all laws, as long as they are deemed legal, are moral?

 

[Salty]

All law, constitutional or otherwise, is based on morality.

for the most part - yes .
for example - would term limits be based on morality? There are other examples as well