Posted by jrd_x on 5/14/2012 5:31:00 PM (view original):
You are correct.  That was the ruling 40 years ago.

We've come a long way since then.

Just a couple months ago a Federal appeals court ruled that banning same sex marriage does violate the 14th amendment:

We consider whether that amendment violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  We conclude that is does.

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently.  There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.

The Nebraska ruling was 2006.  On my calendar, that's fairly recent.

The California ruling was only a 2-1 decision.  Hardly an overwhelming definitive judgement, and one that is currently under appeal.  A stay has been issued, and Proposition 8 is still in place.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2012 5:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/14/2012 5:31:00 PM (view original):
You are correct.  That was the ruling 40 years ago.

We've come a long way since then.

Just a couple months ago a Federal appeals court ruled that banning same sex marriage does violate the 14th amendment:

We consider whether that amendment violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  We conclude that is does.

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently.  There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.

The Nebraska ruling was 2006.  On my calendar, that's fairly recent.

The California ruling was only a 2-1 decision.  Hardly an overwhelming definitive judgement, and one that is currently under appeal.  A stay has been issued, and Proposition 8 is still in place.

If you had to bet, which way do you think the Supreme Court is going to go on this issue?

EDIT: The California ruling was a Federal Appeals Court ruling, it will end up in the Supreme Court.  Unless they refuse to hear it (always possible), in which case the appeals court ruling will stand and the stay will be lifted.

Six Roman Catholics on the U.S. Supreme Court.    Which way do you think they will rule?

Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2012 7:03:00 PM (view original):
Six Roman Catholics on the U.S. Supreme Court.    Which way do you think they will rule?

I'm confident they will rule in agreement with the 9th circuit.

Which way do you think they will rule?

Edit again:  I also think that there is a good chance that the appeal will not be heard by the supreme court.  The prop 8 proponents only had 90 days from the February ruling to appeal. Not sure if they did.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/14/2012 7:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2012 7:03:00 PM (view original):
Six Roman Catholics on the U.S. Supreme Court.    Which way do you think they will rule?

I'm confident they will rule in agreement with the 9th circuit.

Which way do you think they will rule?

Edit again:  I also think that there is a good chance that the appeal will not be heard by the supreme court.  The prop 8 proponents only had 90 days from the February ruling to appeal. Not sure if they did.

The Proposition 8 proponents appealed the decision 14 days after it was issued.

If it does go to the Supreme Court, I believe that they will overrule the current decision, find no conflict with the 14th amendment, and reaffirm the rights of the states to define marriage as they see fit.

Which would be the correct decision.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2012 8:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/14/2012 7:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2012 7:03:00 PM (view original):
Six Roman Catholics on the U.S. Supreme Court.    Which way do you think they will rule?

I'm confident they will rule in agreement with the 9th circuit.

Which way do you think they will rule?

Edit again:  I also think that there is a good chance that the appeal will not be heard by the supreme court.  The prop 8 proponents only had 90 days from the February ruling to appeal. Not sure if they did.

The Proposition 8 proponents appealed the decision 14 days after it was issued.

If it does go to the Supreme Court, I believe that they will overrule the current decision, find no conflict with the 14th amendment, and reaffirm the rights of the states to define marriage as they see fit.

Which would be the correct decision.

I think they filed to have the 9th circuit hear the case en banc.  I don't think it was a supreme court appeal.

But either way, I disagree with you.  I think the correct decision will be to overturn proposition 8 based on the reasoning of the 9th circuit.  The court found that in order for the government to take a right away from a group it needs a compelling legal reason.

There isn't one.

Unless you have one that you haven't mentioned yet.

You're assuming that same sex marriage is a "right".  That's debatable.

The "Defense of Marriage Act" is still in effect as the U.S. federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.

That seems to contradict same sex marriage as a "right".  How can a "right" be in contradiction to federal law?

Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2012 9:29:00 PM (view original):
You're assuming that same sex marriage is a "right".  That's debatable.

The "Defense of Marriage Act" is still in effect as the U.S. federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.

That seems to contradict same sex marriage as a "right".  How can a "right" be in contradiction to federal law?

Up until prop 8 was passed, same sex couples had the right to marry in CA.  Then the proposition passed taking away that right.  I'm not assuming anything.

People used to have the "right" to own slaves in this country.  Seems that "right" was taken away.  Maybe it never was really a legitimate "right" in the first place?

Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2012 9:36:00 PM (view original):
People used to have the "right" to own slaves in this country.  Seems that "right" was taken away.  Maybe it never was really a legitimate "right" in the first place?

Yeah it was taken away.  For everyone.

Today some couples have the right to get married and some don't.

Depends on your definition of a couple, doesn't it?

DOMA defines a couple, with respect to marriage, as one man and one woman.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/14/2012 9:42:00 PM (view original):
Depends on your definition of a couple, doesn't it?

DOMA defines a couple, with respect to marriage, as one man and one woman.

Society has defined couples as opposite sex partners and same sex partners.

I could be wrong, but isn't the government no longer defending DOMA in a court of law because of the 3rd part being unconstitutional according to the current administration?

Posted by The Taint on 5/14/2012 10:02:00 PM (view original):
I could be wrong, but isn't the government no longer defending DOMA in a court of law because of the 3rd part being unconstitutional according to the current administration?

You are correct

I don't believe the Executive branch of the government is the arbiter of constitutional vs. unconstitutional.  Wouldn't that would be the responsibility of the Judicial branch?