Gay Marriage in The U.S. is a sham as long as DOMA Exists.

[lambdaboy]

Please watch this and understand why I say it is a sham ;

http://www.upworthy.com/if-you-happe...g-for-me?c=bl3

[hotatlboi]

Of course it is, but hopefully DOMA will be gone by next month.

[Rolyo85]

Every gay foreigner in the United States, and all those dating us are painfully aware of this travesty. Gay Marriage is not a sham for citizens, even if it doesn't provide so much of what straight couples get. But for partners from different countries, it is indeed worthless as a means to stay together.

[lambdaboy]

It is a sham for all there are none of the benefits from Tax laws to SSecurity etc. It just sounds nice.

[Ninja108]

I don't see any way section 3 of DOMA will stand. Scalia,Alito,Thomas and perhaps Roberts will do their best to ensure otherwise but I see a 5-4 or 6-3 ruling coming.
As for Prop 8..it's going to get punted.

[csb999]

Would suggest this is a logical mess , marriage alone , that any individual citizen has the right to grant citizenship to any other ...

[csb999]

granted marriage is a maximum of one and there is the issue of adoption .

[lambdaboy]

Just to show people a difference in other certainly not all countries. In 2001 my partner was offered a job in England. We lived in California. We had of course no civil partnership. England on granting the working papers/vis to my partner granted me the same.
In 2006 we both became civil partners and dual citizens of the UK, which is legal with the U.S. who is aware of that fact.
We know a gay English couple where one was offered a job with a very large computer firm (you can figure it out). He was ready to accept when they informed him that his partner could not live in the States. His partner would not have been a burden to the states as the working half makes more money than I care to mention here. We can only hope that DOMA is destroyed.

[chrisrobin]

If DOMA prevails, let's implement a Sanctity of Republicons' Act.

[Kulindahr]

It's not a sham, it's just the right's way of rewriting the Declaration of Independence to say, "All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others".

[chrisrobin]

It's not a sham, it's just the right's way of rewriting the Declaration of Independence to say, "All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others".

I think there is a clause in the U.S. Constitution that reads, "equal protection under the law". If only it were true.

[T-Rexx]

News Flash: Gay marriage will still be a sham, even if DOMA is struck down by the Supreme Court.

SCOTUS is showing every sign that it intends to throw this issue back to the states.

It is not acceptable to allow a patchwork of states, some of which acknowledge gay marriage, and some of which do not. A gay couple cannot have their marriage dissolved simply by moving from a state in which they are married to a state which does not recognize their marriage. Such a couple would not be able to divorce, and would have no legal mechanism for distribution of property in the event of a dissolution. If the couple separated and one moved to a gay marriage state, that person would still be married, while his partner would not. If they had children, how could a state which did not recognize their marriage recognize their children as part of their family? Would they file federal taxes jointly, and state taxes separately? How could you even do that, since the latter is dependent on the former?

If what everyone believes the court is about to do becomes what the court does, this is a recipe for disaster. It will mean that gay marriage is still not equal to straight marriage in the USA, and will raise extraordinary complications within the legal system.

So, even if DOMA is struck down, gay marriage will probably remain a "sham" within the USA.

[Kulindahr]

News Flash: Gay marriage will still be a sham, even if DOMA is struck down by the Supreme Court.

SCOTUS is showing every sign that it intends to throw this issue back to the states.

It is not acceptable to allow a patchwork of states, some of which acknowledge gay marriage, and some of which do not. A gay couple cannot have their marriage dissolved simply by moving from a state in which they are married to a state which does not recognize their marriage. Such a couple would not be able to divorce, and would have no legal mechanism for distribution of property in the event of a dissolution. If the couple separated and one moved to a gay marriage state, that person would still be married, while his partner would not. If they had children, how could a state which did not recognize their marriage recognize their children as part of their family? Would they file federal taxes jointly, and state taxes separately? How could you even do that, since the latter is dependent on the former?

If what everyone believes the court is about to do becomes what the court does, this is a recipe for disaster. It will mean that gay marriage is still not equal to straight marriage in the USA, and will raise extraordinary complications within the legal system.

So, even if DOMA is struck down, gay marriage will probably remain a "sham" within the USA.

That will all hit the courts the moment SCOTUS speaks, if things go the way you say: some gay couple will move from the state where they're married to one that doesn't recognize it for that very purpose, to challenge the "crippled" aspect of the ruling.

[Ninja108]

I believe the hope of the majority of SCOTUS hope is (especially is Section 3 of DOMA is struck down) that more states will permit gay marriage,whether it's through the courts,elections etc so by the time another case does reach them in 3-5 years they can simply strike down the rest of the bans.
Of course,it will be helpful if Scalia or Thomas croak in the meantime.

[T-Rexx]

That will all hit the courts the moment SCOTUS speaks, if things go the way you say: some gay couple will move from the state where they're married to one that doesn't recognize it for that very purpose, to challenge the "crippled" aspect of the ruling.

Fat lot of good that will do, AFTER SCOTUS has already ruled on gay marriage.

I believe the hope of the majority of SCOTUS hope is (especially is Section 3 of DOMA is struck down) that more states will permit gay marriage,whether it's through the courts,elections etc so by the time another case does reach them in 3-5 years they can simply strike down the rest of the bans.
Of course,it will be helpful if Scalia or Thomas croak in the meantime.

It is highly unlikely that "another case" will "reach SCOTUS in 3-5 years."

SCOTUS does not typically accept a case upon which it has already ruled until many decades after the ruling in question. It took 58 years to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson, 32 years to overturn Lochner v. New York , and 17 years to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick.

If SCOTUS throws gay marriage back to the states, it will almost certainly be several decades before we have (real) gay marriage in the USA.

[frankfrank]

If DOMA prevails, let's implement a Sanctity of Republicons' Act.

At least it has an easy to remember acronym.

I think there is a clause in the U.S. Constitution that reads, "equal protection under the law". If only it were true.

I think that is a later construct but, indeed, that interpretation of the Constitution HAS been made by The Supreme Court (or at least I think). But is it actually used nowadays in prevailing force of law? Nope.

Of course,it will be helpful if Scalia or Thomas croak in the meantime.

Sadly, I have the terrible feeling that the Supreme Court, perhaps for generations to come, will be more conservative than the current roster. Who are the most likely to croak right now...Breyer, Ginsberg??? I wouldn't even trust Obama to name somebody who may actually rule for The People, but certainly forget it if we have a President Paul Ryan in 2017 and the next vacancy happens after Obama has gone.

Some of the Republicans, if given the chance, would NEVER nominate a Scalia clone to fill the vacancy, because such a person would be FAR too liberal for their tastes.

[Ninja108]

Fat lot of good that will do, AFTER SCOTUS has already ruled on gay marriage.




It is highly unlikely that "another case" will "reach SCOTUS in 3-5 years."

SCOTUS does not typically accept a case upon which it has already ruled until many decades after the ruling in question. It took 58 years to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson, 32 years to overturn Lochner v. New York , and 17 years to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick.

If SCOTUS throws gay marriage back to the states, it will almost certainly be several decades before we have (real) gay marriage in the USA.

If they punt,they avoid ruling on the issue of gay marriage altogether. More to the point,Section 3 of DOMA is at issue right now. If that gets struck down,it will become much easier to argue in different states. It will still be a long road but not the 17-30 years you project.
And Paul Ryan will never become president,so it's a moot point.

[T-Rexx]

If they punt,they avoid ruling on the issue of gay marriage altogether.

No. If they throw it back to the states to define marriage, the court will have decided that the federal government has no role in defining marriage. (In fact, such a ruling could theoretically reverse Loving v. Virginia from 1967, and allow states to re-implement anti-miscegenation laws - although it is hard to imagine any state actually doing that at this point in history.)

What I expect is that the court will rule that the federal government has a definite role in defining marriage with regard to race, but no role in defining marriage with regard to sexuality. That's logically inconsistent, of course, but this very conservative court has given us a bunch of illogical turkeys over the past few years.

More to the point,Section 3 of DOMA is at issue right now. If that gets struck down,it will become much easier to argue in different states. It will still be a long road but not the 17-30 years you project.

All that striking down Section 3 of DOMA will do is make it possible for the federal government to acknowledge same sex marriage. If you think that that is going to encourage Mississippi or Louisiana or Alabama or Texas or Wyoming or Idaho or Utah to allow same sex marriages, you have no understanding of the extreme anti-gay prejudice endemic in these parts of the USA.

It will be many decades before the USA truly achieves same sex marriage.

[cm98059]

I do not believe marriage is a sham. I do believe that many members of the citizenry of the United States is actively being discriminated against by our own government. The only way for marriage to be a sham, is if the two people who are entering into the marriage contract to do so knowing that they do not intend to honor the contract. DOMA doesn't make marriage a sham, people who enter into marriage with no intention to honor the vows they took make marriage a sham. DOMA is simply legislated bigotry and discrimination.

[cm98059]

Also, we need to quit using the phrase Gay Marriage. All marriages are equal in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the married. We should not make a habit of separating ourselves as long as we allow marriage to be quantified, we are choosing to allow ourselves to be treated as other.

[deksman2]

Marriage as a concept is an outdated piece of trash and a sham that has been going on for too long.

The only reason people still cling or attribute any sort of importance to it is because its been droned into their skulls as something 'important'.

Granted, we still live in a society in which marriage can offer certain legal rights... but lets be honest here, those rights should extend to every living/breathing Human being on the planet by default since their birth (not 'suddenly' extended/given when you decide to enter into a 'union' - which in itself is a piece of paper).

Also, a piece of paper or a declaration of 'marriage' isn't going to do a thing for a relationship necessarily - its up to the actual couple/people to take necessary steps (although in todays world, if those people are from different countries, then its next to impossible to accomplish something like that again due to 'laws' that were passed by governments most people never agree with in the first place).

Furthermore, why are we still clinging to the notion of borders?
For the love of man, we all share the same planet. To artificially create 'lines' and 'borders' is to segregate people from each other and create social stratification (or at least heavily contribute to the problem).

Idiotic child-like mentality.

[Rolyo85]

Ah, the cynicism of youth

[Kulindahr]

Fat lot of good that will do, AFTER SCOTUS has already ruled on gay marriage.

SCOTUS will not be ruling on "gay marriage" soon, or probably ever. They will be ruling on a certain aspect of how the law works -- a very narrow aspect, probably as narrow as they can manage. That means that huge areas of law having to do with the same topic won't be touched, which means they're fair game for new cases.

Specifically, SCOTUS will be ruling on the status of a specific law in California. They're not going to do so in a way that touches on any law in Kentucky or Arkansas or Wisconsin or New Hampshire or anywhere else, except possibly in a few states near California. So any issue about who can be married and where will still be fair game.

It is highly unlikely that "another case" will "reach SCOTUS in 3-5 years."

SCOTUS does not typically accept a case upon which it has already ruled until many decades after the ruling in question. It took 58 years to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson, 32 years to overturn Lochner v. New York , and 17 years to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick.

If SCOTUS throws gay marriage back to the states, it will almost certainly be several decades before we have (real) gay marriage in the USA.

No, it won't, because of the above. A new case will be an entirely different issue: this one has to do with a state law within a state, and they may well decide it has to do with a state law within a state that takes away individual rights the state Supreme Court already affirmed, making it narrow indeed. It will have nothing to do with laws in other states, and most certainly less to do with how the laws in one state impact people from there who move to another state.


edit: I had Prop 8 on the brain writing this....

[Kulindahr]

I think that is a later construct but, indeed, that interpretation of the Constitution HAS been made by The Supreme Court (or at least I think). But is it actually used nowadays in prevailing force of law? Nope.

Actually, "equal protection under the law" was used as an argument here recently in a misdemeanor case, and that argument prevailed.

[Kulindahr]

What I expect is that the court will rule that the federal government has a definite role in defining marriage with regard to race, but no role in defining marriage with regard to sexuality. That's logically inconsistent, of course, but this very conservative court has given us a bunch of illogical turkeys over the past few years.

That is possible -- weird, but possible.

All that striking down Section 3 of DOMA will do is make it possible for the federal government to acknowledge same sex marriage. If you think that that is going to encourage Mississippi or Louisiana or Alabama or Texas or Wyoming or Idaho or Utah to allow same sex marriages, you have no understanding of the extreme anti-gay prejudice endemic in these parts of the USA.

It would mean cases hitting the courts in mere months. With the Prop 8 matter also dealt with, I would almost expect Olsen and Boies to step in and find one to force the Court to enforce the equal protection of the law by requiring states to recognize all marriages enacted in other states. We'd be back in SCOTUS within four years at the most.

And they have to recognize this, which probably means they're going to get creative.

[scream4ever]

That is possible -- weird, but possible.



It would mean cases hitting the courts in mere months. With the Prop 8 matter also dealt with, I would almost expect Olsen and Boies to step in and find one to force the Court to enforce the equal protection of the law by requiring states to recognize all marriages enacted in other states. We'd be back in SCOTUS within four years at the most.

And they have to recognize this, which probably means they're going to get creative.

As it stands now, the next round of court cases will reach the SCOTUS in 2015/2016 (the ones from Nevada/Hawaii and Michigan).

[frankfrank]

Actually, "equal protection under the law" was used as an argument here recently in a misdemeanor case, and that argument prevailed.

That's why I said "prevailing" argument - it is successfully applied sometimes, and it is easy to find such exceptions where that value was applied. But nowadays racism, etc. in enforcement of laws (such as stop-and-frisk, alleged "random" traffic stops which aren't, etc.) is far too common. Some places, such as Texas, don't even hold out a HINT of a pretense of applying equal protection under the law.

[Ninja108]

The Nevada/Hawaii cases will be on the seperate but unequal clause,same with the Michigian one. It is possible the court could refuse to hear those cases and thus those rulings would stand,but only to those states.

[scream4ever]

The Nevada/Hawaii cases will be on the seperate but unequal clause,same with the Michigian one. It is possible the court could refuse to hear those cases and thus those rulings would stand,but only to those states.

Or the entire circuits the appeals courts would cover.

[Ninja108]

Or the entire circuits the appeals courts would cover.

That would make it a tougher issue. If the 9th circuit struck down the bans as seperate and unequal and it covers all of their states,AK,ID and MT would see their bans hit as well I think,same with the 6th in MI. I think you would only see bans in those states struck down.
We'll have to wait and see but I think the can is going to get kicked down the road,which was the intention of the four conservative members(the ones I think chose to hear the cases.) They know gay marriage will be coming but they'll will make sure to delay it as long as possible.

[Ninja108]

And T-Rexx,I wasn't talking about the public,I was talking about the courts. I'm well aware that there are states that are still against interacial marriage,let alone SSM and those states will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into equal rights yet again.