DOMA Is Unconstitutional

That's what Ive been saying since Bill Clinton signed it.


So the Feds must now recognize Gay marriage. They get the tax benefits of marriage and what else?
 
This part of Roberts dissent could play in Perry...

The majority goes out of its way to make this explicit in
the penultimate sentence of its opinion. It states that
“[t]his opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful
marriages,” ante, at 26—referring to same-sex marriages
that a State has already recognized as a result of the local
“community’s considered perspective on the historical
roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving un-
derstanding of the meaning of equality.” Ante, at 20.
JUSTICE SCALIA believes this is a “‘bald, unreasoned disclaime[r].’” Post, at 22. In my view, though, the disclaimer
is a logical and necessary consequence of the argument
the majority has chosen to adopt. The dominant theme
of the majority opinion is that the Federal Government’s
intrusion into an area “central to state domestic relations
law applicable to its residents and citizens” is sufficiently
“unusual” to set off alarm bells. Ante, at 17, 20. I think
the majority goes off course, as I have said, but it is undeniable that its judgment is based on federalism.
 
Professor Baxter said:
This part of Roberts dissent could play in Perry...

The majority goes out of its way to make this explicit in
the penultimate sentence of its opinion. It states that
“[t]his opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful
marriages,” ante, at 26—referring to same-sex marriages
that a State has already recognized as a result of the local
“community’s considered perspective on the historical
roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving un-
derstanding of the meaning of equality.” Ante, at 20.
JUSTICE SCALIA believes this is a “‘bald, unreasoned disclaime[r].’” Post, at 22. In my view, though, the disclaimer
is a logical and necessary consequence of the argument
the majority has chosen to adopt. The dominant theme
of the majority opinion is that the Federal Government’s
intrusion into an area “central to state domestic relations
law applicable to its residents and citizens” is sufficiently
“unusual” to set off alarm bells. Ante, at 17, 20. I think
the majority goes off course, as I have said, but it is undeniable that its judgment is based on federalism.
Click to expand...


This is the language that suggests that Perry will be kicked on standing:

We may in the future have to resolve challenges to state marriage definitions affecting same-sex couples. That issue, however, is not before us in this case, and we hold today that we lack jurisdiction to consider it in the particular context of Hollingsworth v. Perry, ante, p. ___. I write only to highlight the limits of the majority’s holding andreasoning today, lest its opinion be taken to resolve notonly a question that I believe is not properly before us—DOMA’s constitutionality—but also a question that all agree, and the Court explicitly acknowledges, is not at issue.
Click to expand...
 
Just a couple more 5-4 decision about unimportant things that don't matter to regular people again demonstrating that it doesn't matter who you vote for for president because they're all the same.
 
Dungheap said:
Just a couple more 5-4 decision about unimportant things that don't matter to regular people again demonstrating that it doesn't matter who you vote for for president because they're all the same.
Click to expand...

IMO, they are equally wrong but in differing ways. So, to me, it does not matter enough to decide my vote but I have always argued that such considerations from a libertarian perspective has to give a slight edge to Democrats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top