Supreme Court delivers wins for gay marriage movement

i wasn't talking about the ruling by the SC, or Roberts decision. i was quoting justice scalia

While the Alito filed a dissent in DOMA, he simply joined in Roberts' opinion in VRA. So not sure what you are "quoting" from Alito in regards to the VRA. Please provide a cite to your assertion that Alito stated:

he also said the we dont need the voting rights act. that was for when there was racism in the south. now a days the south is no more racist then me.

Further, Alito's dissent in DOMA is entirely consistent with the majority opinion in the VRA. Rather than using judicial authority to overturn legislative policy determinations without a sound constitutional basis for doing so (as the majority does in the DOMA ruling), he believes such policy decisions rightly belong before the legislative arm subject only to constitutional review by the judicial branch.

What Windsor and the United States seek, therefore, is not the protection of a deeply rooted right [the right to same-sex marriage] but the recognition of a very new right, and they seek this innovation not from a legislative body elected by the people, but from unelected judges.

...

Legislatures, however, have little choice but to decide between the two views. We have long made clear that neither the political branches of the Federal Government nor state governments are required to be neutral between competing visions of the good, provided that the vision of the good that they adopt is not countermanded by the Constitution. ... Accordingly, both Congress and the States are entitled to enact laws recognizing either of the two understandings of marriage. And given the size of government and the degree to which it now regulates daily life, it seems unlikely that either Congress or the States could maintain complete neutrality even if they tried assiduously to do so.

strict or intermediate scrutiny should be applied .. very surprised gay and lesbian isnt a protected class in 2013.
wow

I agree. But, think about it, the Gay Rights movement is a relatively recent force in politics. Sure, they have been fighting since the 70's but is only in the last decade that they have acheived any real legislative success.

Again, the right - but hard - way to deal with this is in the policy making arena, not abdicating it to nine unelected individuals who are in no way accountable to the public. It's simple enough, amend the appropriate legislation to include gender preference as a type of protected class, either as an intermediate or suspect class. That way, the type of Constitutional scrutiny the Courts are to be apply is set forth by policy makers responsive to voters.

Again, this would require adherence to the Constitution's division of power, diffusion of soveriegnity and protection of an individual's rights and responsibility to decide governmental policy. Better just to say, "eh, constitution, smonstitution ... that's too much work" and abdicate our rights and responsibilities to a bunch of unelected jurists.

The real solution was to have Congress invalidate DOMA.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf


:laughing2

You mean those same jackwads that continue to try and repeal Obamacare? There are about 5 of them I have faith in, the rest could get hit with a meteorite and I wouldn't care. Too bad those douchebag lawyers in DC don't have the ethics and morality that you do JR. I think the country would be a better place to say the least. I want to thank you for your breakdown on this thread. (or any thread actually with legal talk) I'm glad you are on this board mi amigo. :food-smil





You quoted nothing...you ASSERTED something. Back it up or it didn't happen (as the kids say nowadays).

Uhh....that's "pics or it didn't happen". Get your internet slogans/meme correct old man. :silly:

Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings - seattlepi.com (http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/Pa-gov-Gay-marriage-is-like-marriage-of-siblings-4868647.php)

:doh:

Well, let me ask you this ... if two adult siblings wish to enter into a contract of marriage with each other (I.e. a lifelong commitment of mutual support, cohabitation, sexual relations and the right to have/adopt children & raise them). What basis, if any, would you have to deny them the legal right to do so? Do you see anything wrong with such a union? Is the bottom line simply do what you want so long as you do not cause physical or emotional harm that manifests itself in an immediate and obvious manner?

Well, let me ask you this ... if two adult siblings wish to enter into a contract of marriage with each other (I.e. a lifelong commitment of mutual support, cohabitation, sexual relations and the right to have/adopt children & raise them). What basis, if any, would you have to deny them the legal right to do so? Do you see anything wrong with such a union? Is the bottom line simply do what you want so long as you do not cause physical or emotional harm that manifests itself in an immediate and obvious manner?

Is the chance of children with flippers a valid reason?

Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings - seattlepi.com (http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/Pa-gov-Gay-marriage-is-like-marriage-of-siblings-4868647.php)

:doh:


This explains the ignorance ....— Pennsylvania Republican Gov. Tom Corbett (http://www.seattlepi.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Fus&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Tom+Corbett%22) compared the marriage of same-sex couples to the marriage of a brother and sister during an appearance on a Friday morning TV news show, a remark that was quickly condemned by advocates involved in the state's ongoing battle over whether to allow gays to wed.

Well, let me ask you this ... if two adult siblings wish to enter into a contract of marriage with each other (I.e. a lifelong commitment of mutual support, cohabitation, sexual relations and the right to have/adopt children & raise them). What basis, if any, would you have to deny them the legal right to do so? Do you see anything wrong with such a union? Is the bottom line simply do what you want so long as you do not cause physical or emotional harm that manifests itself in an immediate and obvious manner?

incest = gay marriage?

really Joe?

This explains the ignorance ....— Pennsylvania Republican Gov. Tom Corbett (http://www.seattlepi.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=news%2Fus&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Tom+Corbett%22) compared the marriage of same-sex couples to the marriage of a brother and sister during an appearance on a Friday morning TV news show, a remark that was quickly condemned by advocates involved in the state's ongoing battle over whether to allow gays to wed.

Well if they love each other and want to get married isn't that the argument for people backing gay marriage? What is it for someone to tell them they cannot?

Wow. It really does show you where we really are as a society when people compare homosexuality to incest. It's just too dumb to even really argue with. If your view is that narrow minded it is what it is, not much you can say to change that.

The lyrics from that Mackelmore song come to mind. "America the brave, still fears what we don't know"