SCOTUS strikes down DOMA

[Keith and stuff]

Options
Judge Andrew Napolitano
Supreme Court made the right decision today.
Judge Napolitano: 'I'm Not Surprised' Supreme Court Struck Down DOMA
foxnewsinsider.com

Of course Judge supports this. All Constitutionalists support this. It is common sense.

 

[QuickZ06]

"Baby, this shit we got together, it's so good we gotta get the government in on this shit. We can't just share this commitment 'tweenst us. We need judges and lawyers involved in this shit, baby. It's hot!"
--Doug Stanhope

YES! Someone rep her right meow for me! MEOW!

 

[brandon]

Great news! Glad kennedy came down on the side of freedom.

 

[V3n]

The Church is always crying for separation between Church and State - this is that put in motion - now they're crying for the State to bend again to their will.
You can't have it both ways.

Anytime the SCOTUS deems something "Unconstitutional" we should be celebrating on here, because pretty much everything that gets handed to them is Unconstitutional.
But some folks don't think two same-sex people who love each should enjoy the same Rights as non-same-sex people so they come on here and complain.
You can't have it both ways either.

I celebrate the repeal of any government restriction. Including this one!

 

[Brett85]

It seems to me like the actual issue here from a Constitutional perspective is whether or not the federal government has the authority to give out marriage benefits. I don't believe they do, but if they are going to give out these benefits then it seems like they should at least be allowed to determine who the benefits go to. All this decision does is simply expand the federal role in marriage as more people will be receiving federal marriage benefits. It's likely to create even more of a shortfall in the Social Security system due to more Social Security Survivor's benefits being given out.

 

[Keith and stuff]

It seems to me like the actual issue here from a Constitutional perspective is whether or not the federal government has the authority to give out marriage benefits. I don't believe they do, but if they are going to give out these benefits then it seems like they should at least be allowed to determine who the benefits go to. All this decision does is simply expand the federal role in marriage as more people will be receiving federal marriage benefits. It's likely to create even more of a shortfall in the Social Security system due to more Social Security Survivor's benefits being given out.

Yes. While this decision is the liberal, constitutional and libertarian position, it is also the statist position. It expands federal spending and causes an increase in either federal debt, federal taxes or both

 

[Christian Liberty]

It seems to me like the actual issue here from a Constitutional perspective is whether or not the federal government has the authority to give out marriage benefits. I don't believe they do, but if they are going to give out these benefits then it seems like they should at least be allowed to determine who the benefits go to. All this decision does is simply expand the federal role in marriage as more people will be receiving federal marriage benefits. It's likely to create even more of a shortfall in the Social Security system due to more Social Security Survivor's benefits being given out.

Well, as a moral issue, I support depriving anyone and everyone of social security.

As a constitutional issue, however, I think SCOTUS got this one right.

The Feds have no authority to give out marriage benefits, OR to decide who gets them.

If the states are deciding, at least that's only one thing rather than two.

Ideally the Feds would revoke ANY role in marriage, but if they're going to have one, they should follow the lead of the states.

I think SCOTUS got this one as best as they could, given the circumstances. For once, good job.

(I still don't support gay marriage, I assume you can see the distinction here.)

 

[Brett85]

Yes, but it just seems like the actual issue from a Constitutional perspective is whether or not the feds have the right to give out marriage benefits, which they clearly don't have the right to do. I don't really see how the feds determining who the marriage benefits go to makes the federal marriage benefits any more or less Constitutional. The Supreme Court also didn't rule that DOMA violates the 10th amendment, they ruled that it violates the "equal liberty" clause of the 10th amendment. The ruling didn't have anything to do with states' rights and the 10th amendment.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Yes, but it just seems like the actual issue from a Constitutional perspective is whether or not the feds have the right to give out marriage benefits, which they clearly don't have the right to do. I don't really see how the feds determining who the marriage benefits go to makes the federal marriage benefits any more or less Constitutional. The Supreme Court also didn't rule that DOMA violates the 10th amendment, they ruled that it violates the "equal liberty" clause of the 10th amendment. The ruling didn't have anything to do with states' rights and the 10th amendment.

Was there a typo in there?

I didn't read the entire case, I do have better things to do than to put a few extra minutes focusing on gay marriage of all things. So they may well have reached the right conclusion for the wrong reason.

The Feds have no right to give marriage benefits to ANYONE for ANY reason.

I'm not sure exactly what benefits are given. I know tax breaks are given as well, and a tax break can't really be unconstitutional, at least not to my understanding, and if it were I'd probably say screw the constitution anyway.

The Supreme Court upheld the soveregnty of the states, and not the Feds, to determine who can and cannot receive marriage benefits. I'm glad they did.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Of course Judge supports this. All Constitutionalists support this. It is common sense.

Judge Nap supports FEDERAL gay marriage IIRC. I think that's one of the few issues where he slips into liberal thinking when he shouldn't.

 

[american.swan]

Read Justice Kennedy's decent opinion on Prop 8 and see what really is screwed up.

 

[Brett85]

Was there a typo in there?

I didn't read the entire case, I do have better things to do than to put a few extra minutes focusing on gay marriage of all things. So they may well have reached the right conclusion for the wrong reason.

The Feds have no right to give marriage benefits to ANYONE for ANY reason.

I'm not sure exactly what benefits are given. I know tax breaks are given as well, and a tax break can't really be unconstitutional, at least not to my understanding, and if it were I'd probably say screw the constitution anyway.

The Supreme Court upheld the soveregnty of the states, and not the Feds, to determine who can and cannot receive marriage benefits. I'm glad they did.

Well, I'm just not sure. My view is that it's unconstitutional for federal laws to mention marriage at all since the federal government has no jurisdiction over marriage. The correct decision would be for the Supreme Court to say that all federal marriage benefits are unconstitutional and should be repealed. In my opinion, this decision merely creates more federal involvement in marriage and will cause increased government spending.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Judge Nap supports FEDERAL gay marriage IIRC. I think that's one of the few issues where he slips into liberal thinking when he shouldn't.

It is OK if you disagree with Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Judge Nap and almost every liberty activist in the country on the issue at hand. I don't care 1 way or another about gay marriage but I do think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Though, if the government is involved in marriage, it should discriminate against different sex marriage (gay or not) or same-sex marriage (gay or not).

 

[heavenlyboy34]

How crazy our politics are when the left grabs for states rights to further their agenda while the right rebukes states rights for their agenda.

Par for the course in minarchies. Power for its own sake and to abuse opponents rather than any rational reason.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Well, I'm just not sure. My view is that it's unconstitutional for federal laws to mention marriage at all since the federal government has no jurisdiction over marriage. The correct decision would be for the Supreme Court to say that all federal marriage benefits are unconstitutional and should be repealed. In my opinion, this decision merely creates more federal involvement in marriage and will cause increased government spending.

You may be right... I'm really not sure either....

It creates more spending, but also more tax cuts, which is almost a wash...

Ideally would be something that applies the tax cuts to everyone and the entitlements to nobody, but since that ain't happening...

In either case, this isn't a make or break issue.

It is OK if you disagree with Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Judge Nap and almost every liberty activist in the country on the issue at hand. I don't care 1 way or another about gay marriage but I do think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Though, if the government is involved in marriage, it should discriminate against different sex marriage (gay or not) or same-sex marriage (gay or not).

To clarify, I love Napolitano, I just think he's incorrect on gay marriage.

Rand and Ron Paul both claim that marriage shouldn't be an issue government is involved in, but if its going to be done, the states should decide. That's essentially the position I take.

Judge Napolitano, on the other hand, believes that this issue was already decided by Loving v Virginia, which I don't view as correctly decided in the first place (Still not Federal jurisdiction). I believe he's wrong about that. There are bigger issues at hand, so its not a huge deal, but I do agree with both Pauls over Napolitano on this particular issue.

Gary Johnson takes the Federal gay marriage view but I'm not sure he really counts as a "liberty activist" all things considering.

Honestly, I couldn't care less what other liberty activists think. I don't think this is an issue that should break coalitions, but regardless, my opinion is what it is. If I did disagree with everyone else in the movement, so be it. To my knowledge I'm still the only one vocally calling for the pardon of Scott Roeder, which is fine by me.

That said, I'm pretty sure both Pauls DO agree with me on the marriage issue.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Rand and Ron Paul both claim that marriage shouldn't be an issue government is involved in, but if its going to be done, the states should decide. That's essentially the position I take.

I'm glad you agree with Rand and almost every liberty activist that the Clinton supported DOMA is wrong. Welcome to the pro-liberty side

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm glad you agree with Rand and almost every liberty activist that the Clinton supported DOMA is wrong. Welcome to the pro-liberty side

I don't think I said I support DOMA as it was originally written.

To clarify...

The section that Federal government cannot recognize SSM... Ultimately, they shouldn't be dealing with marriage at all, but assuming that they will, the least bad option is that they will recognize the marriages that are recognized at the state level, and only those.

The section that protects states from having to recognize the marriage laws of other states, on the other hand, I completely favor. Regardless of your views on SSM, this is clearly a state's right.

I also don't really care all that much except when other things come into it, like tax breaks (Everyone should get those) or the whole discrimination against sexual orientation crap (Discrimination laws shouldn't exist.)

 

[Keith and stuff]

I don't think I said I support DOMA as it was originally written.

I think we all agree that DOMA is clearly unconstitutional, greatly overstates the power of the federal government and violates civil rights.

Shame on Clinton for supporting such an evil document!

 

[Christian Liberty]

I think we all agree that DOMA is clearly unconstitutional, greatly overstates the power of the federal government and violates civil rights.

Shame on Clinton for supporting such an evil document!

For all the things we could call "evil"... honestly, this is pretty low on the list.

I mean, I call basically every major mistake that the government does evil, but calling any stance on gay marriage (That doesn't involve physical violence against homosexuals, anyway) "evil" seems like a stretch.

 

[Keith and stuff]

For all the things we could call "evil"... honestly, this is pretty low on the list.

I mean, I call basically every major mistake that the government does evil, but calling any stance on gay marriage (That doesn't involve physical violence against homosexuals, anyway) "evil" seems like a stretch.

Same sex marriage really isn't gay marriage any more than different sex marriage is gay marriage. Don't know how evil became a part of the debate either. Gay? Evil? They seem unrelated to this discussion.

Edit, my bad. I am sorry. I was just called the law evil as a way to make fun of Bill Clintion.