Supreme Court Will Hear DOMA and Prop 8 Challenges: An Analysis

Dec 7, 2012 Full story: www.towleroad.com 769

The Supreme Court issued orders granting hearings in the Prop 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry , and one Defense of Marriage Act case , Windsor v. United States .

Full Story
First Prev
of 39
Next Last

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#812 Jan 29, 2013
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not always true, contracts and other agreements can stipulate equitable remedies and waive legal certain ones.
Complicated <> better. First, the lawyer fees add up. Second, the most similar agreements to marriage that a couple can obtain in *SOME* states requires them to own a business together, in which case, if everything they own together is considered property of a business, that could lead to allegations of fraud, or the couple might pay more in taxes. Third, some states like Louisiana might invalidate such agreements under the premise that the state constitution does not allow affording any of the rights similar to marriage to couples of the same gender, and in any case, issues such as inheritance are not covered in business law except when it comes to inheritance of business by family members. Since a gay couple cannot be recognized in many states and by the federal government as legal family, those laws do not apply. The only other option is to perform an adult adoption... but wouldn't that be weird that instead of marrying you're significant other, you have to legally adopt them as an adult child?*shakes head* That latter tactic does work though.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#813 Jan 29, 2013
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
Complicated <> better. First, the lawyer fees add up. Second, the most similar agreements to marriage that a couple can obtain in *SOME* states requires them to own a business together, in which case, if everything they own together is considered property of a business, that could lead to allegations of fraud, or the couple might pay more in taxes. Third, some states like Louisiana might invalidate such agreements under the premise that the state constitution does not allow affording any of the rights similar to marriage to couples of the same gender, and in any case, issues such as inheritance are not covered in business law except when it comes to inheritance of business by family members. Since a gay couple cannot be recognized in many states and by the federal government as legal family, those laws do not apply. The only other option is to perform an adult adoption... but wouldn't that be weird that instead of marrying you're significant other, you have to legally adopt them as an adult child?*shakes head* That latter tactic does work though.
So let's just legalize gay marriage then. After all, not one opponent to it here has been able to articulate a non-laughable legitimate state interest in banning it.
In the meantime, keep those legal fees coming. Momma wants a new Volvo.

Since: May 12

Canoga Park, CA

#814 Feb 4, 2013
JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
"True Atheist" is an oxymoron.
In what way?

I was raised as an atheist in a family split between 3 different religions. I have no religious base and cannot be swayed. I was never indoctrinated and learned only that religion contradicts itself, contradicts each other, and everyone believes their personal religion to be the correct one. What do all religions have in common? None can back themselves up with evidence.

Since: May 12

Canoga Park, CA

#815 Feb 4, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
why?
one just did it in front of your face...
when it UBIQUITOUS, you can take any source...
the sky is blue!
where's your source?
I know your game...and yes, its STILL stupid...
I think straight shooter learned a big word and thinks he's going to sound smart and credible if he uses it.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#816 Feb 5, 2013
TrueAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
I think straight shooter learned a big word and thinks he's going to sound smart and credible if he uses it.
I think I taught you a new word since its not a "big word" to me...

Since: May 12

Canoga Park, CA

#817 Feb 5, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I taught you a new word since its not a "big word" to me...
Whether it's a big word to you or not, you're clearly throwing it out there and using it as an excuse not to back up your sources. Plus you clearly have no understanding of the ruling made by the 9th circuit.

Judge Walker's decision was not overruled. His decision was upheld in a 2 to 1 vote.

"The three-judge panel issued its ruling in San Francisco, upholding a 2010 decision by Judge Vaughn R. Walker, "

"Tuesday’s 2-to-1 decision was much more narrowly framed than the sweeping ruling of Judge Walker, who asserted that barring same-sex couples from marrying was a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution."

"The two judges on Tuesday stated explicitly that they were not deciding whether there was a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry, instead ruling that the disparate treatment of married couples and domestic partners since the passage of Proposition 8 violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/marriage...

Since: May 12

Canoga Park, CA

#818 Feb 5, 2013
"vote" is not the correct word here. I realized that after I made my post. But the fact remains 2 out of 3 judges decided to UPHOLD the decision.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#819 Feb 6, 2013
TrueAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>

"Tuesday’s 2-to-1 decision was much more narrowly framed than the sweeping ruling of Judge Walker, who asserted that barring same-sex couples from marrying was a violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution."
"The two judges on Tuesday stated explicitly that they were not deciding whether there was a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry, instead ruling that the disparate treatment of married couples and domestic partners since the passage of Proposition 8 violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/marriage...
the quotes were of basic law, therefore no citation necessary...the proposition can be supported by looking ANYWHERE (is that word too big)?

no citation was to avoid the predictable attack on the source which as to the basic proposition I gave was would be just silly...

and your quotes above PROVE what i was saying, that Walker's reasoning did not survive review.
"much more narrowly framed than the sweeping ruling of Judge Walker"
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#820 Feb 6, 2013
TrueAtheist wrote:
"vote" is not the correct word here. I realized that after I made my post. But the fact remains 2 out of 3 judges decided to UPHOLD the decision.
and none of them upheld the REASONING....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 39
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 37 min KiMare 49,818
Start Chatting And Dating Beautiful Ukrainian W... 1 hr government of Ukr... 2
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 2 hr pathetic 31,266
Gazans rush to enjoy life after ruinous war 2 hr I can read 10
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 3 hr KiMare 25,017
Norfolk Island considers gay marriage 7 hr JohnInToronto 1
Women dish on their most embarrassing wardrobe ... (Sep '13) 9 hr Kelly DJ 301
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••