DOMA on shaky ground in court


#1

The Defense of Marriage Act seemed to be on shaky footing at the Supreme Court Wednesday, with a majority of justices expressing doubts about the constitutionality of the 17-year-old law banning same-sex married couples from receiving a wide array of federal benefits.
Justice Anthony Kennedy again looked like he could be the key swing vote on the issue, possibly siding with the four liberals on the court who are expected to vote to overturn it.

Read more: [DOMA case on shaky ground in Supreme Court - POLITICO.com](http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/doma-supreme-court-oral-arguments-89373.html#ixzz2OoqCCVqr<br /><br />K)
Kennedy is siding with the left again from apperances


#2

I read the same thing. I’m not surprised. We have been on the slippery slope for many years. The angle is just getting more steep…


#3

DOMA is a slam dunk reversal. It is a piece of legislation rooted in bigotry and violates both the equal protection clause and the separation of powers.
I expect it will be a 6-3 decision…or will be rejected based on standing and thrown back to Congress. One thing for sure…it will not be upheld.

The prop 8 case is much more difficult…For EXAMPLE…**if Kennedy rules on DOMA based SOLELY on separation of powers…then must he not also vote to uphold the Prop8 vote in the state of California based on that same principle? **
My guess is they’ll look for some wiggle room and rule narrowly so they don’t contradict themselves from one case to the other.


#4

The Justices that rule in favor of SSM are certain to be labeled “Liberal activist judges” just as Judge Jones was for his ruling in the Dover trial by the creationist crowd.


#5

I’d just like to be sure that 5 of them don’t care what they are called and do the right thing. I rate the chance of that as 80% on DOMA and 20% on Prop8.


#6

Get government out of Marriage and cease all monetary benefits from it. Its not the governments business who gets married and to whom nor is it their job to given benefits to those that do.


#7

I would say that is one of the main functions of our government, to encourage societally and economically beneficial behavior through benefits.


#8

That is a dangerous comment. Don’t let Congress see that they will think they can start legislating morality. No the governments(of the USA at least) job is listed in the Constitution. Plain and simple. No were does it grant them the power nor right to “encourage societal and economically beneficial behavior through benefits”. That is up to the peoples of the nation. Gay marriage, IMO, is a states right issue and not one the central government should decided on. Even after that statement I do not believe that government should have is’t paws in a religious institution such as marriage. Government should never seek to infringed on a peoples Life, Liberty or Pursuit of Happiness. Just because a religion says it is wrong morally does not make it so. Islam is one perfect example.


#9

Pardon my post. I have many thoughts on this subject and they are all over the place. Just get government out of marriage and be done wit it. No one gets benefits and everyone is treated the same under the law.


#10

Wake up, congress has been legislating morality since its inception. Legislating morality is as American as apple pie. You may not like it, you may disagree with it, but that has always been an accepted function of the US government


#11

Ser…there are 1100 FEDERAL laws which affect marriage issues. And marriage is a STATE issue under the constitution!
While the impetus for your comment is good in theory…it is highly impractical and improbable in reality. The question is…Given the involvement of secular government entities in the realm of marriage… what are the rights of individuals? Get that settled first and then you can chip away at taking spousal SS benefits away from the old widows because government shouldn’t be providing marriage benefits. :smiley:


#12

I see your views and mine of the function and role of government are very far out of line. You may roll over and accept it but do cry sour grapes when someone else tries to use, what you perceive as government role, against you.


#13

[quote=“Seravee, post:6, topic:38850”]
Get government out of Marriage and cease all monetary benefits from it. Its not the governments business who gets married and to whom nor is it their job to given benefits to those that do.
[/quote] Say what? Do you have any idea what the list of Federal benifits are for married couples? The right to inheritance of property, Funeral and bereavement leave, Making spousal medical decisions, Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from “due-on-sale” clauses, next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims, property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans, The list goes on…If you’re married, there’s no way in your right mind you’d want to put an end to these benifits.


#14

Hate to be evil here but that is an unfortunate conquered of what needs to be done. Either all are equal under the law or none are. Give civil unions the same benefits as hetero marriages get or give no one benefits. I am not say have government(centeral) determine who can and cannot get married. That is a states right issue.


#15

It is the simplest fix in my mind. Granted no one wants to lose their goddie bags they get from the government but either all are the same under the law or none are.


#16

[quote=“Seravee, post:15, topic:38850”]
It is the simplest fix in my mind. Granted no one wants to lose their goddie bags they get from the government but either all are the same under the law or none are.
[/quote] You die, your wife has no legal right to your property or belongings. You’d be cool with that?


#17

Have a will made out. I have a will already as I have assets that I inherited from my great grandfather in his will that includes land and residence, various vehicles and a large sum of money among various other baubles. If I am not mistaken if I were to die tomorrow the state would get all my possessions if i had no will to state a beneficiary as I am single and unmarried.


#18

What about a will?


#19

The law in PA does not allow anyone to will their belongings away from their spouse. I don’t think that is all belongings, but it would be the major things, such as a home, and other major items. I found that out when I discussed making a will with a man who goes around to different churches in our denomination and helps people make wills. Usually, they will find a local attorney who will do the legal work for a relatively small fee, if the paper work is already done. I didn’t make one, because I would have had to leave everything to my almost-ex (even though he no longer lives in the state). To will it to anyone else would have had to be conditional on his death.


#20

[quote=“Susanna, post:19, topic:38850”]
The law in PA does not allow anyone to will their belongings away from their spouse. I don’t think that is all belongings, but it would be the major things, such as a home, and other major items. I found that out when I discussed making a will with a man who goes around to different churches in our denomination and helps people make wills. Usually, they will find a local attorney who will do the legal work for a relatively small fee, if the paper work is already done. I didn’t make one, because I would have had to leave everything to my almost-ex (even though he no longer lives in the state). To will it to anyone else would have had to be conditional on his death.
[/quote]In the end all those who want the government out of marriage really do not see it is the government that enforces the care of dependents and other issues.