quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: muhly22222
People are talking about the Prop. 8 case being a "weasely" ruling. No...the defenders of Prop. 8 didn't have standing. That's a first-year law school issue, and one that a first-year law student would have been able to dispense with. They didn't stand to gain anything from the ruling, they were merely on the case to try to enforce a moral judgment call. Private citizens cannot use the courts to enforce moral opinions, that's a province reserved solely to the government. The Court of Appeals should never have taken the case, because California declined to defend their law from a Constitutional challenge which they lost in the District Court.

There are a couple of issues here.

First what is to prevent a state from passing some sort of odious law and then when it it's constitutionality is challenged simply declining to defend it in federal court? In theory if they prevail in the state courts and have a third party without standing defend it in federal court the law could remain in effect despite being unconstitutional.

Secondly California has enshrined the citizen ballot initiative as part of their system of government, for better or for worse. What is to prevent the state government from declining to defend other ballot initiatives they don't like? What if the proposition had been some sort of good government or other non discriminatory proposal?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

The first would only apply if they never enforced said odious law. Once someone has been affected , they have standing, whether the state defends it or not.

quote:

On the DOMA issue, yes Texas could pass a law saying that they refuse to abide by the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution... at which point any other place that wanted to could refuse to recognize Texas' marriages... or driver's licenses, business licenses etc. Reciprocity isn't a one way street, now that the core part of DMA has been struck down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

The first would only apply if they never enforced said odious law. Once someone has been affected , they have standing, whether the state defends it or not.

It wasn't the plaintiffs that didn't have standing it was the respondents. What the court said was a third party could only defend a constitutional challenge to a law if they could show they wuld somehow be harmed if the law was overturned.

quote:

On the DOMA issue, yes Texas could pass a law saying that they refuse to abide by the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution... at which point any other place that wanted to could refuse to recognize Texas' marriages... or driver's licenses, business licenses etc. Reciprocity isn't a one way street, now that the core part of DMA has been struck down.

No state can pass such a law. the Constitution says all states have to give "full faith and credit" to the official actions of another state. It does reserve to Congress to pass laws regulating how that is done. That is what allowed Congress to pass section 2 of DOMA which remains in force.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Many states have passed such laws, refusing to recognize valid certification from other states while demanding it for themselves... inter-racial marriages for example. They were struck down as unconstitutional.

And the power Congress has under the full faith and credit clause is the power to say what form the *proof* shall take. For example a license and a signed certificate of solemnization in the case of marriages.

It is precisely because Congress tried to expand that into saying that states could ignore the clause, that the Supreme Court ruled against DOMA as a due process violation.

quote:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof

quote:

"DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code. The particular case at hand concerns the estate tax, but DOMA is more than a simple determination of what should or should not be allowed as an estate tax refund. Among the over 1,000 statutes and numerous federal regulations that DOMA controls are laws pertaining to Social Security, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright, and veterans' benefits. DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency.

"DOMA's unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

You and the majority will just have to agree to disagree...

quote:

"DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code. The particular case at hand concerns the estate tax, but DOMA is more than a simple determination of what should or should not be allowed as an estate tax refund. Among the over 1,000 statutes and numerous federal regulations that DOMA controls are laws pertaining to Social Security, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright, and veterans' benefits. DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency.

"DOMA's unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States."

Note: 'DOMA', not Section 3. Any attempt to enforce something that has already declared unconstitutional, will simply be a waste of time and money.

quote:

Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 110 Stat. 2419. DOMA contains two operative sections: Section 2, which has not been challenged here, allows States to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other States. See 28 U. S. C. §1738C.
Section 3 is at issue here. It amends the Dictionary Act in Title 1, §7, of the United States Code to provide a fed- eral definition of “marriage” and “spouse.” Section 3 of DOMA provides as follows:

quote:

On the merits of the tax refund suit, the District Court ruled against the United States. It held that §3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and ordered the Treasury to refund the tax with interest. Both the Justice Department and BLAGfiled notices of appeal, and the Solicitor General filed a petition for certiorari before judgment. Before this Court acted on the petition, the Court of Appeals for the SecondCircuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment.

quote:

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed