Tea leaves from oral arguments: Supreme Court leaning towards striking down DOMA?

posted at 1:21 pm on March 27, 2013 by Allahpundit

A rare instance in which the left is decidedly pro-federalism. The word from Reuters and SCOTUSblog:

A bit more detail from the WSJ liveblog:

Justice Kennedy, however, jumped in with federalism concerns, questioning whether the federal government was intruding on the states’ territory. With there being so many different federal laws, the federal government is intertwined with citizens’ day-to-day lives, he said. Because of this, DOMA runs the risk of running into conflict with the states’ role in defining marriage, he said.

But maybe another standing issue, a la yesterday?

The White House refuses to defend DOMA in court, just as California’s government refuses to defend Prop 8. Do other parties (i.e. House Republicans) who are defending DOMA really have a legal stake in the case or is it mere political interest, in which case there’s no standing?

DOMA’s an especially hard sell with this Court. Conservatives stand a chance on Prop 8 because that case pits gay rights against state sovereignty, two concepts Kennedy has stood for fairly reliably throughout his career. It’s not crazy to think he’d side with the latter over the former given that trends in public opinion might soon solve the problem for him. DOMA, however, aligns the two: He can strike a blow for states’ rights and for gay rights by voting to strike the law. And as SCOTUSblog notes, the Court’s four Democrats are a lead-pipe cinch to vote against it. There hasn’t been an unpredictable vote on social issues among the liberal wing in decades.

Obvious question: How does the White House decide which federal laws aren’t worthy of being defended by the DOJ? The Court’s conservatives would like to know.

“It’s very troubling,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy…

Chief Justice John Roberts pressed government lawyer Sri Srinivasan on how the government will now decide which laws to defend. “What is your test?” Roberts asked.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who served in the Justice Department in the 1970s, criticized its “new regime.”

Two more tidbits from today’s oral arguments, and these may have some bearing on the Prop 8 ruling. Compare and contrast. First, Roberts:

And second, via the WSJ, Clement vs. Kagan:

Justice Kagan said the House report that accompanied the legislation suggested at least some lawmakers had improper motives to enacting the law, such as for the purposes of voicing disapproval of homosexuality. Mr. Clement said the high court has never invalidated a statute on that basis.

Both of those remarks bear on whether the Court might find either DOMA or Prop 8 a violation of equal protection. The point of Roberts’s comments is that, traditionally, the Court only applies “heightened scrutiny” to laws that discriminate against groups that are regarded as being relatively politically powerless. The point of constitutional rights is to protect individuals or minorities who are threatened somehow by the majority, right? But if 53 percent of the country now supports gay marriage, how exactly are gays politically powerless or being threatened? That suggests Roberts would not apply “heightened scrutiny” to DOMA or Prop 8, which in turn means he’s more likely to uphold both laws. Without heightened scrutiny, all the government has to do is show that the law it’s defending has some “rational basis” and the Court will uphold it. (Although do note: Most gay-marriage supporters argue that Prop 8 and other bans have zero rational basis, so it’s possible that Roberts would vote to strike down the laws even without applying heightened scrutiny.) Clement’s remark to Kagan touches on the same point: The Court has never ruled that government discrimination against gays is illicit and thus worthy of heightened scrutiny for purposes of equal protection the way it is for racial minorities. The potential significance of these cases is that the Court might end up tackling that issue head on and addressing whether government discrimination against gays remains more or less legally permissible. But given all the concerns about standing today and, especially, yesterday, it seems a more modest ruling is likely.

Update: Speaking of gay marriage and states’ rights, Gabe Malor flagged this statement from Ted Cruz as being significant. I agree.

Sen. Ted Cruz said Tuesday that he was against same sex marriage and hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would continue to let individual states grapple with the issue.

“I support traditional marriage between one man and one woman,” Cruz said after speaking to the Richardson Chamber of Commerce. “The Constitution leaves it to the states to decide upon marriage and I hope the Supreme Court respects centuries of tradition and doesn’t step into the process of setting aside state laws that make the definition of marriage.”

Says Gabe:

“FMA” is of course “Federal Marriage Amendment,” which is what I assume Huckabee and social conservatives will start demanding from prominent Republicans if the Supreme Court ends up legalizing gay marriage nationwide before 2016. The point of the FMA traditionally has been to ban all attempts at legalizing SSM by stating in the U.S. Constitution that marriage is between one man and one woman. That would take the matter entirely out of the states’ and the courts’ hands. Would Cruz — and Paul and Rubio — oppose that on federalism grounds? If so, will Huck et al. compromise by pushing instead for a new version of the FMA that would return the issue to the states rather than ban the practice of gay marriage outright? It’s hard for me to believe social conservatives would settle for that since, given the poll trends, it would ensure legal SSM in most of the country over the next 25 years anyway. But in that case, what are Cruz/Paul/Rubio to do?

Update: A nice antidote to some of the sanctimony this week:

Follow-up: Was repealing it a particular priority of the liberal base at the time?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Go for it, Roberts! Cement your legacy for your gay cousins! And your beard wife and your adopted children.

happytobehere on March 27, 2013 at 1:25 PM

The FMA was Rove’s cynical ploy to woo evangelicals. Neither Bush nor Cheney truly supported it.

John the Libertarian on March 27, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Go for it, Roberts! Cement your legacy for your gay cousins! And your beard wife and your adopted children. Screw Roberts! Small government except where I want it!!!
happytobehere on March 27, 2013 at 1:25 PM

There, fify. :)

Genuine on March 27, 2013 at 1:30 PM

What about states that have traditional marriage written in their state constitutions?

Federalism…It’s what’s for Breakfast

workingclass artist on March 27, 2013 at 1:30 PM

I’m actually amazed that DOMA hasn’t been trotted to SCOTUS before now. Although I am opposed to SSM, I do believe that the Constitution has a “full faith and credit” clause for a reason. DOMA seems unconstitutional to me.

Bitter Clinger on March 27, 2013 at 1:32 PM

The two most popular subjects currently on Hot Gas. The blog gods are smiling.

Fit Palin into this some how and the internet may implode.

cozmo on March 27, 2013 at 1:32 PM

As with bhocare, if this is ruled constitutional by the SC, would this mean that a church etc. would be forced to marry gays? What about the chaplins in the military being forced to marry them? If it is against the faith of said church etc. would they have to go before the SC again as churches/businesses are having to do with bhocare mandate of bc abortions?
L

letget on March 27, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Tea leaves from oral arguments: Supreme Court leaning towards striking down DOMA?

Reading SCOTUS tea leaves usually makes those tea leave readers look foolish. The Devil stalks the SCOTUS.

SWalker on March 27, 2013 at 1:33 PM

There, fify. :)

Genuine on March 27, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Because nothing says “small government” like government changing the definition of something. Are you sure you’re not Colbert?… you should work for him with your quick wit!

happytobehere on March 27, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Oh, cool! A new topic!

freedomfirst on March 27, 2013 at 1:34 PM

I’ve never understood the arguments that the DOMA is unconstitutional.

IIRC, it says that marriage licenses are only recognized if the marriage would have been legal in that state. The Full Faith and Credit clause gives Congress the authority to decide how it works, not the Supreme Court (or any other federal court, for that matter.)

FlareCorran on March 27, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Go for it, Roberts! Cement your legacy for your gay cousins! And your beard wife and your adopted children.

happytobehere on March 27, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Oh I get it. John Roberts is gay, good one. What are you, a third grader? Are there any opponents of marriage equality who are Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?

rndmusrnm on March 27, 2013 at 1:35 PM

If SCOTUS punts based on standing…Does this mean that local politicians Governors,State Atty. Generals… or federal level politicians like Presidents and the DOJ can decide willy-nilly which laws they defend or enforce because they agree with said law?

(SCOTUS would defacto endorse dereliction of oath of office)

Kinda makes Legislatures & Congress irrelevant doesn’t it.

Changes the balance of powers.

workingclass artist on March 27, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Oh I get it. John Roberts is gay, good one. What are you, a third grader? Are there any opponents of marriage equality who are Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?

rndmusrnm on March 27, 2013 at 1:35 PM

I don’t think John Roberts is gay.

happytobehere on March 27, 2013 at 1:37 PM

I’m all homosexualed out.

Is that a word?

I’m shuttin’ up until a we have a homosexual void thread.

See y’all.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 27, 2013 at 1:37 PM

So why does gay marriage require full faith and credit, but concealed carry doesn’t?

Socratease on March 27, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Go for it, Roberts! Cement your legacy for your gay cousins! And your beard wife and your adopted children.

happytobehere on March 27, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Oh I get it. John Roberts is gay, good one. What are you, a third grader? Are there any opponents of marriage equality who are Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?

rndmusrnm on March 27, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Maybe he’s implying that Roberts (and others) should recuse himself(?).

freedomfirst on March 27, 2013 at 1:38 PM

happytobehere on March 27, 2013 at 1:33 PM

He’s not a quick wit. He’s a half-wit. And, I’m being generous.

kingsjester on March 27, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Are we all gay yet?

Schadenfreude on March 27, 2013 at 1:39 PM

What would happen if Palin came out in favor of SSM, (either through Federalism or outright support), or as gay herself?

antisense on March 27, 2013 at 1:39 PM

If they strike down DOMA and then claim there is no standing to see Prop 8 they have effectively decided that homosexual marriage must be the law of the land. There is no way to decide competing state interests by overturning DOMA without ruling clearly on State’s rights.

That would be a disgrace, but par for the course with this Court as per Kelo and Obamacare.

njrob on March 27, 2013 at 1:40 PM

So why does gay marriage require full faith and credit, but concealed carry doesn’t?

Socratease on March 27, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Shut up, that’s why.

The Marxist Democrats hold only one moral or ethical standard. The End Justifies the Means.

2. Of Means and Ends [Forget moral or ethical considerations]

“The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. … The real arena is corrupt and bloody.” p.24

“The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means… The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be….” pp.25-26

“The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means….” p.29

“The seventh rule… is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics….” p.34

“The tenth rule… is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments…. It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time… Who, and how many will support the action?… If weapons are needed, then are appropriate d weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly…” p.36

SWalker on March 27, 2013 at 1:41 PM

antisense on March 27, 2013 at 1:39 PM

What would happen if Doogie Houser declared that he was actually stright? …and. he’s just been acting gay?

kingsjester on March 27, 2013 at 1:41 PM

What would happen if Palin came out in favor of SSM, (either through Federalism or outright support), or as gay herself?

antisense on March 27, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Nothing. But just wait till W emerges from silence to back Gay Marriage.

happytobehere on March 27, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Well I am confused. If they strike down DOMA on the basis of states rights, why won’t they have to uphold the original vote on Prop 8 in California?

Cindy Munford on March 27, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Maybe he’s implying that Roberts (and others) should recuse himself(?).

freedomfirst on March 27, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Nah, it is having an emotional tantrum. It cannot make arguments that sell, so it reveals its almost spitting hatred for certain humans.

antisense on March 27, 2013 at 1:42 PM

What would happen if Palin came out in favor of SSM, (either through Federalism or outright support), or as gay herself?

antisense on March 27, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Who cares? Do you think people change their political positions just because they like a politician. And Palin is already gay friendly- or didn’t you know that?

And in other news : SCOTUS can FOAD.. If Prop 8 people don’t have standing then neither does Windsor:

This one involves two lesbians who married in Canada in 2007. In 2009 one of the women, Thea Clara Spyer, died while they were living in New York, and the surviving partner had to pay federal taxes on her estate. The survivor, Edith Windsor, sued, saying that the federal government should recognize their Canadian marriage and give her the spousal exemption on this tax.

The federal district court in New York sided with Windsor, holding that DOMA was unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in a 2-1 decision, striking down DOMA.

Out of more than ten cases offered to the Supreme Court, this one is unusual in that it involves a foreign same-sex marriage. New York did not create gay marriage until 2011, so in 2009 Edith Windsor would have been liable for the federal tax regardless of whether DOMA existed, or if instead the federal government used New York’s definition of marriage.

So there is maybe a 50-50 chance this case will be dismissed for lack of standing, since DOMA did not cause the injury (of paying taxes) over which Windsor is suing. The only way Windsor would not have to pay the tax would be if the federal government must recognize all marriages from all foreign countries.

But this creates a potential problem because of polygamy.

If marriage is the union of consenting adults, there is no legal principle to explain why it is only two. Over 50 nations on earth have legal polygamy, and many people are denied immigration into this country because we refuse to recognize their polygamous marriages, which are recognized by their religion (usually Islam) and perfectly legal in their country. Studies show there are 600,000 polygamists in America today, none of whose marriages are recognized.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/25/Supreme-Court-to-Consider-Gay-Marriage-This-Week-and-Possibly-Polygamy-Part-II-U-S-v-Windsor

melle1228 on March 27, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Wait. They’re going to overturn DOMA on state’s rights grounds, but also slap down Prop 8? How does that work? Prop 8 is a function of state’s rights too, is it not?

changer1701 on March 27, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Oh I get it. John Roberts is gay, good one. What are you, a third grader? Are there any opponents of marriage equality who are Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?

rndmusrnm on March 27, 2013 at 1:35 PM

I’ll take a page from Blink. Do you support true ‘marriage equality’ or are you just a hypocrite? Do you support marrying multiple partners? Do you support marrying blood relatives, including immediate family? Do you support removing age of consent laws in order to allow people to marry those they ‘love’?

If not, you sir do not support ‘marriage equality.’

njrob on March 27, 2013 at 1:43 PM

OhEssYouCowboys on March 27, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Likewise. But it’s not going away:

“expect Obama and the White House to turn the 2014 election into an all-out culture war centered around gun control and gay marriage. This is the only turf that appears remotely friendly to them these days.”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2525467#.UVLHAKNEHPA.twitter

rrpjr on March 27, 2013 at 1:43 PM

antisense on March 27, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Look, this is a done deal and you have your formula for getting everything you want in the future why can’t you just be happy.

Cindy Munford on March 27, 2013 at 1:44 PM

I’m going to go out on a limb and say the best the pro-SSM side gets is DOMA being struck down, if that. I know people think because of the four states that passed SSM at the ballot box last year and optimistic poll data that gay marriage is inevitable, but please let us not forget that over 30 states have defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman and put this in their constitutions. I think people trying to read the tea leaves on this vastly undermine how unprecedented it would be for the SCOTUS to effectively amend the constitutions in over half the states. They didn’t do that with anti-miscegenation laws, they didn’t do that with the civil rights act, they didn’t even do that with slavery. The closest they came to affecting the law in almost every state was Roe v. Wade, and abortion is hardly an issue that’s dead and gone.

I doubt the SCOTUS is going to ever issue a ruling as sweeping as Roe while there’s a firm conservative wing on the court. If they did, I fully expect some version of the Federal Marriage Amendment to come back up. I think another component to these national polls showing a thin majority in favor of gay marriage fail to realize most people live in a state that has already decided the issue one way or another. Even CA showed strong signs of being amendable to SSM after Prop 22 was struck down, with some polls showing Prop 8 failing by 6-8 points. But you run the risk of engendering the consternation of the voters by just declaring it the law. The SCOTUS just legalizing it would wake the sleeping bear, so to speak.

jas88 on March 27, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Well I am confused. If they strike down DOMA on the basis of states rights, why won’t they have to uphold the original vote on Prop 8 in California?

Cindy Munford on March 27, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Because they rule with the outcome they want. The court will rule in favor of Gay Marriage because that is the preferred outcome. They will deconstruct from there to come up with a “legal basis” to back up that outcome.

It doesn’t matter if it makes sense. That’s not how it works.

happytobehere on March 27, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Cindy Munford on March 27, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Exactly. If it’s states’ rights, isn’t that a defeat? Some states aren’t going to recognize SSM anytime soon. Isn’t a federal decree that SSM is legal needed here to satisfy SSM supporters? So why should they tie a victory to states’ rights instead of gay rights?

Waggoner on March 27, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Dang it

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Another point in the long line of Clinton’s esteemed legacy, LMFAO!

tom daschle concerned on March 27, 2013 at 1:44 PM

What would happen if Doogie Houser declared that he was actually stright? …and. he’s just been acting gay?

kingsjester on March 27, 2013 at 1:41 PM

He did that in the 3rd Harold and Kumar movie.

njrob on March 27, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Schadenfreude on March 27, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Speaking strictly for myself, I’m still pretty grouchy.

Cindy Munford on March 27, 2013 at 1:45 PM

That’s all well and good but they don’t leave it up to the States see Ca., which voted against gay marriage and the 9th circus court overturned our vote…

sandee on March 27, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Well I am confused. If they strike down DOMA on the basis of states rights, why won’t they have to uphold the original vote on Prop 8 in California?

Cindy Munford on March 27, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Ha…I just asked that very same thing. It makes no sense, not that they’ve cared in other cases.

And isn’t it interesting that, once again, there is absolutely no question as to where the four libs on the Court stand? They’re nothing but partisan ideologues, and everyone knows it.

changer1701 on March 27, 2013 at 1:45 PM

happytobehere on March 27, 2013 at 1:44 PM

It’s good to be them.

Cindy Munford on March 27, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Guaranteed rrpjr@1:34

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 1:47 PM

changer1701 on March 27, 2013 at 1:45 PM

It’s good to be a liberal, you never have to struggle with that pesky Constitution or the majority.

Cindy Munford on March 27, 2013 at 1:47 PM

I’m all homosexualed out.

Is that a word?

I’m shuttin’ up until a we have a homosexual void thread.

See y’all.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 27, 2013 at 1:37 PM

:Reposted for another thread:

Ok, for those who do not understand, indoctrination and brainwashing work like this. Once a position is identified that is counter to that which the indoctrinator wishes the subject to hold, that subject is reintroduced constantly with a combination of reasoned arguments and outright ridicule at the position being deemed as incorrect. Over time the subjects resistance is broken down from opposition, to tolerance, and finally to open acceptance.

So, does this mean that your resistance has been beaten down and you have finally accepted your brainwashing and indoctrination Winston?

SWalker on March 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM

And isn’t it interesting that, once again, there is absolutely no question as to where the four libs on the Court stand? They’re nothing but partisan ideologues, and everyone knows it.

changer1701 on March 27, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Only 4?

happytobehere on March 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Wait. They’re going to overturn DOMA on state’s rights grounds, but also slap down Prop 8? How does that work? Prop 8 is a function of state’s rights too, is it not?

changer1701 on March 27, 2013 at 1:43 PM

“States’ rights only matter when we say they matter”
/The Left

Bitter Clinger on March 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Well I am confused. If they strike down DOMA on the basis of states rights, why won’t they have to uphold the original vote on Prop 8 in California?

Cindy Munford on March 27, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Because cases are decided this way– How can we screw Conservatives? :)

melle1228 on March 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Well I am confused. If they strike down DOMA on the basis of states rights, why won’t they have to uphold the original vote on Prop 8 in California?

Cindy Munford on March 27, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Ostensibly. Could be a mixed bag like that. Or they say the case has no standing like some here have been suggesting.

I am really hoping that somehow striking down DOMA invalidates the Dept. of Education or something. Totally worth it at that point.

antisense on March 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Exactly sandee

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Well I am confused. If they strike down DOMA on the basis of states rights, why won’t they have to uphold the original vote on Prop 8 in California?

Cindy Munford on March 27, 2013 at 1:42 PM

That’s kinda the point of the agitprop…confusion.

They might punt both based on the technical standing?

(State (CA) and Federal (DOJ) declined to defend both laws)

workingclass artist on March 27, 2013 at 1:49 PM

The most ominous side of the debacle is that the President’s office can now decide which laws to uphold and which to ignore, and the Court will go along with it just fine. I hope to see CRA and SarbOx similarly dumped in 2017 – Congress voting be damned – accompanied by insane howling of liberals as their heads explode.

Archivarix on March 27, 2013 at 1:50 PM

This is same cabal of left wing judges that said the Federal Medicaid expansion mandate superseded State law, even though it involved State spending and was a State program. They lost that argument. But it does illustrate that only the liberal agenda matters, not the law. DOMA was always Constitutionally suspect, let us hope that in being struck down a meaningful precedent is set.

pat on March 27, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Hey, when Democrats controlled the House, Senate (with 59/60) and WH in 2009-10, did they attempt to overturn or repeal DOMA?

Still trying to remember the political party of the president who sign DOMA into law, but strangely few MSM outlets are reporting that.

Physics Geek on March 27, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Swalker… internment camps in 5…4…3

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 1:52 PM

What does it say about our nation, if a 3% minority can judicially overthrow the rights of 30 states who voted against that homosexuality is a sexual preference and not a race?

kingsjester on March 27, 2013 at 1:52 PM

BTW, even though I don’t support same sex marriage, I’ve long thought that DOMA was unconstitutional abridgement of states rights. Sadly, no one these days seems to care much about what the states do or do not want to do.

Physics Geek on March 27, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Swalker… internment camps in 5…4…3

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Pretty much a given at this point.

SWalker on March 27, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Wait. They’re going to overturn DOMA on state’s rights grounds, but also slap down Prop 8? How does that work? Prop 8 is a function of state’s rights too, is it not?

changer1701 on March 27, 2013 at 1:43 PM

It would seem. But there is always a legal way around logic in the name of popular idols and ideology. I have complete faith the Roberts Court will find it.

rrpjr on March 27, 2013 at 1:53 PM

The most ominous side of the debacle is that the President’s office can now decide which laws to uphold and which to ignore, and the Court will go along with it just fine. I hope to see CRA and SarbOx similarly dumped in 2017 – Congress voting be damned – accompanied by insane howling of liberals as their heads explode.

Archivarix on March 27, 2013 at 1:50 PM

BINGO!

The scheme is the agitprop…But Citizens need to keep the eye on the ball.

These two cases present a dangerous re-alignment of constitutional powers…endorsed by the supreme court.

workingclass artist on March 27, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Who cares? Do you think people change their political positions just because they like a politician. And Palin is already gay friendly- or didn’t you know that?

I just don’t know if the Huckledingleberries will leave her radiant light at that point. More accurately, this would be a bonanza for page hits to pad Salem Comm’s bottom line, which is the reasoning behind my award-winning post.

antisense on March 27, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Gay Air needs to update its Wiki entry.

Schadenfreude on March 27, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Hey, peoples, what’s this thread about? Watchoo all talkin’ about?

Bishop on March 27, 2013 at 1:55 PM

The most ominous side of the debacle is that the President’s office can now decide which laws to uphold and which to ignore, and the Court will go along with it just fine. I hope to see CRA and SarbOx similarly dumped in 2017 – Congress voting be damned – accompanied by insane howling of liberals as their heads explode.

Archivarix on March 27, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Yeah, after initially DEFENDING it. How can the same admin now say it’s suspect after going to court and saying it wasn’t?

changer1701 on March 27, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Oh I get it. John Roberts is gay, good one. What are you, a third grader? Are there any opponents of marriage equality who are Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?

rndmusrnm on March 27, 2013 at 1:35 PM

As I said, I don’t think Roberts is gay. Although he might be, who knows? Is that a problem for you? Is it bad if he is? What’s bad about it? Do you think I think it’s bad to be gay? Why? Maybe he longs for male love. Or maybe he doesn’t. Why should that bother you?

Is it bad for a gay man to get married to a woman? Why? What if he really loves her? Does he have to only love men forever? Is he incapable of loving a woman? Is that the new definition of gayness?

Again, I’m not “accusing” anyone of teh ghey. But if someone is gay, would there be anything wrong with that?

happytobehere on March 27, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Roberts is not 100% straight. I trust my gaydar. Plus, my common sense tells me he has no spine as well.

GhoulAid on March 27, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Hey, peoples, what’s this thread about? Watchoo all talkin’ about?

Bishop on March 27, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Were discussing chair arrangement and what the band should be playing as the SS Titanic America slides beneath the waves.

SWalker on March 27, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Gay marriage is not true marriage, I oppose it and see no reason for the government to redefine what marriage is and always has been. At the same time, I’ve never supported the FMA, constitutional amendments are not something to be taken lightly. The only amendments I can throw my support behind would involve a balanced budget with a spending cap, and the repeal of the income tax which itself came to law through amendment. I wouldn’t mind seeing the 17th amendment repealed either.

Daemonocracy on March 27, 2013 at 1:57 PM

BTW, even though I don’t support same sex marriage, I’ve long thought that DOMA was unconstitutional abridgement of states rights. Sadly, no one these days seems to care much about what the states do or do not want to do.

Physics Geek on March 27, 2013 at 1:53 PM

I’ve gotten there myself. Let the states decide this and the public at large can get on with their various diasporas.

Bishop on March 27, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Save a bunk for me swalker

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 1:58 PM

workingclass artist on March 27, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Mission Accomplished!!!!

Cindy Munford on March 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Roberts is not 100% straight. I trust my gaydar. Plus, my common sense tells me he has no spine as well.

GhoulAid on March 27, 2013 at 1:56 PM

There’s nothing wrong with him being gay if he is. Not saying he is, but if he is there’s nothing wrong with that. And I think he has a lot of spine. Anyone that could write his opinion on Obamacare, an opinion that no one else on earth shared, has a lot of spine.

happytobehere on March 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM

I smell smoke. Something’s smoldering.

Midas on March 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM

What would happen if Palin came out in favor of SSM, (either through Federalism or outright support), or as gay herself?

antisense on March 27, 2013 at 1:39 PM

If she were to announce her support, heads on both sides would explode. The thread on that would be epic.

changer1701 on March 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM

In the absence of DOMA, the federal government will be faced with the decision to recognize or not recognize different marriage standards from different states.

If it recognizes all state definitions as written, I don’t think that would jibe with the Equal Protection Clause, because citizens of one state would be treated differently than citizens of others (for tax purposes, etc.). It would create inequality before the law.

And if the federal government applies one nationwide standard, based on the broadest possible definition of marriage, the voters of one or a handful of states would have imposed their will on other states where voters have decided differently, striking a blow to federalism and flying in the face of the 10th Amendment.

While there are several cases which touch upon the Full Faith and Credit Clause and its exceptions as they apply to cases in which two states are in conflict, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of precedent when it comes to conflicts between state laws and federal statutes, specifically relating to vital records, definitions of familial relationships, and the like.

From what I understand, the Full Faith and Credit Clause doesn’t place any obligations upon the federal government, only upon the various states. Far from obligating Congress to do anything, it actually seems to grant the federal government, through its legislators, broad authority to intervene in these matters:

And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Where was the discussion of any of these issues today?

steebo77 on March 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Save a bunk for me swalker

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 1:58 PM

ROTFLMAO… At this rate I’m going to have to save an entire cell block… Ed Morrissey, Robert Stacy McCain, and numerous other commentors here have also asked me to save a bunk for them. I’m gonna have to start a list of whom I am saving bunks for… O_O

SWalker on March 27, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Anyone that could write his opinion on Obamacare, an opinion that no one else on earth shared, has a lot of spine.

happytobehere on March 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM

“Spine” is not what he has a lot of.

Midas on March 27, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Hey, peoples, what’s this thread about? Watchoo all talkin’ about?

Bishop on March 27, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Its a new topic. Gay :)

melle1228 on March 27, 2013 at 2:02 PM

I don’t understand the argument that DOMA infringes the rights of any states. It explicitly says that states are still able to have their own definitions of marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, etc., and that states are free to recognize the definitions of other states.

All it does is apply a uniform definition of marriage to the federal government for purposes of federal taxes, federal pensions, federal benefits, etc. It doesn’t force any state to restrict pensions, benefits, etc., or treat as unmarried those that the state would otherwise consider married.

steebo77 on March 27, 2013 at 2:05 PM

ROTFLMAO… At this rate I’m going to have to save an entire cell block… Ed Morrissey, Robert Stacy McCain, and numerous other commentors here have also asked me to save a bunk for them. I’m gonna have to start a list of whom I am saving bunks for… O_O

SWalker on March 27, 2013 at 2:02 PM

Don’t worry about me, I’ll be taken care of in room 101.

tom daschle concerned on March 27, 2013 at 2:06 PM

“Windsor is an accomplished woman the Supreme Court’s justices might be able to identify with, The New Yorker’s Amy Davidson has pointed out. She’s only a few years older than several of the justices and had an impressive career. (She was a systems engineer at IBM.)

She’s also faced discrimination from the federal government. Windsor began to feel the effects of DOMA when her partner Thea Spyer died in 2007.

Because the IRS didn’t recognize their marriage performed in Canada, Windsor had to pay $363,000 in taxes on Spyer’s estate that a straight spouse wouldn’t have had to pay.

Kaplan will argue today that the tax bill and the law that allowed it are unfair before the Supreme Court…”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/edith-windsor-doma-profile-2013-3#ixzz2OlSmScEG

Question:

If DOMA is struck down does this mean polygamous marriages of immigrants from other countries would be recognized in the US for Federal Tax benefits?

Could mean resulting Chaos…

Wiki on Polygamy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy

workingclass artist on March 27, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Roberts is a married man correct? So if he is gay, than that’s alright? Are you insane? Oh, you must be an enlightened progressive. Same thing. And he has a spine huh, cuz he wote a wittle sumthin bout obammycare? Honey, you are several fries short of a f-cking happy meal.

GhoulAid on March 27, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Federalism eh? I guess they’ll be in a rush to overturn Roe v. Wade now.

/

29Victor on March 27, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Heh swalker

Dibs!

cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Really ? They think an amendment to the Constitution effectively banning gay marriage is even REMOTELY possible ?

That is laughable. We can’t even get a majority of voters to vote out one of the THE worst presidents in history and someone, somewhere thinks they’re going to get 2/3 of EITHER body of Congress to vote for that, let alone 3/4 of the state legislatures ?

Ridiculous to even consider that a worthwhile effort. Frankly, I would question the sanity of anyone that would support it.

That Huckabee would be front and center makes perfect sense.

deadrody on March 27, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Anyone that could write his opinion on Obamacare, an opinion that no one else on earth shared, has a lot of spine slime.

happytobehere on March 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM

fixed it for clarity

Schadenfreude on March 27, 2013 at 2:12 PM

SS Titanic …
SWalker on March 27, 2013 at 1:57 PM

The research capability of folks here has really gone down hill since this place went all gay all the time, geesh.

Though the Titanic was a steam ship, she was tasked by the monarchy to be responsible for shipping mail for the United Kingdom.

That provided her the honor of being referred to as a Royal Mail Ship.

cozmo on March 27, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Hey, peoples, what’s this thread about? Watchoo all talkin’ about?

Bishop on March 27, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Were discussing chair arrangement and what the band should be playing as the SS Titanic America slides beneath the waves.

SWalker on March 27, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Really??

I thought this thread was about the appealing Summer attire
for Metro Males….

ToddPA on March 27, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Its a new topic. Gay :)

melle1228 on March 27, 2013 at 2:02 PM

An entire thread dedicated to the concept of being happy, lighthearted, and chipper?

I don’t get it.

Bishop on March 27, 2013 at 2:13 PM

workingclass artist on March 27, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Exactly! I don’t get how she had standing. Even if DOMA wasn’t law, she still would have had to pay federal taxes. She was living in New York at a time when New York did not recognize gay marriage.

melle1228 on March 27, 2013 at 2:13 PM

What would happen if Doogie Houser declared that he was actually stright? …and. he’s just been acting gay?

kingsjester on March 27, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Maybe someone would make a Christmas themed movie about it?

HarryBackside on March 27, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Roberts is a married man correct? So if he is gay, than that’s alright? Are you insane? Oh, you must be an enlightened progressive. Same thing. And he has a spine huh, cuz he wote a wittle sumthin bout obammycare? Honey, you are several fries short of a f-cking happy meal.

GhoulAid on March 27, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Again, I’m not saying Roberts is gay. NOT THAT THERE’S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT!

But are you saying that gay men can’t get married to anyone? Not even women? Well, what are they supposed to do? Exactly how gay must you be to not get married to the opposite sex. What if you’re just, like, a little bit gay?

happytobehere on March 27, 2013 at 2:15 PM

RMS doesn’t stand for “Royal Mail Ship”, it means “Really Masculine Studs”.

This is Gay Week at HotGas, please stick with the theme or you will be ejected.

Bishop on March 27, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Really ? They think an amendment to the Constitution effectively banning gay marriage is even REMOTELY possible ?

That is laughable.

deadrody on March 27, 2013 at 2:10 PM

“FMA” is of course “Federal Marriage Amendment,” which is what I assume Huckabee and social conservatives will start demanding from prominent Republicans if the Supreme Court ends up legalizing gay marriage nationwide before 2016.

Allahpundit says “I assume social conservatives will demand X” and out of that you get “Social conservatives are demanding X.” Not very bright, are you?

steebo77 on March 27, 2013 at 2:17 PM

I don’t get it.

Bishop on March 27, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Spring is in the air. The girls are swapping tight sweaters for hot pants. Except in Texas where sometimes they wear both, at the same time.

God I love Texas.

cozmo on March 27, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Wait. They’re going to overturn DOMA on state’s rights grounds, but also slap down Prop 8? How does that work? Prop 8 is a function of state’s rights too, is it not?

changer1701 on March 27, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Because no one and I mean NO ONE is defending the Constitution anymore. The Supremes have become the deciders of which social ill screams the loudest gets the favorable ruling group.

Q) How do they fit the square peg (Prop 8) into the round hole (10th Amendment) while simultaneously striking down DOMA?

A) The biggest sledgehammer you ever did see. (See Obamacare)

D-fusit on March 27, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Spring is in the air. The girls are swapping tight sweaters for hot pants. Except in Texas where sometimes they wear both, at the same time.

God I love Texas.

cozmo on March 27, 2013 at 2:17 PM

You’re so heteronormative.

happytobehere on March 27, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Bishop on March 27, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Ceptin’ the Titanic didn’t use studs. She did have frames and rivets though.

cozmo on March 27, 2013 at 2:19 PM

The research capability of folks here has really gone down hill since this place went all gay all the time, geesh.

Though the Titanic was a steam ship, she was tasked by the monarchy to be responsible for shipping mail for the United Kingdom.

That provided her the honor of being referred to as a Royal Mail Ship.

cozmo on March 27, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Maybe you should go back and re-read what I posted. It was SS Titanic America… Not SS Titanic…

SWalker on March 27, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Because of this, DOMA runs the risk of running into conflict with the states’ role in defining marriage, he said.

If it’s the states’ role to define marriage, how can Prop 8 be struck down?

p0s3r on March 27, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Spring is in the air. The girls are swapping tight sweaters for hot pants. Except in Texas where sometimes they wear both, at the same time.

God I love Texas.

cozmo on March 27, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Whats the col in dallas?

nobar on March 27, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3