DOMA falls. 5-4. Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan. Equal protection argument, not states’ rights.
Be interesting to see how this ‘careful consideration’ standard is used going forward. Glad to see DOMA struck down.
And the proponents of Prop 8 did not have standing, so the 9th circuit has been ordered to dismiss the appeal, meaning Judge Walker’s order to not enforce prop 8 should go into effect, making same-sex marriage legal in CA once again.
Prop 8 definitely was the wrong decision.
If a citizen of a state does not have standing to defend a duly passed referendum altering that state’s constitution, then there is no point in having the referendum process, as a citizen cannot defend it if a state chooses not to.
I would have thought you’d find their conservatism on breaking new ground here refreshing.
They were not harmed by gay marriage, therefore they don’t have standing.
I don’t think you understand what legal standing is;
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
Standing exists from one of three causes:
1.The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the “something to lose” doctrine, in which the party has standing because they directly will be harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.
-
The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called “chilling effects” doctrine.
-
The party is granted automatic standing by act of law. Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive a portion of any fines collected by the government from their violation of law. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.
[/QUOTE]
Furthermore;
Under what grounds do you determine that the plaintiffs in this matter had standing?
The four is what scares me, although Scalia was a given. Guess I’ll have to knuckle down, read the dissent, and curse the minority bastards for the rest of the day. That was just too close.
They’re bigoted Republicans, what more standing do they need?
Because they are being deprived of their right to pass referenda to amend their state’s constitution.
Regards,
Shodan
“Harm”, in this case, is undefined.
State referendums are rendered moot if their implementation is contingent on whether a state wants to defend a referendum in court, should it pass. The central premise behind the referendum is that, rightly or wrongly, it allows the populace to directly alter a state’s law, rather than indirectly through elected officials.
And, ftr, I really don’t care whether or not gays get married. I’m more concerned with states simply refusing to defend laws passed via referendum, as it works both ways.
Do you assert that the voters have a right to pass unconstitutional referenda?
If the people of CA wanted the state to defend Prop 8, they would not have elected a governor who made it clear he did not intend to do so.
And here it is, from Scalia’s opinion. (DOMA decision) Quite predictable, as Scalia believes that laws passed by legislatures are just peachy-keen and courts should avoid changing them because The People Have Spoken.
Interesting how he seems to have done a complete 180 in just under 24 hours.
LOL! No, sorry. They have that right, still do. And they exercised it. Everything was in proper working order, including the challenge to the law brought on by gay marriage proponents. When it was struck down, it was STILL a proper exercise of the powers of the court and the people and the state. So the state, after losing the trial, decided not to pursue it any further, big fucking deal. Those bigoted morons who voted for Prop 8 still have their rights to pass whatever the fuck they can try to pass.
Just like many things in life, conservatives cannot fathom that their right to do something does not mean that other people cannot exercise their rights to try to stop it. They should add a footnote to the decision today saying “No conservative rights were harmed in the making of this decision” :D:p;)
I’d like to think that the majority of votes for governor were not based on his unwillingness to defend prop 8 in court. I don’t think people are that much of single issue voters, especially considering the outcome of the referendum.
Then I guess we can conclude that the majority of voters didn’t care if the state defended Prop 8 or not.
I’m not sure how you made such a gigantic leap in logic there, but okay. If you say so.
It is a very happy day.
I would have preferred a larger majority on DOMA but I’ll take it.
I am more disappointed with Prop 8 because I wish it was decided on merits but I’ll take that one too.
Overall, I am thrilled.
It’s just a matter of time before the whole country follows suit. A couple will get married in NY and then move to TX and demand, ala Loving v VA, that marriages in one State need to be recognized by the other States and it’s all over.
I am 100% straight but Scalia can get on his knees a suck my massive throbbing cock.