[Lazarusrat]

In another step closer to the US Supreme Court the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of Edith Windsor and against DOMA.

appeals-court-ny-rules-gay-marriage-law-unconstitutional

I still can not believe people are still trying to defend DOMA... It has be ruled unConstitutional by every court that has heard the case. Gay marriage is coming, and no amount of bible thumping will stop it.

[barrel roll]

Too bad it was ruled unconstitutional for the wrong reasons.

[Swerve22]

Obamacare was ruled unconstitutional a lot before it hit the SC too and then it stood. What's your point?

[Iamamartianchurch]

Damn.

Well on second thought. It does nothing anyway.

[Lazarusrat]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

Too bad it was ruled unconstitutional for the wrong reasons.

Really??? Just what would be the "right reason" if not this?

Wiki quote Windsor Vs. US
In 2007, Edith "Edie" Windsor and Thea Spyer, residents of New York, married in Toronto, Ontario, after 40 years of romantic partnership.[1] Spyer died in 2009, at which time New York legally recognized same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.[2][3] After Spyer's death, Windsor was required to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes on her inheritance. If federal law accorded their marriage the same status as different-sex marriages recognized by their state, she would have paid no taxes.[4][5]

[barrel roll]

They claim 14th amendment, I say 10th whereas the general government isn't delegated that authority.

[Lazarusrat]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

Obamacare was ruled unconstitutional a lot before it hit the SC too and then it stood. What's your point?

Not totally true Swerve...

The individual mandate was ruled unconstitutional but because it isn't slated to become law until 2014 it gives the Obama administration time to appeal the decision and keep it in teh books. If the SC accepts the case the individual mandate will go in to effect in 2014 as planned until the SC makes a ruling. If the SC declines the case the ruling will stand and Obama care falls apart.

It's sort of like DOMA... It was ruled uncostitutional as well but is still in effect until either the SC rejects hearing the case and this ruling will stand OR the SC makes a ruling.

[Lazarusrat]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

They claim 14th amendment, I say 10th whereas the general government isn't delegated that authority.

I agree with them on the 14th. In this case she was discriminated against because of her gender, if she or her spouce would have had a penis in their marriage t would have all been good and she wouldn't have had to pay $363,000.

If you argue the 10th you have to argue that Gov doesn't have the right to define mariage, which the IRS has already has for years.

[barrel roll]

The IRS didn't define it... they accepted the state's definition. Back when the IRS was first formed there were no marriage licenses, it was all common law marriages. States were to pay for their disabled veterans during and after the US Civil War, and instituted marriage licenses in response to spousal benefit fraud.

It still stands that:
1) the states determine who, when, how, and what prerequisites need to be met to marry
2) the general government holds delegated authority to determine anything covered in 1)


10th instead of 14th, because there are no other federal marriage laws.

[Lazarusrat]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

The IRS didn't define it... they accepted the state's definition. Back when the IRS was first formed there were no marriage licenses, it was all common law marriages. States were to pay for their disabled veterans during and after the US Civil War, and instituted marriage licenses in response to spousal benefit fraud.

It still stands that:
1) the states determine who, when, how, and what prerequisites need to be met to marry
2) the general government holds delegated authority to determine anything covered in 1)


10th instead of 14th, because there are no other federal marriage laws.

Alright, I see why you could agrue the 10th. I still feel the 14th provides a better foundation for a lawsuit though.

[Umami]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

The IRS didn't define it... they accepted the state's definition. Back when the IRS was first formed there were no marriage licenses, it was all common law marriages. States were to pay for their disabled veterans during and after the US Civil War, and instituted marriage licenses in response to spousal benefit fraud.

It still stands that:
1) the states determine who, when, how, and what prerequisites need to be met to marry
2) the general government holds delegated authority to determine anything covered in 1)

10th instead of 14th, because there are no other federal marriage laws.

Unfortunately for this argument, the equal protection clause within the 14th amendment gives the federal government jurisdiction over whether the states' definition is fair to all citizens.

[drgonzo]

Still think it's hilarious that this law is called DO MA

[Umami]

Originally Posted by Umami

Unfortunately for this argument, the equal protection clause within the 14th amendment gives the federal government jurisdiction over whether the states' definition is fair to all citizens.

Originally Posted by barrel roll

10th instead of 14th, because there are no other federal marriage laws.

Oh, I see your point. For some reason I wasn't making the connection that DOMA was federal. So you'd use the 10th to strike down DOMA, the 14th to strike down any similar state laws and require that states grant licenses. Makes sense.