General Discussion

bigbrother05

(5,995 posts)

29. IMO, the Prop 8 decision showed the Cons feared making a broad ruling

Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:54 PM

Jun 2013

Had the Court taken on the case and used the same type of logic as they did on DOMA, they probably would have ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional based on equal protection. Such a ruling could have been applied broadly to all states and could have essentially made same sex marriage the law of the land.

By using the no standing excuse to return to the state, it has no effect outside of CA. They didn't rule on the merits, just that it was improperly brought to them.

The votes of the two Cons to return it kept it narrow. The votes of the two Lib to hear the case was an attempt to try and settle the broader issue now instead of later. The split reveals how close they were to hearing and deciding the case this time. If they had always intended to turn it back on a technicality, why did it take them so long to issue the ruling? They punted on this, probably as a compromise paired with the DOMA decision.

While it's certainly a victory for the folks in CA, it did nothing to help anyone in the rest of the country. A local victory is intact, but the war continues.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I'll say it again: DOMA HAS NOT BEEN STRUCK DOWN [View all] markpkessinger Jun 2013 OP

it's a big step in the right, er, left direction Skittles Jun 2013 #1

That door has been kicked wide open. HappyMe Jun 2013 #2

Thanks Debbie Downer! Texasgal Jun 2013 #3

Sorry if reality is a 'downer' to you . , , markpkessinger Jun 2013 #4

Mark can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm quite sure he has identified bullwinkle428 Jun 2013 #5

He is right you know. You have only to look at the outcome re: VRA to MichiganVote Jun 2013 #6

Is it your point that we shouldnt discuss this? Is what he is saying not the truth? rhett o rick Jun 2013 #26

"The Supreme Court did what I once thought was unthinkable in striking down DOMA." ProSense Jun 2013 #7

The ACLU was, unusually for them, sloppy in its writing here dsc Jun 2013 #10

I'm just tuning in -- didn't Pab or someone yesterday say something about Robb Jun 2013 #12

the whole severability clause thing is a red herring dsc Jun 2013 #15

Got it, thank you. nt Robb Jun 2013 #31

I get that ProSense Jun 2013 #14

even that last paragraph is a bit sloppy dsc Jun 2013 #16

Huh? n/t ProSense Jun 2013 #19

Let me spell it out for you dsc Jun 2013 #23

I'm not sure ProSense Jun 2013 #28

The import of DSC's point . . . markpkessinger Jun 2013 #35

are you sure about this? I thought that the ruling meant that spooky3 Jun 2013 #32

This is really a critical point . . . markpkessinger Jun 2013 #34

Thats the point many don't seem to grasp. William769 Jun 2013 #18

We are still years away from any such ruling dsc Jun 2013 #24

IMO, the Prop 8 decision showed the Cons feared making a broad ruling bigbrother05 Jun 2013 #29

Last night on rightwing news here in rightwing I-Dee-Ho, they were reassuring the rednecks . . . Major Hogwash Jun 2013 #8

Valid point, though it will make striking the rest of DOMA down much easier. backscatter712 Jun 2013 #9

Forgive my ignorance, but why did they only focus on that part instead of the whole law? ecstatic Jun 2013 #11

Because that was the part that was challenged. TalkingDog Jun 2013 #20

Thanks.nt ecstatic Jun 2013 #25

it's been pretty well gutted. the major portion was the federal part cali Jun 2013 #13

tell that to those of us who live in the 37 states which don't recognize same sex marriages dsc Jun 2013 #17

And to those of us living in states that do not recognize Civil Unions at all because: teh geyz! TalkingDog Jun 2013 #21

NC as well dsc Jun 2013 #22

is it simply a question of someone with standing challenging the other sections? mike_c Jun 2013 #27

One would certainly hope . . . markpkessinger Jun 2013 #30

K&R! :( Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #33