The evolvers don't give a damn about public trust. Obviously, the public was conned in 1996 and should have pushed for a Constitutional Amendment. The alternative, DOMA, was a bait and switch.

If you are one who claim that "government should get out of the marriage business", say so, so I know you're not in the habit of thinking clearly and I must speak as though you are a child.

Government is and always will be interested in inheritance. If you think that they shouldn't be, then you've never spent a moment thinking about probate court or your own property rights. Not one moment.

These things are why government lets any notary public, justice of the peace, judge, minister or ship's captain ask you, "Do you,...?"

The tribe WILL track its braves. If it does not, it simply fails.

But Reid isn't the only one. There was a long line of prominent Democrats Wednesday who all queued up to applaud the Supreme Court for striking down DOMA -- even though they voted for it when it passed in 1996.

Even Bill Clinton -- who signed the bill into law -- heralded the court's decision.

In my opinion, it's a rare politician who will elevate doing what they feel is right over pleasing voters in order to get re-elected. I've little doubt that Clinton and many other Democrats disagreed with DOMA at the time but the political winds weren't blowing that way so, naturally, they voted for it.

In my opinion, it's a rare politician who will elevate doing what they feel is right over pleasing voters in order to get re-elected. I've little doubt that Clinton and many other Democrats disagreed with DOMA at the time but the political winds weren't blowing that way so, naturally, they voted for it

That or they still agree with DOMA but the political winds arent blowing that way now, so naturally they disavow it

I don't see why anyone's applauding or thinking the Supreme Court did the right thing.

Roberts' Court will be remembered as history's most craven.

They did not strike down DOMA. They disallowed the portion which forbade the Federal Government from recognizing a gay marriage.

DOMA is still very much alive and well. It had a noncritical portion removed, but no state that recognizes gay marriage will be forced to recognize a gay marriage in one that does.

Either DOMA is unconstitutional, or it is not. My thought is that it violates the full faith and credit clause. Much like the case of Loving v. Virginia, except this time the Supremes are afraid to come down on the side of the angels. In the case of Loving v. Virginia, the Supremes simply said, "You're not going to tell people that they're not married in your state."

This time, the Supremes dodged the issue. The restricted their ruling to the Federal Government and made it about inheritance rights.

So, for those gay marriage supporters, I'll make this very simple.

You.

Did.

Not.

Win.

I drive to work in a cow, while sharing a glass of dry water from a telephone pole.

"If you are one who claim that "government should get out of the marriage business", say so, so I know you're not in the habit of thinking clearly and I must speak as though you are a child."

Me, Me! Uncle Raddy, do you understand that "Marriage" DOESN'T have to be part of any inheritance regime?

It's simply the fuse an a larger device.

Most people try and fail to argue that the government shouldn't allow a civil union, but those people are generally militant.

Average Joe on the street doesn't care much one way or the other about contract laws and individual responsibilities 2 people might put in one. As long as they pay taxes and don't bother the neighbors.

Say the word marriage, and 10,000 years of tradition kicks in.

Eliminate the word, and the issue is haggling.

Marriage should be between you, and a partner. Whatever other entity or none you wanna pull in, is your problem.

As for all the bastages that voted for the damn thing in the first place, this certainly shows how non-important the law itself is, if they can 'evolve'

Lover has not suddenly changed since yesteryear.

Everybody who is 'glad it's gone' even though they voted for it years ago, should be made to stand in front of a camera, and articulate all the ways they were totally wrong in thinking before.

Cato may be Koch-founded, but when they had their big ownership showdown with the Kochs a while back, I read that it hadn't been Koch-funded in a long time.

I definately believe gov't shouldn't be involved in any way in it.

I have to agree partially with Rachel on this. The pop was this close to pushing for an amendment and getting it. DOMA and don't ask don't tell were the bait and switch of their day.
So I have no faith that the Dems will really hold to "no one will force a church to marry them" for more than 6 yrs. By when most states courts will have flipped on it.

My 2 cents I don't care if you want to be married to a tree a rock or whoever, but I want the right to laugh at it and not be required to accept/celebrate it. Unfortunately my right to laugh is already gone, the requirement to celebrate is codified for some, probably not too much longer for everyone.

Roberts' Court will be remembered as history's most craven.

They did not strike down DOMA. They disallowed the portion which forbade the Federal Government from recognizing a gay marriage. -- Patrick at June 27, 2013 1:58 PM

DOMA was challenged on the Takings Clause of the Fifth, not the Equal Protection Clause, so the rest of the Fifth didn't apply and the Fourteenth was ignored.

Congress wrote DOMA with a severablity clause so that if SCOTUS overrode one portion the rest stood.

So at some point there will have to be an Equal Protection Clause suit. But I really don't see how it can succeed. A state refusing to recognize same sex couples would have to take out their common law marriage rules, but after that the suing couple has no standing. (Hint: Ohio did it in the 90's.)

But calling the Robert's court craven means you want an activist court. That is how we got here. Obamacare was written so that the IRS was in charge of enforcement. That means it was always a tax. The voting rights act was the Federal control of voting in essentially nine states. They are saying the voting laws should reside in the state. The DOMA lawsuit was on the Takings clause. They ruled narrowly. The various states now have to decide whether they want to recognize same sex marriage. And if you say that a state can't make that decision, then you are saying the Federal Overlords have the power even when the word "marriage" is not mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.

This court has incorporated some rights as well. Heller incorporated the Second Amendment. But marriage is not a right, just like driving.

Here is my problem with the states rights argument.

If state A can ignore the marriage contract lesbians 1 & 2 entered into in state B then what is to stop state A from ignoring the marriage contract between hetero man 1 and hetero woman 2 if they suddenly decide that doing so benefits the state coffers?

Whats to stop state A from refusing to recognising the validity of any contract entered into beyond its borders?

Whats to stop state A from refusing to recognising the validity of any contract entered into beyond its borders? -- lujlp at June 27, 2013 11:37 PM

From the simple fact that if State A has the contract codified it has to recognize the contract of State B.

A small law that has been observed in Texas for years. If you want to operate a business that actually employs Texans, the company is required to have a headquarters in Texas.

It was challenged up to SCOTUS and still stands. So a bank registered in Delaware also has a subsidiary HQ in Texas.

So Indiana can say you must renew your vows in Indiana before we recognize your Illinois marriage. If you don't comply then you are taxed as individuals.

There is nothing at the federal level to say this is wrong. Just as the license to drive is technically a state issue.

This is the same issue Concealed Carry holders face when carrying in a different state.

time but the political winds weren't blowing that way so, naturally, they voted for it
I've noticed the dems haven't stood for anything since the death of JFK.

SwissArmyD:

Void marriage today, and your kids have no inheritance, period. Today, the law provides for their inheritance because of the State institution of marriage.

That the scope of this arrangement hasn't occurred to you simply confirms my notion that folk like you simply cannot think about anything but themselves, and in the present.

The alternative is to force everyone to lawyers to arbitrate succession in every single case.

Maybe you want a nation with no inheritance - with no right to the property of your own family. That's what your position infers.

The alternative, DOMA, was a bait and switch.
I suppose this will be the case w/ the "affordable healthcare". Very scary

My favorite part of DOMA was always the rich irony that it was enacted by a Democrat (read: Liberal or Progressive) who was having an affair with an intern at the time.

Just sayin...

@ Stinky the Clown. I pretty much have been assuming that since day one. Obamacare is an economic disaster, from people who wanted complete gov't run heathcare. I believe it is designed to self destruct so they can then say we have to switch to full gov't heathcare for everyone.

I also look at those executive orders for "gun control" that Obama did. Most directly make no sense in respect to gun control. Because there is a piece missing to join them all together, makng their ultimate goal of effectively eliminating guns.

"because of the State institution of marriage." Raddy.

Dude you are so wrapped around the axle on this that you don't see the problem inherent in those very words.

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS idea, and has been since the written word in the Ur of Chaldea 6000 years ago. Since it was already mature then, the indication is that it existed long before that.
Back then every nation had a religious government.

A hella long time passed, and eventually the idea came about of SECULAR government... even if it had some trappings of religion.

What overriding interest do they have in the pairing of 2 people?

It's about money, and the ability to care for and make decisions about a partner.

The morality and procreation aspects of the union isn't the state's primary interest, because they have to allow INDIVIDUAL decisions on that.

It has always been convenient to just sanction what church communities were doing anyway, but the STATE'S interest and the churches aren't identical, they are convenient.

Meanwhile, you can get hitched by any justice of the peace, and the church doesn't get involved AT ALL.

The STATE idea of marriage and the RELIGIOUS idea of marriage are two entirely different things, and THAT is why they need to be dis-entangled.

This will NOT change inheritance, nor the collection of money, nor the care you can provide to a partner. Those are the ONLY thing that the state cares about, and they can easily be covered in a CIVIL partnership contract, instead of a marriage one. Identical terms, different names.

THEN the religions get to take back their moral interests in whatever they deem marriage to be WITHOUT THE POWER OF THE STATE to bludgeon anyone with.

Religion doesn't have very much interest in inheritance, and certainly not legal interest. As a nation that enshrine freedom of religion, including freedom from religion, the church shouldn't be involved in deciding what the STATE deems sufficient for civil partnerships between two people.

The state shouldn't be sanctioning marriage or mawage and religion shouldn't be sanctioning who inherits what, and who owes who... or who can make power of attorney decisions.

Then, once the state says, "your partnership application is approved" you can go to any altar you want, and have zippy the pinhead in the church of the flying spaghetti monster call you married, and it will be an individual thing.

If the Baptists don't like it, because both brides wore white, tough stuff, NOBODY ASKED THEIR OPINION.

What's going on now, is that various people are using the courts and law tricks to provide The Government with THE POWER to decide this individual action, and it shouldn't be so.

Do I think that eventually through blunt force, and BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in legal fees, every state will make marriage between 2 consenting humans.
Yup.

but this would have been over long ago, and cheaply, if everyone wasn't tangling over The Government Definition of Marriage... when the government has NO BUSINESS defining it.

but this would have been over long ago, and cheaply, if everyone wasn't tangling over The Government Definition of Marriage... when the government has NO BUSINESS defining it. -- SwissArmyD at June 28, 2013 9:46 AM

You are right. The problem is that the states also used the word marriage in the state government rules since the inception of the Constitution. Then the 16th Amendment (direct taxes) also used it.

Well, I wish I'd seen this earlier. SaD and Jim, calling marriage anything else doesn't change the problem at all.

The State is the only entity with the power to tax, and so it is the only entity which can, and will, track its citizens.

Again: if this is not done, you will have NO property rights, because you will NOT be able to produce documents of inheritance.