Yeah, thats part of the problem. Courts are supposed to interpret the laws, not public opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny-C
Printable View
Yeah, thats part of the problem. Courts are supposed to interpret the laws, not public opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny-C
And that's what YOU think they are doing; THAT'S the problem here.Quote:
Originally Posted by dixon76710
That's exactly what the Courts are doing which is why DOMA was declared unconsitutional. It violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by dixon76710
He doesn't understand that. See he only thinks his opinion should be validated, because of course he's smarter than the supreme court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiva_TD
Declared Constitutional by In re Kandu Bankruptcy Decision, Wilson v Ake and by the Obama administrations earlier defense of DOMA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiva_TD
The only Supreme Court Precednt on the constitutionality of marriage limited to heterosexuals was Baker v Nelson which Ive cited repeatedly, upholding the constituionality of marriage so limitedQuote:
Originally Posted by Osiris Faction
Wilson v Ake was a California State Court decision that addressed the laws under the California State Constitution and not a Federal Court which makes determinations under the US Constitution. It was also a case from 2006 and in 2008 the California State Supreme Court struck down Prop 22 which prohibited same-sex marriage as a violation of the equal protection clause contained in the California State Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by dixon76710
caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/A110449.DOC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor...ition_22_(2000)
The Kandu Bankruptcy Decision related to the civil union laws in the State of Washington and not to legally married same-sex couples that were being denied bankruptcy protection under DOMA.
I'm not sure which "other" case is being referred to related to the DOJ defending DOMA but would assume it's Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management and it related to spousal benefits that had been denied.
The lawsuit was then brought against the US government but the case was dismissed on procedural grounds, inviting the plaintiff to refile the lawsuit. That was done on April 14, 2011 and on December 16, 2011 Court heard oral arguments. There hasn't been a decision in that case that I'm aware of.Quote:
Ninth Circuit's Employment Dispute Resolution Plan. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski ruled in 2009 that she was entitled to spousal health benefits,[55] but the Office of Personnel Management announced that it would not comply with the ruling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/...nel-management
So we have one State case that was later overruled by the California State Supreme Court, one case that had nothing to do with a same-sex couple married in the United States, and one case where the decision is still pending.
In short, no rebuttal to the facts has been provided.
Baker v Nelson was from 1971 and was a decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court that has absolutely nothing to do with the Federal DOMA law which didn't even exist at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by dixon76710
As previously noted there simply wasn't the factual evidence of denial of benefits under the 14th Amendment at the time as there were no same-sex marriages from which to draw any factual evidence. A potential denial of benefits is not accepted by the Court as an actual denial of benefits is required in litigation. That simply didn't exist in 1971 but it does exist today.
Revealing how effortlessly, without even a moment of hesitation, probably without even a second thought, you just make the (*)(*)(*)(*) up about topics you know nothing about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiva_TD
Wilson v Ake was a federal case alleging that both Florida state law AND federal DOMA violated the US constitution.Quote:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
REV. NANCY WILSON and
DR. PAULA SCHOENWETHER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RICHARD L. AKE and
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Defendants.
Case No. 8:04-cv-1680-T-30TBM
http://www.alliancealert.org/2005/20050119.pdf
Dig DEEP! for some shred of integrity.Quote:
Plaintiffs have filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment asking this Court to
declare the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7; 28 U.S.C. § 1738C,1 and Florida Statutes § 741.212,2 unconstitutional and to enjoin their enforcement..
No lack of integrity on my part as Findlaw.com referred me to the California case:Quote:
Originally Posted by dixon76710
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/cal...es/A110449.DOC
That is why it helps when links are provided so mistake based upon a search are not encountered.
So now in referring to the correct decision there was no decision at all. The case was dismissed based upon a motion to dismiss by John Ashcroft. The Court did not enter an opinion at all except on the motion to dismiss and did not judge the merits of the case per se.
In short the decision neither supported or denied the claims of the plantiff but merely dismissed the lawsuit. The plantiff had a right to appeal the the US Supreme Court but I don't know if that's happened at all. If they did appeal I know for a fact that the Supreme Court has not heard the case.