Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Defense gets pounded by Supreme Court Justices [View all]angrychair
(9,412 posts)21. But why?
Not being funny, I really don't understand the hair-splitting on this. If prop 8 isn't Constitutional, as the 9th Circuit ruled, than it isn't. I hate to sound stupid but I don't understand how a SCOTUS ruling only can be applied to a single state. I have always been under the impression that case law, which this would become, is the basis for interpretation and "the ruler" by which other laws are measured by to decide outstanding issues of a similar nature. Why wouldn't even a narrow ruling impact the issue every state? Isn't SCOTUS the "one ring to rule them all" as it were?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
101 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
if the effects are "unknown", then we cannot know that they are harmful. logic apparently
niyad
Mar 2013
#1
I keep trying to figure out how such braindead types manage to function at any level.
niyad
Mar 2013
#4
and the wedding industry will make a few more dollars, possibly creating jobs. wouldn't this be
niyad
Mar 2013
#6
if the effects are "unknown", then we cannot know that they are harmful. logic apparently
AlbertCat
Mar 2013
#43
And as soon as their offspring attain majority their marriages should be disolved.
bluedigger
Mar 2013
#14
There should be fertility tests for both partners as part of the marriage application process as wel
AlbertCat
Mar 2013
#51
Excellent argument, but it would probably fly right over the mouth breather's heads.
sarge43
Mar 2013
#100
Could it be that the Supreme Court will once again lead the way on civil rights?
SoonerPride
Mar 2013
#11
They would have a hard time keeping you from marraige in OK then, when California loses.
Ikonoklast
Mar 2013
#19
My feeling is that DOMA is dead for two reasons; the Fourteenth Amendment and Loving vs Virginia.
Ikonoklast
Mar 2013
#87
Unfortunately, the courts often do seem to find a way to weasel out of tough spots...
BlueCheese
Mar 2013
#32
It was my belief that the USSC does not hear cases filed by those with no standing.
Ikonoklast
Mar 2013
#66
an early happy 10th anniversary to a beautiful couple, and wishing you many, many more.
niyad
Mar 2013
#73
The Supreme Court really has a chance to make history here and do the right thing.
Nye Bevan
Mar 2013
#17
So...should everyone be tested for fertility before a marriage license is issued? Should
LoisB
Mar 2013
#20
welcome to DU--that is what one of my friends says--they have the right to be as miserable
niyad
Mar 2013
#74
This guy actually got a degree? That is the most asinine statement I've ever read.
Ikonoklast
Mar 2013
#84
Even the procreation "logic" is better than whatever reasoning led Roberts to make that idiotic
NYC Liberal
Mar 2013
#85
Does that mean that people who can't, or choose not to, have children are barred from marriage?
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2013
#71