Well, with the court ruling in Mass. a couple weeks ago, basically stating that if it's up to the states to be able to rule if same sex marriage is or is not legal, then the S.C.O.T.U.S. can not rule on it. However, if they are allowed to rule on it, then it sets a nation wide precedent, whether it be in favour or against same sex marriage. It will all depend on which case reaches them first. Honestly, right now, it's a great big clusterfuck.

However, after reading the entire 130some page ruling, and the arguments put forward in it, it would be almost impossible to uphold the ban on same sex marriage, simply on the basis of gender discrimination alone.

Does that mean I'm celebrating? Yes and no. Yes, for tonight, but, this is just the beginning of the fight, which most people seem to not realize.

Well due to MA's ruling on DOMA being unconstitutional the Supreme Court will have to rule exactly the same way on both decisions, otherwise it becomes contradictory. So essentially, we may see the end of DOMA if there are no logical reasons to keep it. If that's the case, I will be incredibly happy if DOMA's struck down too.

Which, in essence, the SCOTUS has no choice but to strike down DOMA, if it's going to allow states to have the right to decide who can or can not marry. However, if it does uphold DOMA, that means states don't have the right to create marriage laws, but the US government is the only one with the power to do such a thing. That will destroy any and all state laws currently in place.

Now, if it agrees with the Mass. ruling, then it will have no ability to rule on Prop. 8. If it agrees with DOMA, and strikes down the Mass. ruling, then it also can not look at Prop. 8, as the state ruling has no bearing anymore there either. Basically, if state law trumps federal law, SCOTUS can't rule on Prop. 8. If federal law trumps state law and DOMA DOES stand, then Prop 8 means nothing anyway.

BUT, if the Prop 8 case reaches SCOTUS first, and they strike it down as unconstitutional, then that's basically striking down DOMA also, for the same reasons, essentially nullifying the Mass. ruling by the federal government interceding and taking precedent over state law. If they uphold Prop. 8, that leaves DOMA in effect and nullifies the Mass. decision as well, essentially making it non-existent.

As I said, one great big clusterfuck. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. They're basically only going to be able to rule on one of the cases, because either one will wipe the other off the board entirely or make it impossible for them to look at the other.

It's going to be interesting how it plays out, but the way I see it is that they'll have to strike down DOMA on the basis of Amendment 10 and Prop 8 on the basis that it's deemed unethical unless they decide to rule on both on the basis that it is unethical and classed as a form of discrimination as seen in numerous civil rights cases.

That I agree on and see no way for them to not, under that logic right there. And, my god, finally, someone else well versed in these cases, as opposed to just spewing unfounded opinion. :) Thank you.

I have a BA in this sort of thing :P

Plus as a foreign national I need DOMA to be repealed in order to marry over in the US, since I'm a fag and all.

LOL
Well, for me, in the long run it will mean nothing, either way, as I'm working on expatriating myself into Canada where they actually know what equal rights are.

However, that being said, I still have a vested interest in this as an old man who has been actively fighting for equal rights in this country for the last 18 years.

Keep up the fight and once things go our way we can drink to a 21st century America.

Also on your legal precedent point, it's interesting, I am indeed looking forward to how this'll pan out.

Sounds like a good idea! I'll buy the beer... after all, Canadian beer is WAYYYYY better than US beer. AND you can legally get imported mead there too! ;)

Also, they have no choice but to strike down Prop. 8 at a federal level, on the grounds of Colorado's Amendment 2, which was already struck down on a federal level because it created a group of 'second class citizens' in the same exact manner as Prop. 8. So there is already legal precedent there.

Marriage should be the legal union between two or more persons who decide to share their lives with one another.

Any religious connotation is personal and should be kept entirely separate from the State who have no business meddling with the laws of religious belief.

In 1965 in California it was illegal for a Japanese man to marry a "white" woman (or vice-versa). These things have changed, they WILL change. The courts are stuck on the prongs of a legal and ethical dilemma. On the one hand, the only reasons for denying the contract of marriage to a gay couple are religious objections (there are other alleged objections, but it's trivial to show that they are not universally applicable as long as the couple are of opposite genders). If any court allows these objections to deny, in law, a couple access to a civil wedding, then that is a legal establishment of religious preference, which is absolutely forbidden by the Bill of Rights. The only recourse would be to eliminate legal sanction of the religious ceremony of wedding, or to eliminate the religious prejudice that denies equal treatment under the law. Of course, now conservatives in the US have decided that treating everybody equally is a bad idea, and they want to tear apart the Fourteenth Amendment, which has been in place for 150 years. I'm sure this ruling will only give them more reason to point their fingers and say "see what treating everybody equally leads to? Anarchy!"