Is DOMA Unconstitutional?

It seems to me pretty clear that DOMA violates the full faith an credit clause and denies the right of the states to define marriage and have each individual definition upheld by federal law.

It has been declared Unconstituonal in multiple cases and now sits in the First Circuit, with a decision expected soon. Boehner's lawyer's best defence seems to be that "gay people have enough political power already"...

 

No. DOMA is perfectly legal. All the "drama-queenery" (copyright Unifier 2012) about it is merely people not wanting to look at it objectively. It's about people who already have a lot of emotion invested in the idea that it must be unconstitutional because they want so badly to redefine the law that they are not going to accept anything else.

In other words, whether it is actually constitutional or not is irrelevant to these people. They are going to treat it as if it's unconstitutional regardless and push like hell until everyone else caves and gives them what they want. Because this is essentially what lefties do with everything. They just take what they want by force. Facts mean nothing to them. It's all about feelings.

And to be fair, conservatives have done a (*)(*)(*)(*) poor job of keeping these people in check. Most of us have become such cowards that we just let them get away with whatever they want now because we're too afraid to stand up to them anymore.

 

so much bigotry, I don't even know where to begin....................

first, yes, DOMA has been declared unconstitutional. You may not like it, but thems the facts.

second, of course they're going to "push like hell" because they are being unfairly discriminated against. Did you have the same outlook, when blacks "pushed like hell" for their civil rights too?

 

It was passed at a time when hysteria over Hawaii potentially passing SSM was running amock, Republicans seized on it as a wedge issue knowing the not-too-well informed public weren't exactly crazy on the idea of two dudes getting hitched... Leaving Clinton no choice (especially since they brought it up right before the election). Now fast forward 16 years and the hysteria has subsided, 6 states and the District of Columbia have same-sex marriage, and an ever-growing majority of Americans now support it. Both it's introducer (R) and signer (D) regret their actions and have renounced it as bad policy. It's creating legal chaos and costing time and money for national organisations who have to deal with differences in state and federal law.

Of course NONE of that means it Unconstitutional I know, but to be honest due to the nature of the law and the way it pretty much ****s on state's rights and the full faith and credit clause, you have even right-wing legal think-tanks saying a defeat for DOMA may be imminent. That doesn't say much for it.

The whole point of the FMA (Federal Marriage Amendment), aside from use as another wedge issue, was because Republicans feared DOMA would be struck down sooner or later - there have been whispers in Washington of its demise for years.

Now you have an attack on all fronts - at least 5 court cases and the legislative route (Respect for Marriage Act). It's days are numbered, and it's not just lefties who are on board with that. Not anymore.

 

I believe it is unconstitutional.

Heterosexuals marriages are recognized and honored in all 50 states.

There is no legitimate reason why homosexuals marriage rights should not transfer from one state to another. Even if SSM's aren't performed in the state they are moving to.

 

It's my opinion that the Supreme Court will uphold it as being constitutional. It's otherwise a moot point.

 

Moot point? Explain.

 

I think the USSC may do as you say. Why do you think they will?

 

No, it is NOT unconstitutional. I strengthens the 10th ammendment. There is no reason the federal government, or any state that doesn't believe in gay marriage, should be obligated to recognize the RELIGIOUS union of two people from another state. If gays don't want to be "divorced" in one state where it isn't legal, then they don't move there. And the Federal government is still an entirely different entity, so having a definition of what it wants to recognize as marriage is brought up in DOMA as well. But it doesn't force one state to make a rule one way or the other like the Abortion act did.

 

Here is what the Constitution states:

Hmmm... I think there is a lot more LEGAL deliberation to be accomplished, before what you claim above is accepted to be absolutely true.

 

Really? You see somewhere in the constitution about marriage at all?

There is nothing in the constitution about marriage, so there for the states reserve the right to decide on the matter. That is what DOMA is about, it solidifies that that there is nothing in the constitution about marriage so there for the states have the right to decide to recognize SSM from another state or not.

The Constitution is straight forward and should be read litterally. If meant to read another way, an ammendment MUST be added to express a new law of the land.

 

Well, scores of Americans generally disagree with your views (though others may agree with you). There are many reasons why various cases in U.S. Courts (at present), will likely aid in determining the truth on this matter.

It is certainly not as 'clear' or 'simple' as saying that homosexuals should NOT be allowed legal marriage. That is for many valid reasons a debatable thing to say.

 

I am for states deciding the matter. But I am MORE for the government getting out of the religious institution of marriage altogether really.

 

And I'm fighting for homosexuals to have EQUAL rights, period.

 

And getting government out of marriage will be the ONLY solutution.

 

There's more to it than this. DOMA does not merely address the rights of states. It also creates a federal definition of marriage. So how does one square that? If marriage is the purview of states, why is the federal government involved at all? Why is the federal government allowed to treat marriage as a prop for use in other area of federal law?

If, by whatever machinations, one arrives at an opinion that the federal government can be involved in marriage, one still has the problem of explaining how it can set a definition for federal recognition at odds with what the state defines as a marriage. Doesn't that power, after all, belong to the states? They're the ones that issue the marriage licenses. They're the ones that decide whether the marriage exists - not the federal government. Why then would the federal government get to override the state's determination that a marriage does exist between a same-sex couple?

If one is going to argue a states' rights/powers position, where is there any room to make an argument that federal law should trump state law on this matter?

I'm not saying you've made any such argument, so don't misconstrue this as a strawman. I'm simply looking for your opinion on the questions I've raised above. They aren't mere rhetorical interrogatives. I do want answers.

 

Moot, as in academically debatable. Meanwhile, the practical effect would be that same-sex couples would still be unable to marry, regardless of what anyone thinks on the question of constitutionality beyond the courts' hypothetical ruling upholding DOMA.

 

The federal deffinition of marriage was needed for federal government employees who don't fall under state rules of law for wills and death benefits. Like I said, just getting government out of the religious sactioned unions is the only way to solve this mess of oppression.

 

I think there will be some smoke and mirrors to arrive at a decision that the federal government has a 'right' to determine for itself what it will or won't recognize as a marriage, regardless of what happens at the state level. That takes care of the most disputed Section 3. As for the provision allowing states to refuse recognition of another's legal marriages, I think the court wlll rule that Congress has the power to determine what effect those legal marriages will be given under full faith & credit - including no effect whatsoever.

But mostly, I don't think they'll overturn DOMA because of the legal environment surrounding marriage at the state level at this time. They aren't going to wade into the dangerous waters of creating a situation where states might be forced to recognize marriages in direct conflict with their amendments defining marriage. The justices know full well they'd be labeled as 'activists', and that it may spur Congress to act to limit the court's power. They simply aren't going to stick their necks out this way. I don't think it will even be a 5-4 split - probably much wider.

Moreover, I wouldn't be surprised if there was an attempt in Congress to remove the court's power to review cases related to DOMA.

 

So? How does that create a power for the federal government to regulate marriage? Wills and death benefits aren't marriage - and DOMA does not deal with them - it defines marriage.

I want to hear your constitutional basis for the federal government having a power to regulate marriage in order to accomplish something else, such as wills and death benefits. Frankly, I'm inclined to say, "too bad, so sad" for those government employees affected. Why are they so special that we would ignore the constitution in their favor?

And we're back to square one, since not every marriage is a religion-sanctioned union. Marriage has a social definition outside of religion - and outside government.

 

why do you ask that? The 2 are not even closely related. Your attempts at diminishing the pain experienced by black people is offensive.

You are trying to compare the treatment (or lack of) give because of the color of ones skin which is obvious vs wanting people to accept your sexual behavior of what you do in your bedroom..............the 2 aren't even close.

 

I don't know, some gay people are quite obvious by their mannerisms and speech. I've a gay friend who has ALWAYS been feminine, from a very young age. He definitely does not put it on - yet has been homophobically abused a few times in his life and in his job. Not for anything that should be kept "in the bedroom" either - he doesn't flaunt it, he doesn't go around kissing other men, just goes about his business. Racial traits are identifiable from just looking at someone, yes.. But you "know" my friend is gay just by talking to him, maybe even watching him move around. Since society has affirmed feminine mannerisms/traits in men to = gay.

The difference being it's vastly easier to hide than race, but it's still part of who people are. And gays have had to face lots of **** in history, in Nazi Germany, and even in the US (when sodomy was a capital crime). And homophobia is more rife currently in society than racism I'd wager.

 

and I could wear the colors or ink of a rival gang and walk down the street

you aren't going to legislate thought which honestly is what it seems your movement wants to do.

I could care if your friend acts feminine while a few people may not like it.

But, the guy with the black skin can't hide that (unless their last name is Jackson)

comparison to a sexual act isn't even close. having sex differently than 97% of the population is not the same as having a different skin color

 

I'm not saying they're exactly the same, but there's a comparison there. People don't choose their race and people don't choose their sexuality. It's simply who they are.

Yes one effects behaviour, and some people disapprove homosexual behaviour for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean the government shouldn't award them protections that are necessary (such as protection from discrimination in housing and jobs). It is because of the amount of homophobia that exists in society that the government should take all steps to route it out. Like it does with racism. Not to "stamp" on anyone's freedoms in the process - but no one should be allowed to kick their tenants out simply because they don't approve of them living in their property(*)(as a couple), or employers sack them from their jobs because they feel uncomfortable working with them. These are not emotions that should be pandered to. Hence government protections.

 

I agree that gays are not experiencing anything close to what blacks once did but once upon a time it was illegal to have an interracial marriage. These two things are extremely similar and many of the same arguments made against same sex marriage were made against interracial marriage.

While gays may only make up 3% (current estimates put it around 5%-7% [1] [2]) it is still discrimination to deny them the same legal protections made avalable through a legal contract that their peers enjoy. There are no real reasons for this discrimination besides the icky factor, the religious factor, and the "its how it has always been" factor.