Is DOMA Unconstitutional?

Well I'm sorry you feel that way, I truly am. But I guarantee it's a fight you're not going to win.. And I don't mean that in a condescending way either, just a realistic way. You're just dragging your heals in the sand, if other historical trends are anything to go by.

 

Well White men (H) will learn.

 

And “when the proffered rationales for a law are clearly and manifestly implausible, a reviewing court may infer that animus is the only explicable basis. [Because] animus alone cannot constitute a legitimate government interest,”147 this court finds that DOMA lacks a rational basis to support it....

In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue.
And where, as here, “there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects” from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification.149 As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/fe...achusetts/madce/1:2009cv10309/120672/70/0.pdf

 

I am simple person, I do no have perverted mind like representatives of gay community.
If (according to judges) procreation and sex does not matter, marriage should be extended to close related couples. It was extended to gay couples only.

 

Do they have to be human? My dog and cat could marry

 

If this refers th the legal insititution of marriage then I believe that if it could be established that a dog and cat are capable of informed consent which would allow them to enter into such a contract then there might be an argument for it. Of course dogs and cats can't read or write so how could they possibly sign a written contract?

Why are such stupid propositions repeatedly made? Okay, I actually know why. It's because a valid argument can't be made so absurdities are presented instead just to fill up space.

 

Gays and lesbians in their legal actions against prohibitions against same-sex marriage and against the inherent discrimination imposed by DOMA has never even once suggested that they seek "protected class status" so I have no clue where this is coming from. They seek equal protection under the law which is a protected Right in the 14th Amendment. That is not an attempt to seek "protected class status" and cannot be construed as such.

 

It is a stepping stone and so may are convinced by their leader that they are being discriminated against because they are gay. Can you net follow trends? Would you be willing to bet it does not raise its head some time in the next few years? Come on lets make a bet.

If I lose I start accepting all gays as good people and if you lose you turn your back on the gay community.

 

If there is no discrimination under the law then there are no grounds for seeking protected class status.

No, in fighting for the equal protection for ALL people under the law eventually I'll win regardless of any set-backs along the way. Ending all forms of discrimination under the law is what we should all be seeking as Americans. I believe this is most evident in the lawsuit against Prop 8 where one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs is a very conservative Republican while the other attorney is a very liberal Democrat. Equal protection under the law is an issue that both conservatives and liberals should be standing together on.

I will never turn my back on those that are being discriminated against under the law. That would require turning my back on the ideals upon which America was founded.

 

Not true in the least.

1) Where did you get the idea that I picked this up from Rahl? Citation, please.

2) It's not my reality. It's reality, period. You're simply living in denial.

3) What response would satisfy you? Seriously, answer at least that one question.

Links to the actual statutes, supported by newspaper accounts showing when they were passed?

No. I'm persuaded that all you want is for us to waste a bunch of time scurrying around looking all this stuff up, only to have you ignore it.

How about instead you show us one state law - just one - that EXPLICITLY defined marriage as one man/one woman, or EXPLICITLY excluded all same sex couples, prior to 1973.

That exact wording - no weaseling by trying to argue the implications of other language from various pieces of legislation. No weaseling through a circular argument about what was "understood". No throwing out a bunch of irrelevant stuff from foreign or ancient laws.

Just show us one state law that very clearly defines marriage limiting it to one man/one woman or clearly excludes all same-sex couples. Just one - adopted prior to 1973.

 

I am all for equality so lets do away with DOMA and AA and protected class.

Then if there is no protected class I do not have to worry about losing out to a dumber weaker and uglier gay guy. I will lose out to a smarter, stronger and better looking guy who happens to be gay.

 

They're nothing more than your irrelevant opinion of what constitutes the truth. Your opinion is not the same thing as established fact.

That's a complete and utter falsehood. You're welcome to believe anything you like about marriage as a religious matter. What I will not accept is the attempt to make your religious definition of marriage the legal definition that I, as a person of no religious beliefs, have to live under.

And yes, I am going to ignore you - just haven't gotten around to pushing the button yet.

 

Repetition of statements already shown to be false won't make them true.

 

"Suspect Class" is a "protected class"

 

Asked and answered

You have made no attempt thus far to address that refutation except to be dismissive through a personal attack.

 

It is a fact that homosexuality was considered a mental disorder only 40 years ago by the APA. It is a fact that marriage is and has been defined as a union between a man and a woman by law for hundreds of years. Gay people need to get over their weird sexual perversions and seek help from a qualified psychologist.

 

Baseless claims that statements have already been shown to be false, wont make them false.

 

"Protected class" generally refers to classes of people protected in anti-discrimination laws, not suspect classification used by the court to resolve legal challenges. Gay people are not a protected class in federal law.

 

Nothing you just said has the slightest effect on my statement.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/4984999-post332.html

 

Who the hell protects the non deviant people of this nation?

And not yet but you guys will push it and then more people who are not deviant will be displaced in fear of the ACLU.

 

Just as it's a fact that it no longer is. Welcome to 2012.

Not in the United States. Explicit definition of marriage as a man and a woman has only existed in the US at the state level beginning in 1973, and at the federal level in 1996 (DOMA).

And we're back to irrelevant opinions again.

 

Nol law existed prior to the 1970's limiting marriage to a woman and man. No amount of foot stomping is going to rewrite history for you

 

I'm done with going around in circles here.

So much ignoring to do, so little time.

 

Not true. I already posted a law from 1793, I guess you missed that. Probably could find one from all 13 original states if I were a law student.