Is DOMA Unconstitutional?

I have no problem with this so long as the inherent discrimination in the marriage laws that prohibit same-sex marriage are eliminated.... but we'll still have discrimination in the laws if all we do is eliminate the prohibitions against same-sex marriage.

What should be do about that discrimination which also violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

 

Aaaaand that is precisely what "Suspect class" is.

In American jurisprudence, a suspect classification is any classification of groups meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination. These classes receive closer scrutiny by courts when an Equal Protection claim alleging unconstitutional discrimination is asserted against a law, regulation, or other government action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification

No one claimed it was. It is the PLAINTIFFS who claimed it was. You know, directly in contradiction to what Shiva procaimed as fact.

 

He just showed you one from 1792. Which would be "prior to he 1970s". Words have meaning. Men and women become husbands and wives with the potential of becoming fathers and mothers to their children.

 

There is no psychologist qualified to treat being gay. That's why they gave up 40 years ago because it doesn't work and they realised that "the patient" wasn't the gays it was the attitudes expressed toward them.

Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to treat an attitude.

This was another nail in the coffin of the era of "moral" medicine.

 

As well, the term "marriage" itself, limited the union to a man and a woman.

 

I have never read that claim being made in any of the cases I've read on same-sex marriage. It was not claimed when the California State Supreme Court declared Prop 22 unconstitutional. It was not claimed when the 9th District Court rules that California Prop 8 was declared unconstitutional. And it was not claimed when DOMA was declared unconsitutional.

So where has this claim been made in any relevant court decision related to same-sex marriage? Please provide the exact statement made and a link to it because I've never seen it referred to any any of these decisions. It is completely irrelevant to the cases on same-sex marriage as all of them address overt discrimination under the law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

The only "protected class" that I'm aware of are opposite-sex couples that are entitled to special federal benefits and privileges that are being denied to others including legally married same-sex couples.

 

Welcome to the 21st Century where that definition no longer applies because it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Of note there was no such limitation written into the marriage laws prior to the 1970's although some activist courts made a subjective decision that marriage was limited but ignored the inherent discriminination imposed by their decisions.

 

Only in case if it has been already shown.
So far nothing.
All I have heard from you is that you don't want to discuss it, because there is nothing to discuss.

There was no explanation why in six states, marriage definition was extended to include only same sex couples.
In those six states marriage was un-linked from procreation, i.e. it has become public institution for sexual satisfaction.
At the same time those couples that have no interest in sexual orientation were brutally banned from getting government benefits.
Essentially The constitution was banded in favor of homosexuals.

 

How about what you have alleged 100 times

Lets see this law from the 1970s. Lets see this law where it is "explicitly defined" in the 70s. Or if you cant find that, how about evidence of even one same sex marriage in the US from 1776 to 1990.

Only thing that happened in the 70s, was the first gays challenged the laws limitation to heterosexual couples. After they unsuccessfully argued that the state laws had no such limitation, like you try to allege here.

Just the statute would be fine.

Baker V Nelson 1971

Explicit enough for anyone other than a couple of deluded gays guys, one of which thought he could be a wife to his man. And many of you who thinks "wife" is a gender neutral term.

 

Welcome to the real world where DOMA is the law of the land in all 50 states. "In re Kandu Bankruptcy Decision" and Wilson v. Ake both held that DOMA DOES NOT violate the equal protection clause.

The inherent discrimination was imposed by the meaning of words such as "husband" "wife" and "marriage". Words have meanings.

 

One thing less convincing than a person who's moral position can be bought for money, is one who offers it as currency in a wager.

 

Obviously, youve never read it.

 

Deal with any law that violates the 14th amendment directly and on the basis of its violation. The law that governs all of us, is paid for by all of us, and limits the freedoms of all of us should recognize as few differences between us as are necessary to ensure the promises of our constitution.

DOMA causes our government and laws to rob some of our citizens of their liberty and civil rights without reason, it has to go away.

However, individual citizens and businesses are a different story. The business I create isn't paid for by tax dollars and how I run it is not a public matter. The law should not require me to hire, continue to employ, or otherwise support a person anymore than it should dictate what business you must patronize or what people you must socialize with. Hate laws and protected classes are questionable shortcuts the law takes rather than properly deal with the more challenging dynamic between personal liberty and equal rights.

 

Currency? Oh libs can not tax morals yet that so I must wager money.

JK. Wager? I* never bet unless it is a sure thing. I have already seen where there is talk of it I don't bet unless I am going to win.

 

There are none. This nation was established by exceptional people, who went to exceptional ends to maintain and protect their beliefs. Beliefs in freedom and liberty that to this day are not normal.

As a country we have deviated far from the normal trends in our world and taken great pride in it. I hope we will continue to be a nation that celebrates exceptional people and ideas, that we will leave the call for homogenous, conformist normalcy to socialist Europe and communist China.

 

Even we had standards and infighting.

 

Tax breaks and governmental entitlements arent "liberty" and "civil rights"

 

Silly argument in the context of these challenges to DOMA. Insisting that all states AND the federal government to conform to recognising gay marriages.
Insisting that everyone conform to the agenda, straight from the communist playbook.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."....
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

 

Not a fan of communism. One more reason why I don't insist everyone conform to the straight agenda.

 

http://marriage.laws.com/gay/state-laws/maryland

http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2005/gfl/2-201.html

 

The basic civil right for a couple to marry -- and the liberty to do so without regard to their race, religion, or sex -- is.

 

Not the Constitution according to this tortured logic used in these court cases, creating out of thin air, constitutional rights for anyone who is within a class of people who have experienced any animus from society. Society has disapproved of homosexual relationships, so they have a constitutional right to marriage, but the single mother and grandmother raising their children/grandchildren down the street for nearly 10 years, havent experienced any animus directed at such relationships, so they dont have a right to marriage.

 

You can marry anybody you like. Even here in conservative central Tx you can go down to the local church of christ, look lovingly into your boyfriends eyes, and the preacher will personally give you the blessings of jesus christ to your wedded bliss. He just cant give you the tax breaks and governmental entitlements that you really want.

 

That is not what the court said. The court was asked to explore marriage discrimination in DOMA based on whether a couple is of the same sex. The court provided a judgement. This ruling is with regard to that question.

The court made no ruling about the separate question as to whether parents should be allowed to marry their children. If you truly feel that separate criteria should be removed, prepare your case and take it to them but don't pretend that very different question has even been asked here much less answered.

 

According to our government that is not legal marriage. Legal marriage offered to one couple and denied to another is a denial of basic civil rights. Denying this basic civil right because of race, religion, or sex is a violation of our constitution.