Is DOMA Unconstitutional?

I wasnt comparing businesses to marriage. I was comparing the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage to the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of owning a small business.

 

So you pragmatic position is to support special rights for gays.
How about equality?
Sure, for pragmatic reason we can abandon constitutional principles and give special rights for self proclaimed political group.

 

No. Because the institution of marriage excludes related couples completely - it doesn't allow one gender configuration while denying another. It's a whole separate criteria. Whatever you think about that,(*)there is no real discrepancy. There is however a major discrepancy and a major injustice in allowing a heterosexual couple who will never procreate (especially when they're old and it's completely obvious that this is the case) yet disallowing an identically situated same sex couple. If anything, it's "special rights" as it stands because one is awarded more than another for their sexuality.

You can draw comparisons with allowing women the vote - you can still disallow any other group for whatever practical reason you wish such as age or not being a citizen, but disallowing people that right simply because of their gender is wrong. You could try pointing out that "men and women are different" but it lacks any rational basis. Disallowing gay people the right to marry eachother simply because of their sexuality/gender is similarly wrong.

Incest means sexual activity between any related persons.

As I said before I would not protest a law that seeks to allow marriage between ALL consenting adults, but your comparison has a few slight holes:

1) Marriage connects unrelated people who would otherwise have no legal kinship despite possibly being closer to their partners than their immediate family members. Case in point: estranged families of gay individuals having more hospital rights (should said person be unconscious or incapacitated) than their partner, who may have been with this person for decades. Hospital policy is directly gleaned from the law. Marriage rights for gay people allows the partner of the incapacitated individual to make those decisions (or at least have a say). Believe me - it happens.

2) While it's true that same-sex incest poses no harm to potential offspring, you cannot simply allow that and exclude opposite-sex related couples. That would be (much like current marriage laws) discriminatory.

 

Sexual activity. Who has suggested sexual activity between closely related couples other than you?. Seems that when you say "same sex couples" what you really mean is same sex couples who have sex with each other. What most would refer to as homosexual couples.

 

Equal protection under the law is a universal Right protected by the 14th Amendment so no special Rights are being endorsed.

Marriage is a fundamental Right as established by the following Supreme Court decision which has been very sligthly edited so that it addresses any discrimination in our marriage laws..

 

You missed the point. I was responding to Kreo's claim that incest can only occur between opposite-sex couples.

But the reason that anything resembling marriage between related individuals is withheld is because it would inherently grant increased legitimacy - and the ultimate governmental stamp of approval and encouragement - on incestuous relationships. It is unavoidable.

Also because no matter what state you live in being related to someone grants you certain inalienable rights that can never been attained by same-sex couples without some form of recognition.

 

Supreme Court Decision Loving v Virginia was about the right on a person of color to marry a white person. It was a case of a man getting married to a woman. It clearly is a civil rights case regarding race. It is fine for you to cite legal precedent but that case was about race, not gender or sexual preference. It understood in that particular legal case that marriage was defined as union of a man and a woman, so if anything for you to use that as a precedent would only hurt your argument. Can you find a supreme court decision which redefines marriage as the union of any two persons? That is why you are doomed to fail, because that has not been established in law anywhere.

 

Then we are back to square one, why sexual couples have preferential treatment over non-sexual couples.
Remember that concept of marriage can change as many time as judges want.
You have changed concept of marriage by unlinking procreation as number one reason to have marriage. Now we have discovered that difference between married couples and all other couples is their sexual relationship.
Is unwillingness to have sex is a reason to deny marriage benefits to closely related couple?
Don't you think it is discriminatory and unconstitutional?

 

They are doomed to fail if assumption is made that all judges are rational and educated people. Unfortunately too many judges are completely insane.

 

I doubt it is and it shouldn't have to be. Our constitution protects the rights of all citizens and whether they're straight, gay, Jewish, Catholic, black, or white shouldn't be something our constitution and laws even need to consider.

 

Edited so your tortured interpretation of the constitution, doesnt sound so tortured. I think the original is more revealing in that it includes what you chose to edit

We have survived and continued to exist just fine without marriage for gay couples. Thats a quote from Skinner v Oklahoma, a US supreme court case involving the state of Oklahomas practice of castrating repeat offenders. Castration ends his ability to procreate. "We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." At that time, sex outside of marriage was illegal. Thus the joining of marriage and procreation into a fundamental right.

Discrimination on the basis of race, particuliarly blacks, as in the case of Virginias anti interracial marriage statutes, was at the heart of the adoption of the 14th amendment in 1868.

"invidious racial discriminations". You cut out the one thing loving v virginia has with the gay marriage debate. All the gay marriage cases rely upon the animus towards homosexuals to create this right to gay marriage. By pretending that marriage hasnt been limited, for thousands of years to heterosexuals in order to include all those who could procreate, but has instead all along been intended to exclude homosexuals, motivated by nothing more than animus towards homosexuals. ABSURD.

Improving the wellbeing of mothers and the children they bear is a legitimate governmental interest while purifying the white race is not.

 

No; laws and amendments to the constitution do that. Our constitution and country are not what was envisioned by the founding fathers. All you have to do is get to know them through their writings.

I am not saying that Gays do not deserve to be treated as anything less than human but in my humble opinion it is just another liberal attack on the family.

The liberal media has done enough and when Gays were offered civil unions they had to push. Yes they will meet resistance.

 

Mothers are always women and fathers are always men

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY.
(a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage

 

You can't simply decide to limit a declaration which states that "the freedom to marry resides with the individual, not the state" to race. Even given the context of the case, that's not what it says - it DOESN'T state that "the freedom to marry a person of a different race resides with the individual, not the state". And just so you know, stating that the word 'marriage' can only apply to a man and a woman is false - in reality it confers legal rights on two people; two consenting individuals. There is nothing in its format that would inherently exclude same-sex couples. No requirement to be able to procreate. It is ONLY the limitation imposed by the state that excludes them, just like the limitation imposed by states(*)prior to Loving Vs Virginia - their definition stated that marriage could only exist between two members of the same race.

Court precedents have been established recognising same-sex marriage and allowed to stand unchallenged in various states, so the language in Loving can certainly apply and be used to affirm marriage as a civil right unfairly limited by state statutes/constitutional amendments based on gender/sexuality, just as it was by race. Why is race the only credible criteria by which discrimination should be prohibited?

 

Mankind evolved and survived without any legal institution of marriage. Why should we have the legal institution of marriage for opposite-sex couples when it is not required at all?

We also have tens of millions of marriage that have absolutely nothing to do with the survival of the human race. We also have tens of millions of children being born outside of the legal institution of marriage which ensures the continuation of the human race. We have tens of millions of families raising children that contributes to the survival of the human race and the adults in these families are opposite-sex individuals, same-sex individuals and while millions are legally married and there are millions that are not legally married. Some of these families are also comprised of several adult individuals (i.e. polygamy) and some are even comprised of adult siblings (i.e. incestuous relationships).

If we're are to have a legal institution of marriage, that isn't even required for the survival of mankind, then why not include everyone in it so that everyone is treated equally under the law? Why is discrimination necessary at all?

 

So your point is American's who are gay or lesbian have no rights under the constitution?

Or did you assume he was suggesting they are seeking only some limited rights rights specifically set aside for gays and lesbians? If you so, you assumed incorrectly.

These folks who happen to be gay are American and they are seeking the rights provided by our constitution to American's. Not the constitutional rights provided straight Americans, black Americans, female Americans, or Jewish Americans. They are seeking the rights our constitution provides Americans. Including the right to marry -- without limit to those rights based on race, religion, or sex.

 

wow over 500 posts !! start another thread folks !!

 

Same-sex couples are involved in a "family" relationship and often purchase homes together as well as raising children together. Where did this weird idea come from that same-sex couples were not involved in a family come from. In fact, DOMA is an attack on the family as it is discriminatory against gays and lesbians that are living together as a family.

This has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives as both are involved in the lawsuits against DOMA and mini-DOMA's like California Prop 8. Anyone that endorses equal treatment under the law for ALL people is opposed to DOMA and the denial of equal protection being afforded to gays and lesbians. The fight for equality is not based upon the "liberal" media although it has been opposed by bigoted right-wing talk show hosts and news media outlets.

The California State Supreme Court determined that civil unions were not equal to marriage in it's Prop 22 decision. This decision is very similiar to the US Supreme Court decision in Brown v Board of Education where "separate but equal" is not equal and represented a violation of the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment. This has been confirmed by the 9th Federal District Court related to Prop 22.

Numerous cases of inequality have already been presented on this thread (e.g. tax filing, inheritance, Social Security, etc.) so any claims that civil unions and marriage are equal is completely false. Even those same-sex couples that are legally married are being denied these federal benefits which is why the 1st Federal District Court ruled DOMA unconstitutional.