384)This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
However, I'm a staunch supporter of the Defense of Marriage Act. The Federal government should not recognize same-sex marriages and neither should other states that define civil marriage as between a man and a woman.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The problem with the Defense of Marriage Act is that it is a FEDERAL law (which has no jurisdiction on marriage-states not federal law issues ALL marriage licenses in this country) that violates the 10th Amendment to the constitution (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.) while at the SAME time telling states that they can violate the rights of SOME people from a state.
There isn't a court anywhere that would rule on the side of Iowa if Iowa said "you can't be served at this McDonald's because you are from Florida." But HE'S from Florida too? "It doesn't matter, he's OK and you're not."
THAT is what the Defense of Marriage Act does. It ALLOWS a state to treat me different from ANY OTHER PERSON FROM UTAH because I'm gay even though the Federal Government has NO SAY in marriage laws.
You want to preserve the sanctity of marriage (the USUAL excuse for supporting the Defense of Marriage Act).....make it HARDER to get a divorce. What EXACTLY do you think divorce does to the sanctity of marriage?
In re: DOMA, that might be your opinion, but (as I've asked countless times to people who share your opinion) if it were so blatantly unconstitutional, why has there not been a successful challenge to strike it down? Hmmm?
I reiterate my support for the right of states to define civil marriage through legislation. If a state constitution defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, then the state's supreme court would not be able to declare same-sex marriage as legal through judicial fiat or review. And that state should not have to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state due to the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Federal Constitution.
SOTM, Did not the people of California vote to preserve marriage? As I understood it from my local news, California decided that marriage was for hetero couples and this judge overruled them.
Essentially, the court has ruled that the extant California law that had defined marriage as a status accorded to one man and one woman is unconstitutional. The vote was 4-3 and the majority interpretation was that sexual orientation is accorded the same weight as gender and ethnicity and therefore "equal protection" clauses in the state constitution trump the previously legislated definition of marriage.
Exactly correct. But it should be noted that the legislature has also twice passed laws to legalize same-sex marriage.
That were in the end vetoed. And looking at the fact that the majority of the state was against those bills it would seem rightfully so.
Where does this resentment come from, tang? We are ideologically quite different but I know you do not believe that the majority has the right to trample a minority who is harming no one.
I don't like it when judges legislate from the bench. You know I don't care about civil unions, they're cool. I just think marriage should be kept the way it always has been.
They STRUCK DOWN a law. They did not make any new laws. They said, in essence, you cannot guarantee everyone equality under the law, and then pass laws that discriminate. This is the function of the court, to decide points such as this, and they decided. They did their jobs as arbiters of the law. If the people of CA are insistent upon this discrimination, they will have to amend their constitution, which is to be put to a vote in November, but they cannot expect to make and enforce unconstitutional laws.
I believe this was the sequence of events:
California voted to ban gay marriage. The mayor of San Francisco suspended the ban as unconstitutional and allowed same-sex marriages to take place in the city. The Cal. Supreme Court suspended the mayors suspension to take the case under review.
if it were so blatantly unconstitutional, why has there not been a successful challenge to strike it down? Hmmm?
~~~~~~~~~~
You've never asked me that question before and I would suggest that there hasn't been a challenge (YET) because MOST of the STATE laws that have BANNED gay marriage aren't very old, meaning that there really hasn't been enough TIME for the GAY marriage to be performed, the 'couple' to set up residence in a 'banned' state, ask for their marriage to be honored, the request to be denied, the lawsuit to be filed and the case to make it's way though the courts.
I would suggest that the Defense of Marriage Act will be challenged A LOT and SOON!