Doma Lawyers Back Out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Nope, states are free to define marriage however they like while the federal government continues to define who is entitled to federal tax breaks and entitlements.

---

A reading of all Federal Law, such as income tax filing laws, inheritance laws, bankruptcy laws and Social Security laws all use the term "married" and that term is defined by the States and not by the Federal government. The Federal government cannot discriminate related to every single law that uses the term "marriage" by establishing a federal definition of what the federal government considers to be "legally married under State law" as that violates the State's Rights to define what "legally married" is.

If the benefit is based upon "Legally Married" under the statute then the federal government cannot come back and say, "Legally married EXCEPT FOR YOU" as that is discriminatory and a denial of equal protection under the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shiva_TD

If the benefit is based upon "Legally Married" under the statute then the federal government cannot come back and say, "Legally married EXCEPT FOR YOU" as that is discriminatory and a denial of equal protection under the law.

---

No more discriminatory than giving benefits to the married while witholding them from the unmarried.

DOMA defines marriage on the federal level, period. And that's not a power granted it to. Unconstituonal under the 10th Amendment, yet congress ignores it in many laws. Doesn't change the reality though.

DOMA = Unconstitutional and headed for the dustbin of history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DevilMay

DOMA defines marriage on the federal level, period. And that's not a power granted it to. Unconstituonal under the 10th Amendment, yet congress ignores it in many laws. Doesn't change the reality though.

DOMA = Unconstitutional and headed for the dustbin of history.

---

And yet another Federal Judge agrees; this time for pretty much the same reasons I and many others have stated all along.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...rnia-case.html

Honestly, a six year old should be able to follow the logic of this and the BLAG -as in- "Not very bipartisan legal advisory group" have already said they're going to waste even more taxpayers' money by lodging an appeal.

What more have they got to bring to the party?

There's just no "there" there!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dixon76710

No more discriminatory than giving benefits to the married while witholding them from the unmarried.

---

In a real sense I agree with this which is why I advocate abolishing all marriage laws and addressing "marriage" as a partnership established under contract law which is non-discriminatory.

For example, to me there is no difference between a couple living together raising a child in a "family" environment whether they are "legally married" or not. They are, in fact, living in a "common law" family which is a legal partnership based upon a written or more likely a verbal contract. This would also be true of a "communal family" which is raising children. They have also formed a "family" based upon "contract" and should be treated identically to other families partnerships.

Of course that is not the issue related to federal laws and DOMA. Fede al law does include provisions based upon the legal institution of marriage and the federal government cannot define what the legal institution of marriage is as that is exclusively a power of the State under the 10th Amendment. No one disagrees with this fact.

DOMA Section 3 imposed a "federal" definition of marriage that was discriminatory and infringed upon the State's Rights under the 10th Amendment and infringed upon individual rights to equal protection under the law under the 14th Amendment. DOMA is unconsitutional and there are no valid arguments that can support it as being constitutional. The federal government must treat all individuals legally married under State law identically under the US Constitution.