Doma Lawyers Back Out.

You're getting your DOMA and your Prop 8 confused - the Obama administration/justice department has nothing whatsoever to do with the Prop 8 case.

And the ruling was very narrowly applied so its likely the Supreme Court will refuse to hear it for lack of a substantial federal question given the scope that's been established. Which would mean SSM would resume in California within the year.

 

And it wouldnt have any success in THESE courts that have created a right to gay marriage because heightened scrutiny is applied in the case of gays, while mom and grandmom are judged at the lowest level of scrutiny. Any rational basis would justify excluding them.

 

No, confusing the california administration and obama administration.

9th circuit is binding precedent in California, Oregon, Washington, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona and Hawaii. Will likely be lawsuits brought in all these states by gays, citing the new 9th circuit as binding precedent.
And its not narrowly applied. ANY such court decision regarding California law, would of course be limited to only California because that is the only law being challenged.

 

Marriage to my brother, father, platonic friend or my dog wouldnt effect procreation or opposite sex couples interest. Nothing special about gays.

 

The main issue with California Proposition 8 though was that it took rights away, a right that already existed. The ruling was that the people don't have the constitutional authority to take rights away.

In the other 9th circuit states with constitutional bans on SSM - Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Arizona and Nevada, never granted those rights in the first place. In that sense, California is unique.

An application of this ruling though would be if Washington State voters approve a constitutional amendment initiative to ban SSM after it's already been made law - under the 9th's precedent that would be invalid, as it probably would be in ANY state if the Supreme Court concurs.

 

Legal relation/kinship already exists (along with the protections and benefits thereof) Incest - feel free to make a new topic on this

Legal relation/kinship already exists (along with the protections and benefits thereof) Incest - feel free to make a new topic on this

You can already do this as long as it is a member of the opposite sex

Animals and children cannot consent - poor logic

Ignorance is bliss...

 

legal kinship already exists between your father and your brother. you are not precluded from marrying your platonic friend. your dog can't consent.

 

Many already know or have ignore good, reasonable answers such as those you've shared above.

After discussing and arguing here for so long, I'm glad to see legal decisions being put forth, which vindicate virtually all the pro-gay marriage positions put forth in most threads.

In time, justice will be served.

 

Actually, closely related couples have none of the protections and benefits of marriage

 

So what? It is apparent that those related (already) as family, aren't in a similar situation as completely UNRELATED same sex couples.

 

Poppycock. You have the right to inherit from closely related family members in the absence of a will. You have the right in hospital making decisions if a family member is incapacitated (as next of kin), or if 'next of kin' is not available or unnamed ANY closely related family members present would be able to make decisions. You have the right to sponsor family who aren't US citizens for entry to the country without queuing for a visa. None of these rights are attainable however for same-sex couples in most places in the US. They are treated as complete legal strangers.

 

Don't bother him with law! He's too busy hating!

 

Many continue to fail to understand that the federal DOMA case isn't specifically about same-sex marriage. It's about the federal government establishing a definition for marriage that is solely reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment. DOMA was passed in 1996 and prior to that time the Federal government had absolutely zero roles and responsibilities related to the establishment of the legal institution of marriage. It had always been a role and responsibility of the States is a protected power of the States by the 10th Amendment.

While the federal government can and does provide certain benefits and privileges related to legal institution of marriage the federal government must, under the 14th Amendment, treat all legally married individuals the same. It cannot establish that some married individuals will be treated different than other married individuals based upon a criteria that is controlled exclusively by the States. The federal government has no authority to detemine what the definition of marriage is. That is what the Boston District Court ruled and that decision is absolutely correct.

If we want to see hypocracy then we need only address those "conservatives" that argue that "Obamacare" violates the 10th Amendment but they argue that "DOMA" doesn't. The case for DOMA violating the 10th Amendment is far more substantial that for Obamacare. The violation of the 10th Amendment might be questionable but the violation of the 10th Amendment by DOMA is not.

All legally married couples must be treated identically under federal law and the States, not the federal government, establish the definition of marriage under State law. The only caveat is that all State Laws must comply with the US Constitution and the Massechusetts marriage laws that include same-sex marriage do fully comply with the US Constitution.

BTW let us remember that Mitt Romney was responsible for signing the executive order that required county clerks to issue marriage licenses in Massechusetts. Rather ironic isn't it considering that he supports the violation of the 10th Amendment by DOMA.

 

Yeah, while a married spouse has a right with or without a will. Like I said, none of the entitlements of marriage.

Nope, if my brother was incapacitated, our mother would have the right. Just like a gay couple. Like I said, none of the entitlements of marriage.

 

States are free to define marriage anyway they like. Since DOMA was enacted, 7 states have defined marriage to include gay couples. DOMA in no way prevents them from doing so.

 

In several States first cousins are allowed to marry. Is that close enough as far as being "related" to each other or is the term limited to only siblings?

Also of note sexual relations between siblings and or parent/siblings so long as they're consenting adults is only prohibited in about four States as I recall.

Back to the point of the Court decision in the DOMA case. Who among those opposing it oppose the 10th Amendment in all cases because that's what this is really all about. People either need to endorse the 10th Amendment which means DOMA is unquestionably unconstitutional or oppose the 10th Amendment (which means Obamacare is unquestionably Constitutional). There really is no middle ground on the issue.

 

Nope. Doma leaves states free to define marriage while the federal government continues to define who is entitled to federal tax breaks and governmental entitlements. Utah might someday be free to define marriage as between a man and as many women as he likes, that doesnt mean that federal social security, spousal survivor benefits must apply the same to as many women as he liked before he died.

 

DOMA Section 3 establishes that only opposite-sex couples are recognized as being legally married and therefore receive federal benefits and privileges based upon marriage.

This is a violation of the 10th Amendment as the federal govenment cannot define who it will accept and who it will not accept as being legally married. Only the States have this power and it is a protected power under the 10th Amendment.

Anyone that supports DOMA Section 3 opposes the 10th Amendment. It's really that simple. It doesn't matter what their reasons are they oppose the 10th Amendment and cannot support any political opinion based upon the 10th Amendment protections of the power of the States and/or the power of the People. As I stated, if a person supports DOMA then they also support Obamacare because both hinge on the same issue of whether the States have protected powers that the federal government cannot infringe upon.

 

Federal government isnt in the business of recognizing marriages DOMA merely defines the terms "marriage" and "spouse" as used in Federal statutes. Defines who is entitled to tax breaks and governmental entitlements.

 

Not to play devil's advocate, but if you invoke the 10th Amendment you invite an argument against Obama's healthcare reform, Medicare and Medicaid. None of those powers are given to Congress by the Constitution. They've been sweeping aside the 10th for years.

 

You seem to frequently say one thing...and then in the same post contradict it completely.

 

No contradiction. Only your inability to comprehend

 

I comprehend that DOMA is something which defines what a marriage is as far as the federal government is concerned; which means no spousal benefits for gay government employees or overseas workers, aswell as gay military personnel. In its wording is even a section titled "definition of marriage".

 

What's so hard about this?

You just stated that DOMA defines what marriages will be recognized by the government.

Let's try not to lie here.

 

Arguments about semantics and little small technicalities are fun aren't they?

Sure, DOMA does not directly recognize marriages. The federal government will not directly recognize a marriage without the state having done so first.

But then based on the qualities of the marriage, the federal government can choose to recognize or not recognize certain ones (gay ones in particular).

The difference in this technicality seems pretty minute, irrelevant, and not worth the thread space it has consumed thus far... unless someone has a point to prove with the distinction...