Doma Lawyers Back Out.

Thus my statement "The only Supreme Court Precednt on the constitutionality of marriage limited to heterosexuals". There is no supreme court precedent on DOMAs constitutionality according to the "full Faith and Credit clause". And while you declare as unquestioned fact that Baker v nelson has nothing to do with DOMA, the Obama Justice department says-

In a suit alleging that DOMA violates the Equal protection clause

 

Why would a petition for dismissal be submitted as an argument for anything? It carries no legal weight although it presents arguments seeking a judgment and the judgment sought isn't on the actual issues of the case but on grounds that would be considered as reason to dismiss the case.

Once again, if a court were to rule on this petition it wouldn't hear the actual case but instead it's decision would be based upon grounds for dismissal.

BTW I was the one that mentioned that the DOJ under the Obama adminstration had been fighting legal attempts to have DOMA declared unconsitutional. They fought and fought until they realized they were kicking a dead horse. The fact that DOMA is unconstitional has now been so well established in court that the DOJ is no longer appealing the lawsuits against it.

 

Didnt even oppen your own link, did you? If you had you would have seen the complete absence of any mention of Wilson v Ake and the "In re MARRIAGE CASES" prominately displayed at the top.

Here is their decision on the merits, with sections covering

Dig DEEPER!

 

???? Because by definition it is "an argument" for why DOMA is constitutional, presented in a court case deciding the constitutionality of DOMA. And since you people dismiss both state and federal supreme court decisions as irrelevant, I thought it might have more weight for you since it comes from the Obama administration.

 

Actually I did and the case I was referring to was a DOMA case that perhaps mentiong Wilson v Ake somewhere inside but it's irrelevant of course. Of course I already admitted to the mistake.

Here is the actual Court Decision:

http://www.alliancealert.org/2005/20050119.pdf

The decision had nothing to do with DOMA at all. It was a decision on the motion to dismiss and that alone. The case was about DOMA but the decision was not about DOMA. No precedent related to DOMA was created by this decision so it is another failed argument.

 

Just cant help yourself, can you? In Re marriage had nothing to do with DOMA and was instead Californias decision against state laws that limited marriages to heterosexual couples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Marriage_Cases

Decided on the basis of Californias constitution. Then came prop 8 to put the limitation into the constitution, where it is now.

No, that would be the court order that follows the 18 page decision that held DOMA didnt violate the Equal protection clause, the Due Process clause OR the Full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution.

 

Heres exerpts from the court case Shiva proclaims, has nothing to do with DOMA

 

My point was they tried to seek a summary judgement on the grounds of the "procreation' argument and the judge said that wasn't enough (presumably because other, identically situated, non procreative couples are permitted to marry). This left the prop 8 defense in a desperate bid to come up with something else and they failed. Miserably!

 

Yeah, like I said, they presented their argument, and judge summarily dismissed it as irrelevant, without out as much as even addressing the abundance court precedent stating that not only is procreation relevant, but in fact what makes marriage limited to heterosexual couples constitutional. Here is some more of their procreation argument, AFTER you allege they droppoed it on the spot.

 

Continued..........

 

For all it's verbosity, this is what the argument essentially is saying:

I challenge those "social norms" as groundless, archaic, vindictive and futile. You don't so, we have reached an impasse. I want to know why you feel it is philosophically important to keep such restrictions in place. What do you perceive as the negative outcome and why, as an atheist, is it so, specifically, related to gay people?

 

For all his accusations of pro-gay "emotions and hormones", I'd hazard that given the complete lack of any reasonable basis to be so rabidly and vehemently opposed to SSM and gay rights (as well as the purported atheism), that the only "emotions and hormones" here are those which stem from HIS own personal attitudes toward gay people, and how they make him, well... feel.

The majority of older (40's/50's) Christians I know aren't as anti as him. Nor are any atheists I know. I just can't see the point if you think we're only here once and consider 'morality' an objective human construct, that gay people should be denied access to something that would make their short time on this earth more pleasant with no negative effect or impact on anyone else's lives (except perhaps those whose egos simply couldn't stand having their relationships placed on par with gay couples...).

It's not any atheistic form of thinking that I'm familiar with. Anti-gay atheists are surely the rarest of creatures.

 

Great points... well said!

 

No, the argument essentially is saying:

 

You are a Royal subject. Unable to grasp the reasonalbleness of our Constitution, or understand my vehement opposition to it being twisted to mean, whatever they wish it to mean.

 

Let us take a common example related to the "reasonableness" of the US Constitution.

There is an adult couple living in a family relationship raising a child. They're financial assests are merged as that is a component of the personal partnership that they've established.

Should they be allowed to file a joint tax return because their financial assets are merged in the personal financial partnership that they share?

They're paying FICA taxes and if one of the two partners dies should the other be entitled to Social Security benefits of the deceased that benefit the remaining partner and the child?

If one of the partners is hospitalized should the other partner have the same access and decision authority as others involved in an identical personal relationship and personal partnership?

In the event of death should the surviving partner and child have inheritance rights that benefit the surviving partner and child?

If the personal financial partnership between the two individuals fails should they be allowed to file for joint bankruptcy?

Equal Protection Under The Law which is required by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution would require that all individuals that share the same relationship and personal financial partnership as noted above receive the identical treatment under the law. It doesn't matter if the couple are of the same sex or the opposite sex because the conditions would be identical regardless of the sex of the individuals involved. It is the conditions of the relationship and partnership that is shared by all that fall under the criteria noted that impose the requirement for equal treatment under the law.

It would be "unreasonable" to for any couple in the identical situation noted above to be discriminated against and denied any of the noted rights, privileges and/or benefits under the law.

 

You mean like how the 14th Amendment was "twisted" to find a Constitutional right to interracial marriage and gender equality?

 

You're spot-on! Thanks for shinning a light.

 

This quotation has been provided several times but one fact is being omitted. The inclusion of same-sex couples in the legal institution of marriage does not effect the above interest of the state in any manner whatsoever anymore than allowing individuals that are incapable of procreation to marry.

Procreation is not the only interest of the state related to the legal institution of marriage so it is not a reason for exclusion.

 

In short the plaintiffs asked the Court to apply strict scrutiny in addressing DOMA and the court refused to do this. That is all that this section of the Court's decision refers to.

 

No, not at all. A literal interpretation of the constitution did that. Interracial couple procreates just as well as a same race couple. The children of interracial couples will benefit just the same as children of same race couples. And purifying the white race isnt a legitinmate governmental interest.

 

Certainly not in the world you have imagined. Not in the 6 states with gay marriage. In 44 states and the dozens of cited court cases AND in Obamas defense of DOMA, the potential of procreation is THE reason. Leaving you with the only option of pretending that it is irrelevant.

 

And its also the section theuy upheld the constitutionality of marriage limited to heterosexual couples, "holding that encouraging the raising of children in homes consisting of a married mother and father is a legitimate state interest". And that the limitation to heterosexual couples is rationally related to serving that interest.

 

More than being irrelevant (because it isn't completely), it is that YOU seem to submit that 'procreation' is THE primary point of concern or consideration, when clearly it isn't.

You are performing the intellectual equivalent of saying a word repeatedly... until it loses its meaning.

So yes, in marriage and relationships, procreation is a factor to regard; but that doesn't absolutely bolster or support every argument against gay marriage. Procreation doesn't FINISH the debate over allowing homosexual people to MARRY the person most compatible with them.

DOMA is on the ropes right now, because it is essentially arbitrary and discriminatory where the rights of homosexual people are concerned. That is indisputable. Sure, we can all discuss how 'procreation' fits into the mix, but that surely isn't the only real aspect of all that is being covered.

 

And because of YOUR overall social, moral or personal views... YOU see no reason for the above to be challenged.

That is understood. But at some point, YOU must realize and accept that other people (besides yourself) do not agree with the laws as they pertain to what you claim above. Now, if this were a nation where such laws could not be challenged, I and millions of others might just move to a place like America, where rights CAN be fought and lobbied for. But for anyone to take past court cases and rulings, and put them up as if it means nothing could or would be changed, is where I see the problem with your approach overall.

But YOU aren't the only person fighting to knock-down arguments for allowing homosexuals equality, many are endeavoring to do the very same thing that YOU are. Still, be certain that you will be opposed by many here, in America's courts and in the voting booths. Without a doubt, as long as this nation's Constitution holds the form/meaning which it does... homosexual people WILL rightly advocate for equality in marriage and other aspects related to living within this society.