Accountable
Well-Known Member
What provision in the US Constitution does the Defense of Marriage Act support?
Doma
- Thread starter Accountable
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
-
140Replies
-
2KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
Johnfromokc
Active Member
The right to be a right wing nut job? Nevermind.
Here is the fuss
Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Which is why I have always been saying...the same sex couples just need to forget the word marriage ...then come in from a different angle with a different term asking for the same rights as marriage.
Hell make up one....run it through the public..it will pass
Solved
Section 3. Definition of marriage
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Which is why I have always been saying...the same sex couples just need to forget the word marriage ...then come in from a different angle with a different term asking for the same rights as marriage.
Hell make up one....run it through the public..it will pass
Solved
Accountable
Well-Known Member
Neither of you fuckwads even attempted to answer the question. Makes me wonder why you posted at all. (No, please don't try to explain why.)
Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution dictates that Congress will "... make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
My question is: what powers vested by the Constitution in the gov't does DOMA carry into execution?
Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution dictates that Congress will "... make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
My question is: what powers vested by the Constitution in the gov't does DOMA carry into execution?
easy fellow I just showed what the fuss was about
Minor Axis
Well-Known Member
Accountable, you've been very irritable lately. Calling names squelches the conversation. :coffee
yes accountable I saw you as a more "brush it right of my should" kinda of guy
and that made it easier for me make comments cause I knew you wouldn't do that
having your great intelligence but it could make one shy of posting cause they can
this
and that made it easier for me make comments cause I knew you wouldn't do that
having your great intelligence but it could make one shy of posting cause they can
this
Accountable
Well-Known Member
I call 'em as I see 'em. I asked a serious question and the first responses I get are from the two biggest shit stirrers here. I'm not interested in stirring shit.
And still, no one seems interested in addressing the topic. Odd, since it's such a hot topic.
And still, no one seems interested in addressing the topic. Odd, since it's such a hot topic.
Johnfromokc
Active Member
PMS much? :tooth 
:24:
:24:
Alien Allen
Froggy the Prick
I had not posted as I am not quite sure what you are asking
I could see a couple of ways you are thinking but rather than do that perhaps it might help me if you be a little clearer.
Accountable
Well-Known Member
- The Defense of Marriage Act is federal law.
- Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution dictates that Congress will "... make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
- It follows that any federal law that is not necessary and proper for executing the federal government's enumerated powers is necessarily an unconstitutional law. Agreed?
What makes DOMA constitutional?
In a practical sense....the whims of legislators and the Supreme Court.
NEW YORK — Saying the gay population has "suffered a
history of discrimination," a divided federal appeals
court in Manhattan ruled Thursday that a federal law
defining marriage as a union between a man and a
woman was unconstitutional, adding fuel to an issue
expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court soon.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals seemed interested
in adding its voice to several other rulings already at
the high court's doorstep by issuing its 2-to-1 decision
only three weeks after hearing arguments on a lower
court judge's findings that the 1996 law was
unconstitutional.
In a majority opinion written by Judge Dennis Jacobs,
the 2nd Circuit, like a federal appeals court in Boston
before it, found no reason the Defense of Marriage Act
could be used to deny benefits to married gay couples.
It supported a lower court ruling after a woman sued
the government in 2010, saying the law required her to
pay $363,053 in federal estate tax after her partner of
44 years died.
Jacobs, though, went beyond the Boston court, saying
discrimination against gays should be scrutinized by
the courts in the same heightened way as
discrimination faced by women was in the 1970s. At the
time, he noted, they faced widespread discrimination in
the workplace and elsewhere. The heightened scrutiny,
as it is referred to in legal circles, would mean
government discrimination against gays would be
assumed to be unconstitutional.
"The question is not whether homosexuals have
achieved political successes over the years; they clearly
have. The question is whether they have the strength to
politically protect themselves from wrongful
discrimination," said Jacobs, who was appointed to the
bench in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush.
He said it was difficult to say whether gays were under-
represented in positions of power and authority without
knowing their true numbers.
"But it is safe to say that the seemingly small number of
acknowledged homosexuals so situated is attributable
either to a hostility that excludes them or to a hostility
that keeps their sexual preference private – which, for
our purposes, amounts to much the same thing," Jacobs
said.
Lawyer Paul Clement, who had argued in support of the
law on behalf of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of
the House of Representatives, was traveling and did not
immediately return a message seeking comment.
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for
Marriage, which filed arguments with the appeals court
before the ruling, called the decision "yet another
example of judicial activism and elite judges imposing
their views on the American people."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/doma-defense-of-marriage-act_n_1980197.html
perhaps this will alter your anxieties
history of discrimination," a divided federal appeals
court in Manhattan ruled Thursday that a federal law
defining marriage as a union between a man and a
woman was unconstitutional, adding fuel to an issue
expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court soon.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals seemed interested
in adding its voice to several other rulings already at
the high court's doorstep by issuing its 2-to-1 decision
only three weeks after hearing arguments on a lower
court judge's findings that the 1996 law was
unconstitutional.
In a majority opinion written by Judge Dennis Jacobs,
the 2nd Circuit, like a federal appeals court in Boston
before it, found no reason the Defense of Marriage Act
could be used to deny benefits to married gay couples.
It supported a lower court ruling after a woman sued
the government in 2010, saying the law required her to
pay $363,053 in federal estate tax after her partner of
44 years died.
Jacobs, though, went beyond the Boston court, saying
discrimination against gays should be scrutinized by
the courts in the same heightened way as
discrimination faced by women was in the 1970s. At the
time, he noted, they faced widespread discrimination in
the workplace and elsewhere. The heightened scrutiny,
as it is referred to in legal circles, would mean
government discrimination against gays would be
assumed to be unconstitutional.
"The question is not whether homosexuals have
achieved political successes over the years; they clearly
have. The question is whether they have the strength to
politically protect themselves from wrongful
discrimination," said Jacobs, who was appointed to the
bench in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush.
He said it was difficult to say whether gays were under-
represented in positions of power and authority without
knowing their true numbers.
"But it is safe to say that the seemingly small number of
acknowledged homosexuals so situated is attributable
either to a hostility that excludes them or to a hostility
that keeps their sexual preference private – which, for
our purposes, amounts to much the same thing," Jacobs
said.
Lawyer Paul Clement, who had argued in support of the
law on behalf of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of
the House of Representatives, was traveling and did not
immediately return a message seeking comment.
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for
Marriage, which filed arguments with the appeals court
before the ruling, called the decision "yet another
example of judicial activism and elite judges imposing
their views on the American people."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/doma-defense-of-marriage-act_n_1980197.html
perhaps this will alter your anxieties
http://mobile.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/03/11/is-the-defense-of-marriage-act-constitutional
Attorney General Eric Holder recently announced that the
Justice Department will no longer defend the Defense of
Marriage Act in court because it unconstitutionally
discriminates. Advocates say the law is constitutional and
reflects timeless realities of nature.
Attorney General Eric Holder recently announced that the
Justice Department will no longer defend the Defense of
Marriage Act in court because it unconstitutionally
discriminates. Advocates say the law is constitutional and
reflects timeless realities of nature.
My question, is it needed? Is it effective? My take is no to both. But that is my two cents....Oh, and Accountable, I agree with what the others say. You don't have to agree with someone's opinion, but you don't need to call anyone names either. Picture me looking at you most disapprovingly. (I bet he's ashamed now!)
Accountable
Well-Known Member
If it is constitutional, it is linked to a specific provision in the Constitution. What is that provision?
I'll bite
Isnt that kind of like asking where in the constitution does it say you cant smoke pot.
What is unconstitutional about marriage being defined?
Marriage is a privilege correct, we have to get a license...if people dont like it then dont get married.
Where is the prejudice ? Men are allowed to get married..and women are allowed to get married.
If you think marriage should be "wide open"...then why cant one marry say a sibling or a parent?..or a child..discriminating against young people?
Why not more than one wife...isnt that discriminating?
Accountable
Well-Known Member
No.
eta: Actually, maybe it is. That'd be a great thread.
An excellent question. What makes something unconstitutional is that it is not constitutional. Being unable to prove constitutionality proves unconstitutionality.
I don't think you can prove it is a privilege. Driving is a privilege. You must qualify to do it and your misbehavior can cause you to lose the privilege. Marriage doesn't fit the description.
And it's not relevant because drivers licenses and marriage license are issued locally. Obtaining a drivers license is not a federal issue. How is marriage a federal issue?
Also not relevant, at least not until the question of the constitutionality of the law is answered.
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members