Defence of Marriage Act Unconstitutional

[Politicus]

Well, slightly late with the news on this, but the Defence of Marriage Act has been declared unconstitutional by various district courts, possibly prompting the Supreme Court to take the case and make a decision on it.

Link to article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89H12L20121018

So, yall's thoughts?

Mine are that this act is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. It also, is unconstitutional because another part of the law violates the 14th amendment yet again (When it says states don't have to recognize the legal status of the marriage, even though it was legal in a different state), also the equal protection clause, I think.

This discussion is only about the legality/constitutionality of said act (DOMA), do not drag it off-topic with discussions of religion or sexuality, as discussing those topics are against the rules here.

Let the discussions commence!

[Sealed Shut]

Well, slightly late with the news on this, but the Defence of Marriage Act has been declared unconstitutional by various district courts, possibly prompting the Supreme Court to take the case and make a decision on it.

Link to article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89H12L20121018

So, yall's thoughts?

Mine are that this act is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. It also, is unconstitutional because another part of the law violates the 14th amendment yet again (When it says states don't have to recognize the legal status of the marriage, even though it was legal in a different state), also the equal protection clause, I think.

This discussion is only about the legality/constitutionality of said act (DOMA), do not drag it off-topic with discussions of religion or sexuality, as discussing those topics are against the rules here.

Let the discussions commence!

They would then have to legalize marriage between a man and a goat, a man and two women, a man and his couch, two children.... where does it stop?

[Politicus]

They would then have to legalize marriage between a man and a goat, a man and two women, a man and his couch, two children.... where does it stop?

Why would they have to do that? Please explain. How could legalising same-sex marriage lead to the situation you are describing?

On topic: Anyways, regardless of your personal view, what would you consider its legal status considering it violates clauses in the 14th amendment?

[Adam Jensen]

They would then have to legalize marriage between a man and a goat, a man and two women, a man and his couch, two children.... where does it stop?

It stops when one partner can't legally sign a contract.

Can a goat sign a contract?
Can a couch?
Can a child?

A child could, if he was 18, but then that becomes incest and incest actually does have significant reasons for being illegal.

[Eliandal]

They would then have to legalize marriage between a man and a goat, a man and two women, a man and his couch, two children.... where does it stop?

Oh come on! It would be very simple to just have it worded as two consenting adults - you know - the way multiple other countries have managed. I know in Canada, you can't marry a goat, but you sure can marry your same sex partner up here if you choose!

[Politicus]

Oh come on! It would be very simple to just have it worded as two consenting adults - you know - the way multiple other countries have managed. I know in Canada, you can't marry a goat, but you sure can marry your same sex partner up here if you choose!

Heh yeah, I think he is against it unfortunately, regardless, if anyone could answer the question, of whether they think it is unconstitutional or not, that'd be good!

[darenyon]

im pretty sure this suprises no one.

[s_bushido]

They would then have to legalize marriage between a man and a goat, a man and two women, a man and his couch, two children.... where does it stop?

Every time I hear the "but then people would marry dogs" argument, I have to stop myself from my initial reaction of: "Fuck you. Gay people aren't dogs." (I guess my willpower wasn't up to the task tonight...)

As for the legality, this ruling just seems like common sense. If you can't make a non-religious argument for why two consenting adults should not be able to get married, then what exactly are we arguing about?

[Jackinthegreen]

Heh yeah, I think he is against it unfortunately, regardless, if anyone could answer the question, of whether they think it is unconstitutional or not, that'd be good!

Based on what I have seen of the text, I'd likewise say it's unconstitutional. Quote: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

The Supreme Court has used this to strike down similar laws such as Loving v. Virginia where it struck down Virginia's law against interracial marriage. As http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gen...ivil-Right.htm notes, a lot of arguments against interracial marriage are now being used against same-sex marriage. One of them has even been used in this thread: "What next, marrying goats?" And much like some churches are still racist and will prevent an interracial couple from marrying there, so too do I expect many churches will be homophobic. The effort of course is that homosexual marriages are recognized by the government and get the same rights and privileges as heterosexual marriages, so I have my hope that they'll get those rights and privileges. I know it'll happen during my lifetime at least.

[obdigore]

Oh come on! It would be very simple to just have it worded as two consenting adults - you know - the way multiple other countries have managed. I know in Canada, you can't marry a goat, but you sure can marry your same sex partner up here if you choose!

Yea you and your long standing seven year old laws. Such a heritage of non-discrimination! :P

[Admiral Daelin Proudmoore]

Anthony Kennedy is the only hope I have of it being struck down. Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts are obviously all going to say it's fine.

[Itisamuh]

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.

Seems pretty logical and clear to me. Standards are important, and the line has to be drawn somewhere. Not unconstitutional.

[Auloria]

Yea you and your long standing seven year old laws. Such a heritage of non-discrimination! :P

It kind of embarasses me that Canada is snarking at us, and not the other way around.

The dog/polygamy arguments are silly. Marriage is a legal contract between 2 adults. That's where it stops.

[darenyon]

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.

Seems pretty logical and clear to me. Standards are important, and the line has to be drawn somewhere. Not unconstitutional.

just add "of the same race" in there and you're good to go!

[obdigore]

It kind of embarasses me that Canada is snarking at us, and not the other way around.

The dog/polygamy arguments are silly. Marriage is a legal contract between 2 adults. That's where it stops.

Why are you embarrassed? Canada is more liberal than the US due to the extreme conservatism that is becoming more and more akin to theological governments rather than secular.

---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 02:10 AM ----------

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.

Seems pretty logical and clear to me. Standards are important, and the line has to be drawn somewhere. Not unconstitutional.

Except it is unconstitutional and you aren't a judge. Imagine that.

[s_bushido]

just add "of the same race" in there and you're good to go!

Exactly.

/10char

[Auloria]

I'd really prefer that this be an issue left to the states. It gives people time to see that this isn't the apocalypse. You do have to respect that this a very core fundamental belief that you are asking people to change.

---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 07:12 AM ----------

Why are you embarrassed? Canada is more liberal than the US due to the extreme conservatism that is becoming more and more akin to theological governments rather than secular.

Right, that's why I'm embarassed. I'd rather be laughing at their backwards views and silly beaver hats.

Don't nation bash

[sockzz]

I'd really prefer that this be an issue left to the states. It gives people time to see that this isn't the apocalypse. You do have to respect that this a very core fundamental belief that you are asking people to change.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean you can't believe its wrong. Smoking cigarettes is legal but I think it's wrong because it's bad for your health. But do I think smoking should be banned? Nope.

[obdigore]

I'd really prefer that this be an issue left to the states. It gives people time to see that this isn't the apocalypse. You do have to respect that this a very core fundamental belief that you are asking people to change.

No, I'm not asking anyone to change anything. I'm telling them they can't impose their personal beliefs upon another person, just as they ask I don't impose my personal beliefs upon them. Two people, regardless of their race, sex, or creed, deciding to get a government sanctioned (and no one is going to force religions who are against gay marriage to perform ceremonies) marriage is equal protection under the law.

[Darkacid]

Gays are by definition "freaks" and their behavior should not be encouraged. I don't say that out of hatred for gay people, I say that because it's true.