Big DOMA Decision Handed Down

May 31, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Huffington Post

A federal appeals court Thursday declared that the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally denies federal benefits to married gay couples, a ruling all but certain to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Comments (Page 22)

Showing posts 421 - 440 of1,220
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#435
Jun 22, 2012
 
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
so a law or medical LICENSE in one state must be automatically accepted in another?
news to me....I'll let them know about full faith and credit.
Please do.
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#436
Jun 22, 2012
 
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Please do.
the doctors may buy it for a minute, but no lawyer would...

I also think the recent DOMA decisions are going to be a problem for you...
first, the section which applies to what you are talking about was not even contested.

Second, the DOMA was overturned on the individual state's rights to define how they allocate benefits. I would bet the same right that denies federal intrusion will also prevent other states from intruding.
Especially that it would conflict with 31 state Constitutions...

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#437
Jun 22, 2012
 
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
the doctors may buy it for a minute, but no lawyer would...
I also think the recent DOMA decisions are going to be a problem for you...
first, the section which applies to what you are talking about was not even contested.
Second, the DOMA was overturned on the individual state's rights to define how they allocate benefits. I would bet the same right that denies federal intrusion will also prevent other states from intruding.
Especially that it would conflict with 31 state Constitutions...
The provisions in state constitutins prohibiting gay marriage, or the recognition of gay marriages performed in other states will not survive a federal constitutional challenge. Just as the various states' anti-miscegenation laws did not. As evidence I also point out Romver v. Evans.
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#438
Jun 22, 2012
 
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
The provisions in state constitutins prohibiting gay marriage, or the recognition of gay marriages performed in other states will not survive a federal constitutional challenge. Just as the various states' anti-miscegenation laws did not. As evidence I also point out Romver v. Evans.
but Loving relied solely on its anti discrimination decisions to overturn the marriage laws, yet no one expects that the same is true of gays. In fact, the first circuit opined that those decisions are IRRELEVANT to marriage.

"Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages."

You at least have to admit the fact that real courts are making these decisions and these decision do not line up with what supporters here claim.

Further, as I explained, given DOMA is being decided on state's rights issues, there is already a footing for the idea that the federal govt oversteps if they try to preempt here.

"However, the denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married does burden the choice of states like Massachusetts to regulate the rules and incidents of marriage; notably, the Commonwealth stands both to assume new administrative burdens and to lose funding for Medicaid or veterans' cemeteries solely on account of its same-sex marriage laws. These consequences do not violate the Tenth Amendment or Spending Clause, but Congress' effort to put a thumb on the scales and influence a state's decision as to how to shape its own marriage laws does bear on how the justifications are assessed...Given that DOMA intrudes broadly into an area of traditional state regulation, a closer examination of the justifications that would prevent DOMA from violating equal protection (and thus from exceeding federal authority) is uniquely reinforced by federalism concerns."

Also, you would have to get he vote of the state legislatures for an amendment and so far 32 states have voted exactly the opposite: to ban gay marriage.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#439
Jun 22, 2012
 
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
so a law or medical LICENSE in one state must be automatically accepted in another?
news to me....I'll let them know about full faith and credit.
Since this thread is about marriage I'll confine this response to that.

The Full Faith and Credit clause stipulates that when a couple is married in one of the several states, as they travel and move about the country, they remain married and enjoy those rights of marriage wherever they find themselves. Absent the FFC clause, as soon as a couple crosses out of the state that legally married them, they would cease to be married.

Like same-sex marriages, not every state will allow the marriage of first cousins. However, there are several states that do.(And this would be male-female couples.) After legally marrying in a state that allows the practice, these couples can travel and move about the country and as they cross borders, they remain married and enjoy those rights of marriage wherever they find themselves. The same principle must apply to same-sex marriages legally carried out in the several states that allow them.

In all of these examples, the couples have a valid, legal, marriage license/certificate which is why the FFC clause does not apply to common law spouses. In a common law marriage, the couple never entered the legal contract of the marriage license/certificate. The FFC clause specifies a legal proceeding.

As to the federal government, they do not perform civil marriages. They rely on the states to grant the marriage license/certificate. Where the feds run afoul of the FFC clause and the 14th amendment with DOMA is the fact that they are, in the most basic terms, saying they will recognize this marriage license/certificate from one couple while not recognizing the exact same document from another couple from the same state. To say that is okay would then allow the feds to say they will recognize as valid the marriage licenses/certificate from these states but not from these other states. I am sure you would agree that that last scenario would not be constitutional.
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#440
Jun 22, 2012
 
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Where the feds run afoul of the FFC clause and the 14th amendment with DOMA is the fact that they are, in the most basic terms, saying they will recognize this marriage license/certificate from one couple while not recognizing the exact same document from another couple from the same state. To say that is okay would then allow the feds to say they will recognize as valid the marriage licenses/certificate from these states but not from these other states. I am sure you would agree that that last scenario would not be constitutional.
I do not agree with your assessments of the DOMA decisions.(articulate and well written as they are)

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl...

I also think there is a large logical jump from not accepting different marriages from within a state to accepting some states and not others. I believe you touch on it with your common law marriage point.

I would argue that in the same way the federal govt cannot decide whom a state offers benefits to, if it conflict with constitutional law, the state cannot be forced to accept another state's conflicting marriage.

By analogy, in some states, a younger person can get a driver's license, Yet that license is not good in the neighboring state until that person meets the age require din that state. They do not give FFC to a license that does not meet the state's minimum age. And that's not even a constitutional concern!

In addition, no state has a constitutional amendment barring first cousin marriages.

In the end, how can a state recognize a marriage that is banned by its constitution?

But your points are well made and well taken.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#441
Jun 22, 2012
 
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
The provisions in state constitutins prohibiting gay marriage, or the recognition of gay marriages performed in other states will not survive a federal constitutional challenge.
Of course they will and the supreme court has already indicated that they want no part of it.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#442
Jun 22, 2012
 
DaveinMass wrote:
The Full Faith and Credit clause stipulates that when a couple is married in one of the several states, as they travel and move about the country, they remain married and enjoy those rights of marriage wherever they find themselves.
Show me where it stiulates anything about marriage. Heat is rough on you today, huh?

"The assumption that there must be a single national definition of marriage --traditional or open-ended -- is mistaken and pernicious. It is mistaken because the existing constitutional framework has long accommodated differing marriage laws. This is an area where the slogan "states rights" not only works relatively well, but also has traditionally been left to do its job."
http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#443
Jun 22, 2012
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they will and the supreme court has already indicated that they want no part of it.
SCOTUS will rule on the constitutionality of DOMA, but it will probably be a few more years before tehy do so.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#444
Jun 22, 2012
 
Reality wrote:
I do not agree with your assessments of the DOMA decisions.(articulate and well written as they are)
Which doesn't make you right.
Reality wrote:
I also think there is a large logical jump from not accepting different marriages from within a state to accepting some states and not others. I believe you touch on it with your common law marriage point.
A state issues but one form of marriage license/certificate. The feds cannot be able to pick and choose which it will recognize.
Reality wrote:
I would argue that in the same way the federal govt cannot decide whom a state offers benefits to, if it conflict with constitutional law, the state cannot be forced to accept another state's conflicting marriage.
A state's constitution is trumped by the federal constitution.
Reality wrote:
By analogy, in some states, a younger person can get a driver's license, Yet that license is not good in the neighboring state until that person meets the age require din that state. They do not give FFC to a license that does not meet the state's minimum age. And that's not even a constitutional concern!
A driver's license is not a legal document. You have to go to court to nullify a marriage showing that it is a legal document, a condition of the FFC clause.
Reality wrote:
In addition, no state has a constitutional amendment barring first cousin marriages.
So what. There are states that don't allow first cousins to marry but when a first cousin married couple moves into the state, that couple remains married.
Reality wrote:
In the end, how can a state recognize a marriage that is banned by its constitution?
Again, the federal constitution trumps state constitutions.
Reality wrote:
But your points are well made and well taken.
Thank you.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#445
Jun 22, 2012
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me where it stiulates anything about marriage. Heat is rough on you today, huh?
"The assumption that there must be a single national definition of marriage --traditional or open-ended -- is mistaken and pernicious. It is mistaken because the existing constitutional framework has long accommodated differing marriage laws. This is an area where the slogan "states rights" not only works relatively well, but also has traditionally been left to do its job."
http://www.law.yale.edu/news/4174.htm
So when you and your spouse travel from Massachusets to New Hampshire to take advantage of no sales tax, you are no longer married?
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#446
Jun 22, 2012
 
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS will rule on the constitutionality of DOMA, but it will probably be a few more years before tehy do so.
its already a state sovereignty issue and not a gay rights issue...
Even if DOMA gets before the scotus they have no reason to announce a fundamental right to gay marriage given the case has been limited away from that...and the likelihood of them doing so even with new very liberal appointees is slim to none.
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#447
Jun 22, 2012
 
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Which doesn't make you right.
that's why I didn't say you were wrong, only that I disagree...

its been a pleasure discussing this with you in polite terms!

Our fundamental difference is over the utility of having both a mom and dad...until we get more data there I agree with your overall point that we would just be yelling past each other.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#448
Jun 22, 2012
 
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
So when you and your spouse travel from Massachusets to New Hampshire to take advantage of no sales tax, you are no longer married?
They don't ask and NH provides us with no government benefits. Same for you.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#449
Jun 22, 2012
 
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
You should study American history because you obviously know nothing about it. The founding ideals of our nation NEVER included equal treatment for all our citizens. Where did you ever get that crazy idea from ?!
they were the ideals set up for us to attain, hence the phrase "all men are created equal".

Even the founders didn't live by that rule, but they put it in there anyways. a goal for us to attain. i understand history quite well, thatnk you.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#450
Jun 22, 2012
 
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I miss Frank Stanton.
:(
What ever happened to him ?!
I have no idea who Frank Stanton is, but the NPR show Marketplace is produced from there, so i glommed onto that location...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#451
Jun 22, 2012
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
When the rules are the same for all persons then they are equal.
Qualifying opposite sex partner or be single. Very simple and it presents a choice.
Once again, that argument was used for anti-miscegenation laws. It is, in fact, not correct.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#452
Jun 22, 2012
 
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
so a law or medical LICENSE in one state must be automatically accepted in another?
news to me....I'll let them know about full faith and credit.
Article IV sec 2 Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

I see the Constitution is News to you (as usual).

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#453
Jun 22, 2012
 
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't ask and NH provides us with no government benefits. Same for you.
So, if one of you were injured or became very ill in that other state, you don't think someone would ask?

And would the answer, and the result, be the same for a gay married couple, then?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#454
Jun 23, 2012
 
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
So, if one of you were injured or became very ill in that other state, you don't think someone would ask?
And would the answer, and the result, be the same for a gay married couple, then?
Don't know or care.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 421 - 440 of1,220
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••