DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[ADoyle90815]

Part of federal gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional in Massachusetts - latimes.com

Feel free to move this to that other forum if it doesn't belong here.

[hordak]

Tauro agreed, saying the act "plainly encroaches" on a state's right to define marriage.

So "they" oppose DOMA because it interferes with a states right to define marriage

But a citizen initiative on the November 2008 ballot, Proposition 8, defined marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. The ban, passed by a 52% margin, is now before a federal judge in San Francisco on a similar challenge to its constitutionality.

while "they" oppose California chosen definition of marriage ?

[Hemidakota]

Good point Hordak...

[Hemidakota]

Part of federal gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional in Massachusetts - latimes.com

Feel free to move this to that other forum if it doesn't belong here.

I saw this yesterday when it hit the news wire and didn't bother to post it since my own opinions may invoke those of extreme left or right. As I stated in the past, it is time to get rid of all federal appointed judges and allow the states to use their own state court systems and keep national laws at the Supreme court layer.

Thanks again for the post.

[Just_A_Guy]

Frankly, from a federalist standpoint, I think the court probably got the law right on this one. Marriage is a state issue, period.

There could be a silver lining here: When gay rights advocates talk about the thousand-odd benefits that marital partners get but civil unions don't, the vast majority of those are federal rights and the discrepancy arises out of DOMA. If the Supreme Court upholds this decision, the end result could be that the wind really gets knocked out of the sails of the gay-marriage movement.

Not tickled pink about having my tax dollars go to Social Security survivor's benefits for gay couples--but then, IMHO, we should be revamping those (and a host of other federal bennies) anyways.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[GaySaint]

I would be perfectly happy if I could move to a state where gay marriage were legal, and get all the marital benefits of the state (by virtue of the state), AND have the federal goverment recognize me and my partner as married (thus giving us the federal ability to protect our family as well).

I agree that this could easily take the wind out of the sails of the gay movement, but in my book, this is where that ship was hoping to dock anyway.

I'm not entirely convinced that a states majority should be the only thing required to strip away state's rights from anyone, but if I could then move to another state where I could have those rights recognized without any federal prohibitions, I'd be very happy with such a conclusion.

[Hemidakota]

This was my point. It matter not what the law is, it is matter if the voters decided for themselves in that state how and what to vote on. Not up to the national government to dictate outside of the normal externals to the state & country, constitutional amendments, bill of rights, and the military to protect the country as a whole. Removing the federalists powers over the state.

If Gaysaints wants to live Massachusetts and the state voters wanted same gender marriages. It is the law of the state.

Now, what I disagree with GS, I believe in the majority to vote their conscious. Long as it does not infringe on others civil rights as a human being, religious beliefs, and so forth as seen in the state of yellow dog wagging its tail (Missouri).

[GaySaint]

...Long as it does not infringe on others civil rights as a human being, religious beliefs, and so forth as seen in the state of yellow dog wagging its tail (Missouri).

Ah, but there is the rub. Whether or not denying marriage to same sex couples infringes on their civil rights is at the very heart of the argument, I believe. I have no idea how someone can claim that it DOESN'T, while there are many who have no idea how I can claim that it DOES, haha.

But I see the flip side too. I don't know how gay marriage could possibly infringe on religious freedom (or at least have yet to hear a plausible explaination for such), while I'm sure you feel that it somehow would.

And we go in circles and circles and circles :).

[cofchristcousin]

Ah, but there is the rub. Whether or not denying marriage to same sex couples infringes on their civil rights is at the very heart of the argument, I believe. I have no idea how someone can claim that it DOESN'T, while there are many who have no idea how I can claim that it DOES, haha.

But I see the flip side too. I don't know how gay marriage could possibly infringe on religious freedom (or at least have yet to hear a plausible explaination for such), while I'm sure you feel that it somehow would.

And we go in circles and circles and circles :).

We go in circles, but we get deeper each pass. We recognize more of the humanity and goodness and good intentions of each other. 10 years ago this conversation probably wouldn't have taken place here. Two years ago the prop 8 conversations had a different tone, imo. Today, people ask genuine questions and respect the honesty and humility of the answerer, even if they do see a different point of view. I am grateful for that.