DOMA ruled unconstitutional

bynmdsue said:
I ain't bashin' no-one but it ain't happening in this country not in my or your lifetime.
Click to expand...
How are you personally harmed by two people of the same sex being legally wed? Please be specific.

For extra credit: How are you personally benefitted by denying a particular legal arrangement to and between selected sets of consenting adults?

Thanks in advance.
 
Meadmaker said:
Generally, you go to the courthouse and obtain a marriage license. You have to present proof at that time that you've fulfilled the requirements for that state's marriage. (Example: Michigan requires an STD test.) After that, you have a certain amount of time (varies by state. I think I had a week in Michigan, but can't remember. I got it the day before the wedding) for the marriage to be "solemnized", at which point it is official. Whoever was the official, such as clergy or judge (we had a caterer. She also had some sort of religious title, but she was not a rabbi, but basically she had filed some paperwork with the state to say that she would do weddings, and she wanted to know if we wanted just the ceremony, or also the catering package) signs on the dotted line and mails in the proper paperwork to the records office.

Traditionally, the religious aspects matter, but today anyone can do weddings as long as they register with the state, and get the paperwork right.
Click to expand...

Not in New Jersey, they had a marriage nullified there because it was performed by a reverend of the universal life church. The law there is something like priest/minister who has a church(the building not organization) and congregation, or judge.

But I don't care who people want officiating the ceremony for their wedding, as long as the paperwork is secular I am fine with it.
 
There's something weird about this ruling, at least if the article is to be believed. It seems like the judge is saying that each state has the right to define marriage, but he's turning around and saying that any definition that excludes homosexual marriages is illegal.

It's sort of saying that a state can define marriage in any way they wish, as long as they do it my way.

I haven't read the actual ruling, and sometimes the media doesn't get it right. I've read cases where the actual reasoning was directly opposite what the accounts say, so maybe this one is as well. The whole states rights angle that I've seen in this and other articles about the ruling struck me as very weird, especially when combined with the 14th ammendment concerns in the same rulings.

I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that the 10th ammendment hasn't played a really large role in this particular judge's prior rulings. It's somewhat analogous to the way half of the Supreme Court suddenly discovered the equal protection clause during the arguments in Bush v. Gore.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
There's something weird about this ruling, at least if the article is to be believed. It seems like the judge is saying that each state has the right to define marriage, but he's turning around and saying that any definition that excludes homosexual marriages is illegal.
Click to expand...

I am not sure that is quite what it is, it is that they have to recognize other states marriages. For example first cousin marriages are legal or illegal in various states, but I don't think a state can refuse to recognize a marriage between first cousins just because they can't get married in that state.

So while a state can define things how they want to for their own people, they have to recognize existing marriages that they would not permit.
It's sort of saying that a state can define marriage in any way they wish, as long as they do it my way.
Click to expand...

Not quite, it is that they have to abide by the constitution including the part about recognizing marriages from other states.
 
ponderingturtle said:
I am not sure that is quite what it is, it is that they have to recognize other states marriages.
Click to expand...

Have you read the ruling? I haven't. I'm going by what the linked article says. It says,

"The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston.
...
The act "plainly encroaches" upon the right of the state to determine marriage, Tauro said in his ruling on a lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley. "

Nothing at all about recognizing other states' marriages.
 
Meadmaker said:
Have you read the ruling? I haven't. I'm going by what the linked article says. It says,

"The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston.
...
The act "plainly encroaches" upon the right of the state to determine marriage, Tauro said in his ruling on a lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley. "

Nothing at all about recognizing other states' marriages.
Click to expand...


Maybe this will help clear things up.

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.

"The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid," Tauro wrote in a ruling in a lawsuit filed by Attorney General Martha Coakley
Click to expand...
 
ZirconBlue said:
Maybe this will help clear things up.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

So, if you ask me, it's weird, because he is saying DOMA clearly interferes with the rights of states to define marriage, but in a different part of the ruling he says that defining it to exclude homosexuals would violate the fourteenth ammendment's equal protection clause. Therefore, a state wouldn't be allowed to define it in such a way as to exclude homosexuals.

So, a state can define marriage any way it wants to, as long as it's the way the judge thinks it ought to be defined.
 
Well, he's correct. A state can define marriage in any way it wants, as long as it doesn't discriminate based on race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation.
 
Meadmaker said:
So, a state can define marriage any way it wants to, as long as it's the way the judge thinks it ought to be defined.
Click to expand...

There is nothing strange about that. The judge said that the federal government encroached on the powers of the state AND that the substance of the law itself was unconstitutional.

The judge is setting two precedents on two different subjects.
 
O'Reilly's segment on this was just awful. I mean, really, really bad. You'd have to see it and watch the previews to understand. Basically he said the wacky judge ruled straight marriage unconstitutional, and went crazier from there.
 
KingMerv00 said:
There is nothing strange about that. The judge said that the federal government encroached on the powers of the state AND that the substance of the law itself was unconstitutional.

The judge is setting two precedents on two different subjects.
Click to expand...

OK, so let's say that this is appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and the judgement is upheld. The first ciruit includes the District of Rhode Island. In Rhode Island, marriage is held to be the union of one man and one woman (for the moment. Legislation has been introduced to allow gay marriage, to ban gay marriage, and to introduce civil unions). After the ruling by the circuit court, though, that can't be the case, because such a definition violates the equal protection clause.

So, the effect is to declare that DOMA is unconstitutional because the Federal government can't tell the states what to do when it comes to marriage, and it would simultaneously use federal power to overturn a state law defining marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom