DOMA ruled unconstitutional

Meadmaker said:
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.
Click to expand...

In light of the above explanation about the difference in the two positions, this seems a willful misstatement/misunderstanding.
 
Meadmaker said:
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.
Click to expand...

1) The court said that only states can make such marriage laws.

2) Those laws must not violate equal protection.

It so happens that those two holdings together prevent a state DOMA-like law from being constitutional. That is not contradictory.
 
Last edited:
quixotecoyote said:
In light of the above explanation about the difference in the two positions, this seems a willful misstatement/misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

In light of the fact that that is exactly what it would do, it seems like a willful statement of the obvious.

He's saying that the states have traditionally been allowed to define marriage, and that federal law cannot dictate a definition. At the same time, he is stating that the definition used by the majority of the states is a violation of the federal constitution.

So, the states can define marriage, as long as they do it right.
 
KingMerv00 said:
1) The court said that only states can make such marriage laws.

2) Those laws must not violate equal protection.

It so happens that those two holdings together prevent a state DOMA-like law from being constitutional. That is not contradictory.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's contradictory, but it is weird. It's an application of the tenth amendment in such a way that the states get no rights as a consequence. Only the states can define marriage, but the federal courts can invalidate the definition used by the majority of the states.

To put it another way, it makes a strong statement in support of the states' traditional role in declaring what marriage means for its citizens, but says that they've all been doing it wrong since at least 1865.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
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.
Click to expand...

Did Loving V Virginia result in the federal government coming in to tell the states how to define marriage? It is that it can define marriage how ever it wants so long as that definition is constitutional. Some people think a definition that discriminates on the basis of the sex of the participants is unconstitutional. So in that case any laws against same sex marriage would be unconstitutional.

Now there is no constitutional issue with say preventing cousins from marrying or about the minimum age to marry. The state can define those parameters how ever it wants.
 
thaiboxerken said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything discriminating based on sexual orientation, it seems to be entirely based on the sex of those involved not their orientation.
 
Meadmaker said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sure why not? They can both be unconstitutional for different reasons.
 
Meadmaker said:
To put it another way, it makes a strong statement in support of the states' traditional role in declaring what marriage means for its citizens, but says that they've all been doing it wrong since at least 1865.
Click to expand...

So what? They said the same thing in Loving V Virginia.
 
Meadmaker said:
I don't recall the tenth amendment being mentioned in Loving v. Virginia.
Click to expand...

Because it wasn't about a unconstitutional federal law. See state laws and federal laws can be unconstitutional, in fact all laws need to be constitutional.
 
BenBurch said:
What is weird is ANY application of the Tenth. That is about as rare as Hen's teeth.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

And as I noted before, I'm willing to bet that the tenth amendment hasn't featured prominently in this particular judge's prior rulings. Usually, when people talk about the tenth amendment they are pressing to limit the powers of the federal government. This ruling invokes the tenth amendment in a case that would have the effect of overturning a lot of states' laws.

On top of that, in support of his opinion, he discusses the effect on....Medicaid payments?:confused:
 
Meadmaker said:
Exactly.

And as I noted before, I'm willing to bet that the tenth amendment hasn't featured prominently in this particular judge's prior rulings. Usually, when people talk about the tenth amendment they are pressing to limit the powers of the federal government. This ruling invokes the tenth amendment in a case that would have the effect of overturning a lot of states' laws.

On top of that, in support of his opinion, he discusses the effect on....Medicaid payments?:confused:
Click to expand...

Is it the Tenth though that is overturning state laws or is that part just overturning DOMA? I thought it was other parts of the constitution that were overturning state laws.

Of course I am skeptical that the Supreme court we have now would ever vote for gay marriage in any form.
 
Meadmaker said:
I'm not saying it's contradictory, but it is weird. It's an application of the tenth amendment in such a way that the states get no rights as a consequence.
Click to expand...

Again, this appears to be a willful misunderstanding.

States get lots of rights regarding marriage via the tenth amendment. But there are certainly (constitutionally-dictated) lines they can't cross.

For example, can first cousins marry? The tenth amendment says that's a state, not a federal, issue.

What's the minimum age for marriage? Can teenagers marry? The tenth amendment says that's a state, not a federal, issue.

Can non-residents marry? How about non-residents to residents? The tenth amendment says that's a state, not a federal, issue.

Can Jews be prevented from marrying non-Jews? Sorry, that conflicts with the first amendment; religious restrictions on marriage are not acceptable.

To put it another way, it makes a strong statement in support of the states' traditional role in declaring what marriage means for its citizens, but says that they've all been doing it wrong since at least 1865.
Click to expand...

Nothing new there. Loving vs. Virginia made the same statement. You can define marriage however you like as long as you don't discriminate on the basis of race.
 
drkitten said:
Again, this appears to be a willful misunderstanding.

States get lots of rights regarding marriage via the tenth amendment. But there are certainly (constitutionally-dictated) lines they can't cross.

For example, can first cousins marry? The tenth amendment says that's a state, not a federal, issue.

What's the minimum age for marriage? Can teenagers marry? The tenth amendment says that's a state, not a federal, issue.

Can non-residents marry? How about non-residents to residents? The tenth amendment says that's a state, not a federal, issue.

Can Jews be prevented from marrying non-Jews? Sorry, that conflicts with the first amendment; religious restrictions on marriage are not acceptable.



Nothing new there. Loving vs. Virginia made the same statement. You can define marriage however you like as long as you don't discriminate on the basis of race.
Click to expand...

QFT

Bascially the court said "States have the power to regulate marriage but may not regulate by doing X,Y, and Z."

I really don't understand the confusion here.
 
KingMerv00 said:
QFT

Bascially the court said "States have the power to regulate marriage but may not regulate by doing X,Y, and Z."
Click to expand...

Yup. It's no different than when the state tells me that I have the freedom and authority to write what I like, but can't libel. Or that I have the authority to dress and act as I like, but can't impersonate a police officer.

Or that I can customize my car as I like, but can't put flashing police-style lights on the top.

I really don't understand the confusion here.
Click to expand...

It's a willful misunderstanding. There are no rational arguments against gay marriage, so the homophobic bigots need to make irrational ones to justify their homophobia and bigotry.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Is it the Tenth though that is overturning state laws or is that part just overturning DOMA? I thought it was other parts of the constitution that were overturning state laws.
Click to expand...

Right. The judge ruled that DOMA violated the fourteenth amendment because its definition of marriage doesn't provide equal protection to homosexuals. Therefore, DOMA is an invalid law. If that is the case then any law, state or federal, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman would be be a violation of the fourteenth amendment so, this ruling, if upheld, would overturn the laws of many states. At the moment, it only applies in Massachusetts, which already defined marriage in the acceptable fashion, so it didn't overturn any states' laws, yet.

Meanwhile, in part of the same opinion, the judge invoked the tenth amendment to say that the federal government was not allowed to dictate to states how they define marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom