Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-15-2011, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,833,891 times
Reputation: 12341

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
What a silly comment.

You are aware that there is a multitude of legal consequences to being in a married state, aren't you?

And pretty much all of them require some governmental entity to determine whether a marriage exists.

Just to take one small example, how do you expect courts to determine whether a party in court is entitled to claim the spousal privilege without determining whether there is a marriage? Not easy to "Get the government out of it", is it?
The problem starts when the government starts to define marriage. A system can be set up to describe contracts, not what marriage is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-15-2011, 09:20 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,464,843 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Park View Post
This actually represents the third Federal judge who has ruled against DOMA.

I believe DOMA will fall.

Contrary to the opinion of the previous poster, all indications are that the Supreme Court of the United States will indeed put the final nail in the coffin of DOMA by ruling the law is unconstitutional.
I agree. Congress cannot alter the US Constitution using statute law. That requires an amendment process. DOMA attempts to rewrite the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the US Constitution, and that is a no, no.

This is a no-brainer. DOMA is toast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2011, 09:24 AM
 
Location: Pleasant Ridge, Cincinnati, OH
1,040 posts, read 1,335,170 times
Reputation: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
What a silly comment.

You are aware that there is a multitude of legal consequences to being in a married state, aren't you?

And pretty much all of them require some governmental entity to determine whether a marriage exists.

Just to take one small example, how do you expect courts to determine whether a party in court is entitled to claim the spousal privilege without determining whether there is a marriage? Not easy to "Get the government out of it", is it?
I'd respond, but others have already responded for me. Let me rather suggest that you open your mind to alternatives. Closed-mindedness is the antitheses of rational thought.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2011, 09:25 AM
 
Location: Texas State Fair
8,560 posts, read 11,220,032 times
Reputation: 4258
The only thing the state should be able to do is issue license to form a civil union, between ANY two consenting adults. A magistrate can swear the bond. ABSOLUTELY nothing more. Call it a marriage or pay a religious cleric to put that spiritual oompa into it.

The only thing the federal should be able to do is administrate collective recognition among the 57 states of that legal agreement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2011, 09:40 AM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
20,054 posts, read 18,293,964 times
Reputation: 3826
Quote:
Originally Posted by tofurkey View Post

The only thing the federal should be able to do is administrate collective recognition among the 57 states of that legal agreement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2011, 09:43 AM
 
6,484 posts, read 6,620,504 times
Reputation: 1275
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
He's wrong. It's that simple. Instead of writing law he should enforce what is already written.


Quote:
Originally Posted by flash3780 View Post
I'd respond, but others have already responded for me. Let me rather suggest that you open your mind to alternatives. Closed-mindedness is the antitheses of rational thought.
Unless, of course, our minds agree with you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2011, 09:48 AM
 
Location: Seattle Area
3,451 posts, read 7,057,694 times
Reputation: 3614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
He's wrong. It's that simple. Instead of writing law he should enforce what is already written.




Unless, of course, our minds agree with you?
How is he wrong?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2011, 09:53 AM
 
6,484 posts, read 6,620,504 times
Reputation: 1275
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlerain View Post
How is he wrong?
He said it violated the equal protection clause. It doesn't. Gay people can and do get married.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2011, 09:56 AM
 
Location: Seattle Area
3,451 posts, read 7,057,694 times
Reputation: 3614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
He said it violated the equal protection clause. It doesn't. Gay people can and do get married.
Oh yes, that tired old argument again...sorry I don't buy into it.

You are going to have to do better than that to convince me...

If I marry my partner, it does not affects anybody. It does not harm your marriage in any possible way. If it did...ou need therapy, not legislated discrimination against me and those like me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2011, 09:57 AM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,109,537 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
He said it violated the equal protection clause. It doesn't. Gay people can and do get married.
Of course DOMA violates the equal protection clause.

Consider two legally married couples in Iowa - one a male-male gay couple, one a male-female straight couple. If the man in the straight marriage employs his wife, he does not have to pay unemployment insurance tax of his wife's wages. If one man in the gay marriage employs his husband, he must pay this tax. Why - because of DOMA. DOMA treats married homosexuals differently from married heterosexuals (namely it denies married homosexuals 1100 civil rights). As such, it clearly violates the equal protection clause.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:32 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top