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.
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.
This is what, the 4th case that has found some part of DOMA unconstitutional with another 5 in the pipeline set to rule the same way. Its constitutionality is indefensible.
Government should not be in the business of marriage to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flash3780
Hear, hear! Thank you for that post. We shouldn't require a license from the government to be married. If people want to be married, let them do it in a church, mosque, temple, or by Elvis in Vegas. Get the government out of it and there's no debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough
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?
Others responded with multiple alternatives for state controlled marriages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flash3780
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
Unless, of course, our minds agree with you?
Ya know, I'd actually prefer if people were to present well thought out arguments for their cases.
I don't agree with marriage being state government's business either.
To clarify, "state-controlled" was meant to mean "government controlled" in the above context. I don't think that I disagree with you on this issue if I understand your position correctly.
The government should not issue licenses to be married, be it at the Federal, State, or Local level.
Why hold anyone else to a higher standard than your own side?
If you're going to challenge my opinion that the government shouldn't issue licenses to be married, please do so. Otherwise, you're just name-calling. Why do you feel that it is imperative for the government to license relationships?
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.
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.
Defense of Marriage Act declared unconstitutional by federal bankruptcy judge
