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 06-14-2011, 11:47 PM
 
26,680 posts, read 28,594,779 times
Reputation: 7943

Advertisements

Quote:
The nation's largest bankruptcy court has declared a controversial law banning federal recognition of gay marriages unconstitutional.

The ruling in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California was the first to address the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act since U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. announced in February that the Obama administration considered the law discriminatory and would no longer defend it in court.
Gay marriage: California bankruptcy judge declares Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional - latimes.com

Little by little, the Defense Of Marriage Act is being abolished.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-15-2011, 07:44 AM
 
Location: Maryland
18,630 posts, read 19,355,807 times
Reputation: 6461
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
Another activist California Judge what else is new? No worries everything will be righted by SCOTUS in a few.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2011, 07:49 AM
 
Location: University City, Philadelphia
22,634 posts, read 14,881,489 times
Reputation: 15932
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2011, 08:20 AM
 
Location: Texas
5,872 posts, read 8,069,438 times
Reputation: 2971
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA View Post
Another activist California Judge what else is new? No worries everything will be righted by SCOTUS in a few.
Talk about activist judges!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2011, 08:22 AM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
20,054 posts, read 18,231,250 times
Reputation: 3826
Constitutional amendments expand rights. They do not restrict them. Only 2 amendments in history have restricted them, one has been discharged and the other is inevitable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2011, 08:38 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,736,999 times
Reputation: 12341
Government should not be in the business of marriage to begin with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2011, 08:57 AM
 
Location: Pleasant Ridge, Cincinnati, OH
1,040 posts, read 1,330,664 times
Reputation: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Government should not be in the business of marriage to begin with.
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2011, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Vermont
11,754 posts, read 14,588,559 times
Reputation: 18502
Quote:
Originally Posted by flash3780 View Post
Get the government out of it and there's no debate.
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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2011, 09:15 AM
 
Location: state of procrastination
3,485 posts, read 7,282,483 times
Reputation: 2913
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?
Maybe "marriage" should not be the determining factor in legal issues at all. There are lots of entities that recognize documented same-sex or opposite-sex domestic partnerships. To me, the word "marriage" belongs in churches.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2011, 09:16 AM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
20,054 posts, read 18,231,250 times
Reputation: 3826
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?
Been done for quite some time in our country's past without requiring government involvement. Courts can tell if there's a marriage because the church in question has a document.
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.

© 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