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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.