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 07-08-2009, 03:26 PM
 
460 posts, read 711,769 times
Reputation: 267

Advertisements

Go Martha! DOMA is a lousy law.

I wonder if she's nipping at Biden's heels for 2012.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-08-2009, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Boise
4,425 posts, read 5,264,051 times
Reputation: 1695
Full Faith and Credit Clause basically makes DOMA unconstitutional..
It was enacted to "protect" people in states that don't want gays to marry, so they could keep it from happening or being recognized in their state. While you have every right to disagree with gay marriage, you don't have the right to impose unconstitutional laws upon the masses. I've always wondered how on earth these anti gay marriage people can honestly say they have the law on their side? Fact of the matter is.. the law never was on their side.. they changed the laws so that it was.. and they didn't even change the laws in a constitutional manner...
It's so insulting and ridiculous especially coming from right wingers who scream and yell about founding fathers and constitutional principles... seems their rhetoric can be tossed aside for certain issues.. like keeping the scary gays from getting married... the hypocracy is truly astonishing
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 03:39 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,850 posts, read 20,172,172 times
Reputation: 6482
What gives Massachusetts Attorney General Coakley standing? In order to challenge a potentially unconstitutional law they must be "harmed" in some way by the law in order to have any standing with the courts.

DOMA applies to every other state that does not recognize same-sex marriage. It obviously does not apply to those states that already recognize same-sex marriage, like Massachusetts.

If a same-sex couple were to marry in Massachusetts and then move to another state that does not allow same-sex marriages, if that state does not recognize the same-sex marriage as legal, then that same-sex couple would have standing with the courts. But there is no one being "harmed" by DOMA in the state of Massachusetts since it does not apply. So once again, what gives Massachusetts Attorney General Coakley standing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 03:51 PM
 
91 posts, read 269,022 times
Reputation: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
What gives Massachusetts Attorney General Coakley standing? In order to challenge a potentially unconstitutional law they must be "harmed" in some way by the law in order to have any standing with the courts.

DOMA applies to every other state that does not recognize same-sex marriage. It obviously does not apply to those states that already recognize same-sex marriage, like Massachusetts.

If a same-sex couple were to marry in Massachusetts and then move to another state that does not allow same-sex marriages, if that state does not recognize the same-sex marriage as legal, then that same-sex couple would have standing with the courts. But there is no one being "harmed" by DOMA in the state of Massachusetts since it does not apply. So once again, what gives Massachusetts Attorney General Coakley standing?
The legally married same-sex couples in her state are being "harmed" because they cannot receive the federal benefits that straight married couples in that same state receive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 03:58 PM
 
Location: Boise
4,425 posts, read 5,264,051 times
Reputation: 1695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
What gives Massachusetts Attorney General Coakley standing? In order to challenge a potentially unconstitutional law they must be "harmed" in some way by the law in order to have any standing with the courts.

DOMA applies to every other state that does not recognize same-sex marriage. It obviously does not apply to those states that already recognize same-sex marriage, like Massachusetts.

If a same-sex couple were to marry in Massachusetts and then move to another state that does not allow same-sex marriages, if that state does not recognize the same-sex marriage as legal, then that same-sex couple would have standing with the courts. But there is no one being "harmed" by DOMA in the state of Massachusetts since it does not apply. So once again, what gives Massachusetts Attorney General Coakley standing?
Same question could be applied to the DOMA laws.. because a gay couple gets married in mass where they lived, and now move to Idaho, where gay marriage is not allowed or recognized, what gives idaho the standing in telling THAT couple they are no longer married in the eyes of the law??? Especially considering the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution??? I mean idaho has every right to control which marriage licenses it wants to issue, but what right does idaho have to desolve a marriage that was issued in the union??? DOMA allows them to do this.. and it's unconstitutional...
Do straight people have to worry about the binding of their marriage if their job relocates them to a blue or red state???
Why is this acceptable for gay married couples???
And you wonder why the gays are outraged....

Last edited by boiseguy; 07-08-2009 at 04:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 04:08 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,850 posts, read 20,172,172 times
Reputation: 6482
Quote:
Originally Posted by sray017 View Post
The legally married same-sex couples in her state are being "harmed" because they cannot receive the federal benefits that straight married couples in that same state receive.
No they are not, because there are no "federal benefits" for married couples, nor does DOMA apply to the federal government, only the states.

As I said, if a same-sex couple that legally marries in Massachusetts does not have their marriage recognized as legal in any other state, then that same-sex couple would have standing with the courts and be able to challenge DOMA. The Massachusetts Attorney General, or any of Massachusetts citizens in Massachusetts are not being harmed by DOMA since it does not apply to them, so they would have no standing with the courts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 04:15 PM
 
Location: Boise
4,425 posts, read 5,264,051 times
Reputation: 1695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
No they are not, because there are no "federal benefits" for married couples, nor does DOMA apply to the federal government, only the states.

As I said, if a same-sex couple that legally marries in Massachusetts does not have their marriage recognized as legal in any other state, then that same-sex couple would have standing with the courts and be able to challenge DOMA. The Massachusetts Attorney General, or any of Massachusetts citizens in Massachusetts are not being harmed by DOMA since it does not apply to them, so they would have no standing with the courts.
Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138[1] statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. It should be noted that these rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female married couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman and thus bars same-sex couples from receiving any federal recognition of same sex marriage or conveyance of marriage benefits to same sex couples through federal marriage law.



Right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
Social Security pension
veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
survivor benefits for federal employees
survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
$100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
Right to benefits while married:
employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
veteran's disability
Supplemental Security Income
disability payments for federal employees
medicaid
property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3]
Joint and family-related rights:
joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
domestic violence intervention
access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act
Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
Court notice of probate proceedings
Domestic violence protection orders
Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
Funeral and bereavement leave
Joint adoption and foster care
Joint tax filing
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
Legal status with stepchildren
Making spousal medical decisions
Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
Right of survivorship of custodial trust
Right to change surname upon marriage
Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
Right to inheritance of property
Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 04:15 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,850 posts, read 20,172,172 times
Reputation: 6482
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiseguy View Post
Same question could be applied to the DOMA laws.. because a gay couple gets married in mass where they lived, and now move to Idaho, where gay marriage is not allowed or recognized, what gives idaho the standing in telling THAT couple they are no longer married in the eyes of the law??? Especially considering the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution??? I mean idaho has every right to control which marriage licenses it wants to issue, but what right does idaho have to desolve a marriage that was issued in the union??? DOMA allows them to do this.. and it's unconstitutional...
If a same-sex couple where to marry in Massachusetts and then move to Idaho were same-sex marriage is not allowed, Idaho must still recognize the same-sex marriage as legal, otherwise that same-sex couple would have standing to challenge the constitutionality of DOMA. However, none of that gives the Massachusetts Attorney General standing in the courts because DOMA does not apply to Massachusetts. Nobody in Massachusetts is being "harmed" by DOMA, therefore she has no grounds to challenge the constitutionality of the law.

I am not defending DOMA. I know it is unconstitutional, and I want to see it tossed like any other strict constitutionalist would, but facts are facts. Before any law can be challenged as unconstitutional, the challenger must have been "harmed" by the law in order to have standing with the courts.

Remember Michael Newdow challenge of the "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? His case was tossed out without being heard because he had no standing with the courts. This is the exact same issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 04:28 PM
 
Location: Boise
4,425 posts, read 5,264,051 times
Reputation: 1695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
If a same-sex couple where to marry in Massachusetts and then move to Idaho were same-sex marriage is not allowed, Idaho must still recognize the same-sex marriage as legal, otherwise that same-sex couple would have standing to challenge the constitutionality of DOMA. However, none of that gives the Massachusetts Attorney General standing in the courts because DOMA does not apply to Massachusetts. Nobody in Massachusetts is being "harmed" by DOMA, therefore she has no grounds to challenge the constitutionality of the law.

I am not defending DOMA. I know it is unconstitutional, and I want to see it tossed like any other strict constitutionalist would, but facts are facts. Before any law can be challenged as unconstitutional, the challenger must have been "harmed" by the law in order to have standing with the courts.

Remember Michael Newdow challenge of the "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? His case was tossed out without being heard because he had no standing with the courts. This is the exact same issue.
see post above for federal benefits denied to gay couples in mass...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 04:29 PM
 
Location: 95468
1,383 posts, read 2,113,753 times
Reputation: 938
In the last few weeks 2 gay divorce stories have been snuffed.
If this thing spreads the million dollar cat fights will be soooo wicked.
Prediction: Murder by poison. Massive green card fraud. Gay divorce court. Loss of intrest.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top