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, 05:59 PM
 
Location: Denver
965 posts, read 862,764 times
Reputation: 367

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
When was the last time the federal government married anyone? Or name just one public act the federal government undertakes? You can't, because they don't and never did. Marriage is a public act that only State governments, US territorial governments, and other US possessions can apply, not the federal government.

The MA AG has no standing and her case will be tossed before it is ever heard.
Just because the federal government doesn't marry citizens doesn't mean it's not involved with the legal issues surrounding marriage.

The Federal Government provides a laundry-list of benefits to citizens who are married in any state in the union. With DOMA, the federal government singled out a subset of married couples for discrimination. The feds provide these federal marriage benefits to legally married heterosexual couples while denying them to legally married homosexual couples.

That discrimination is the basis of this lawsuit. Since it's the legally married gay couples of Massachusetts who are being discriminated against, she clearly has standing as the state's attorney general. And just to reiterate, this lawsuit has nothing to do with Section 2 of DOMA or the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-08-2009, 06:06 PM
 
Location: Palm Springs, CA
26,529 posts, read 24,949,987 times
Reputation: 7739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
When was the last time the federal government married anyone? Or name just one public act the federal government undertakes? You can't, because they don't and never did. Marriage is a public act that only State governments, US territorial governments, and other US possessions can apply, not the federal government.

The MA AG has no standing and her case will be tossed before it is ever heard.
You clearly don't understand the full meaning of the Defense Of Marriage Act, or you're ignoring the facts that have been presented to you regarding federal benefits and federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 06:24 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,850 posts, read 20,172,172 times
Reputation: 6482
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramanboy33 View Post
Just because the federal government doesn't marry citizens doesn't mean it's not involved with the legal issues surrounding marriage.

The Federal Government provides a laundry-list of benefits to citizens who are married in any state in the union. With DOMA, the federal government singled out a subset of married couples for discrimination. The feds provide these federal marriage benefits to legally married heterosexual couples while denying them to legally married homosexual couples.

That discrimination is the basis of this lawsuit. Since it's the legally married gay couples of Massachusetts who are being discriminated against, she clearly has standing as the state's attorney general. And just to reiterate, this lawsuit has nothing to do with Section 2 of DOMA or the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US constitution.
You have a valid point under the 14th Amendment. I had not taken that into consideration. DOMA is worded exactly the opposite of the Full Faith & Credit Clause, which is what I assumed it would be challenged under.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 06:27 PM
 
Location: Denver
965 posts, read 862,764 times
Reputation: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
You clearly don't understand the full meaning of the Defense Of Marriage Act, or you're ignoring the facts that have been presented to you regarding federal benefits and federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
It's hard to argue with someone who won't acknowledge basic facts.

Fact 1: There are federal benefits given to married couples in the US
Fact 2: The federal government, codified in DOMA, discriminates against legally married homosexual couples by withholding these benefits

The questions here are:

Is this discrimination right, or is it wrong?
Is this particular discrimination legal (constitutional)?
Should this particular discrimination be legal?
Should the government be involved in marriage at all?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 06:32 PM
 
Location: Denver
965 posts, read 862,764 times
Reputation: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
You have a valid point under the 14th Amendment. I had not taken that into consideration. DOMA is worded exactly the opposite of the Full Faith & Credit Clause, which is what I assumed it would be challenged under.
Sorry - I hadn't read this ^^^ when I posted my last response.

A lot of people don't look at it that way or realize the issues surrounding it. I guess as a gay man I'm more attuned to what I believe is an injustice targeted at people like me.

Personally, I'd like to see the government out of the marriage business altogether - both at the state and federal level. But, if they decide to make it a governmental issue, all marriages should be treated equally under the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 06:50 PM
 
Location: Denver
965 posts, read 862,764 times
Reputation: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
You have a valid point under the 14th Amendment. I had not taken that into consideration. DOMA is worded exactly the opposite of the Full Faith & Credit Clause, which is what I assumed it would be challenged under.
Challenging DOMA based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause (FFCC) would be an interesting case.

Traditionally, US courts have distinguished between laws and judgments when applying the FFCC. The FFCC does not usually apply to laws - if California made smoking illegal, the other 49 states wouldn't have to make it illegal as well. It does usually apply to judgements - if a Colorado judge orders you to pay child support, you still have to pay it even if you move to Florida. If you were indited for smoking cigarettes in California, Oregon would be bound to extradite you even though they don't have a similar law.

The FFCC has also been used to rule that a driver's license in one state is valid in another.

The question then is, under the FFCC, is the act of getting married considered a law, a judgment, or something else? Is a marriage license somehow like a drivers license? Should the courts acknowledge that marriage is somehow "special" and carve an exception to the FFCC?

Like I said, a very interesting case.

Last edited by ramanboy33; 07-08-2009 at 06:58 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 06:59 PM
 
Location: Turn Left at Greenland
17,700 posts, read 35,557,204 times
Reputation: 7951
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
Be careful what you wish for when you "hope" for a SCOTUS ruling. If they close the door on the issue, it's closed. I'm not a gay marriage advocate by any stretch of the imagination, but it would seem that fighting the small fights along the way, and hoping for a good outcome, is better than fighting one big fight only to have the door slammed in your face for good.
I think if anything, they'll punt it back to the states, which is just fine by me!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2009, 01:39 AM
 
Location: Boise
4,425 posts, read 5,264,051 times
Reputation: 1695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
You might want to actually read DOMA. As I said, it does not apply to the federal government, it only applies to "State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe..." that do not already recognize same-sex marriages. If a "State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe..." already recognizes same-sex marriages, then DOMA does not apply.

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress):
perhaps you should actually read it....
If I were to die first.. my partner would not be able to draw upon my social security.. even if we got married and lived in Mass... But if you're straight.. your marriage allows you to do this.. and many other things concerning the federal government... It has nothing to do with whether you can or can't be married or whether it's valid or not.. because states validate the marriages.. what we're talking about is how the federal government goes about recognizing and awarding priviledges upon straight marriages and denies them for gay marriages...and they are able to do this because of DOMA...
Basically DOMA was enacted as a cowardly law to keep the federal government from having to even handle the issue.. keeping the states in the hot seat.. so that national political careers weren't subjected to it's divisiveness...you can say whatever you want.. and I actually do admire President clinton, and I do realize the time and political positioning going on in the 90's.. but I can't help but feel DADT and DOMA were a way to NOT shut the door totally on the issue, but kind of still throwing us gay people under the bus...

Last edited by boiseguy; 07-09-2009 at 01:50 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2009, 04:56 AM
 
Location: Sarasota, Florida
15,400 posts, read 19,522,710 times
Reputation: 11064
Obama should keep his campaign pledges...one being repeal DOMA.......he was elected with the electorate aware of his platform...so what is he afraid of and why does he drag his feet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2009, 08:47 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,850 posts, read 20,172,172 times
Reputation: 6482
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramanboy33 View Post
Challenging DOMA based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause (FFCC) would be an interesting case.

Traditionally, US courts have distinguished between laws and judgments when applying the FFCC. The FFCC does not usually apply to laws - if California made smoking illegal, the other 49 states wouldn't have to make it illegal as well. It does usually apply to judgements - if a Colorado judge orders you to pay child support, you still have to pay it even if you move to Florida. If you were indited for smoking cigarettes in California, Oregon would be bound to extradite you even though they don't have a similar law.

The FFCC has also been used to rule that a driver's license in one state is valid in another.

The question then is, under the FFCC, is the act of getting married considered a law, a judgment, or something else? Is a marriage license somehow like a drivers license? Should the courts acknowledge that marriage is somehow "special" and carve an exception to the FFCC?

Like I said, a very interesting case.
The Full Faith & Credit Clause applies to "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings." Both marriage licenses and driver's licenses are public acts and must be accepted by every other State. A statute law (like DOMA) cannot rescind the constitutional requirement that every State must acknowledge the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of every other State.

It would be no different than if Congress were to enact a law that said States do not need to acknowledge driver's licenses from other States if the holder of the license has blond hair. Like DOMA, that also would violate the Full Faith & Credit Clause.

However, it would appear that DOMA violates the US Constitution in more than one way. The 14th Amendment requires that all laws be applied equally to everyone, and DOMA clearly singles out a specific group of people for special treatment.
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