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.
That's how it should happen. It is the job of the legislative branch to make laws, it is the job of the executive branch to enforce them. And of the JUDICIAL branch to determine if they are constitutional.
You're assuming that constitutionality of a law should not be looked at anybody, but only if it gets to the SC. Poor assumption.
Every elected member has the responsibility to uphold the constitution (as in, not just call for dramatic reading of it in the congress with tears running down the cheeks).
Civil Rights violations aside, I never understood how this act was constitutional since it violates the "Full Faith Clause" in the constitution:
DOMA (in short): Under the law, also known as DOMA, no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state (DOMA, Section 2); the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman (DOMA, Section 3).
"Full Faith Clause" from the constitution: Full Faith Clause is the familiar name used to refer to Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicialproceedings of other states."
I truly wonder what would happen if/WHEN DOMA is repealed and Same Sex Marriage is made national. Really would love to see people's faces .. you know.. on a subject that totally has no impact in their lives ............. AT ALL... lmao!
Nothing will happen - bigots don't own up to losing, they just abandon their positions. Like with the end of segregation and other discriminatory practices, the supporters will start by convincing themselves that it wasn't a big deal in the first place ("whatever!"), then a few years down the line they'll deny ever having supported it.
You're assuming that constitutionality of a law should not be looked at anybody, but only if it gets to the SC. Poor assumption.
Every elected member has the responsibility to uphold the constitution (as in, not just call for dramatic reading of it in the congress with tears running down the cheeks).
We'll have to save this post for the next time a Republican is in office. How would you have liked it if Bush had decided which laws to enforce on a whim?
We'll have to save this post for the next time a Republican is in office. How would you have liked it if Bush had decided which laws to enforce on a whim?
Civil Rights violations aside, I never understood how this act was constitutional since it violates the "Full Faith Clause" in the constitution:
DOMA (in short): Under the law, also known as DOMA, no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state (DOMA, Section 2); the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman (DOMA, Section 3).
"Full Faith Clause" from the constitution: Full Faith Clause is the familiar name used to refer to Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicialproceedings of other states."
And by the same clause, I would like to know how states can infringe upon my right to carry a firearm when I am in their state. I have a concealed carry permit in my state. Why then can I not carry in Chicago, NY or any other place in the union?
Specifics? I am aware of some of the environmental regulations, which are created by the executive branch, were changed. What LAWS did he direct DOJ to ignore?
Civil Rights violations aside, I never understood how this act was constitutional since it violates the "Full Faith Clause" in the constitution:........
How does it violate the Full Faith Clause?
Homosexuals are not kept from marrying under the law. Any unmarried man of majority age may marry any unmarried woman of majority age irrespectible of sexual preference/gender preference.
All same sex-marriage does is undermine age-old societal norms designed to help maintain stability within social structure.
Next there will be no ability to stop marriages of polygamy, polyandry, or adult/child marriages because, under your theory, those would also violate the "Full Faith and Credit clause".
And by the same clause, I would like to know how states can infringe upon my right to carry a firearm when I am in their state. I have a concealed carry permit in my state. Why then can I not carry in Chicago, NY or any other place in the union?
Good question. Only guess would be permit is for the state only (i.e. fishing license) and not meant to be beyond state borders? Marriages normally are not considered to be state specific and only within a states borders. (e.g. different catagory since marriage isn't a permit?)
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.
