[excon]

Hello:

Who knew that the Constitution prevents the government from passing laws that discriminate against ONE group of people?? I DID. What blows me away, is that YOU didn't. Were you sleeping during 8th grade civics? Or did you let your preacher overrule your basic American spirit?

Yesterday, a federal judge said that same thing.

excon

[spitvenom]

In 8th grade I was being brain washed I mean "taught' By a nun so...

[tomder55]

Judge Joseph L. Tauro decided that DOMA was unconstitutional because it "plainly intrues on a core area of state sovereignty - the ability to define the marital status of its citizens.".....“The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state.”


Imagine that ,a judge from Mass. Embracing states rights. I wonder if that means the Dems will apply the same standards in Arizona where they are using the 'supremacy clause ' as a justification for suing the state.

So the 'supremacy clause' prevents States from enforcing Federal Immigration laws but States rights apply when the discussion turns to sanctuary cities ,violating Federal drug standards ,and whether a state can decide on the issues of marriage.

I'll say it again. It is not a state's rights issue because of the 'full faith and credit clause'(which is the clause that gives the Feds justification for passing DOMA) . Allowing gay marriage in one state makes it a requirement for all States to recognize it.

It will be an interesting case in SCOTUS if indeed the issue is A "civil rights" issue . But the quotes above doesn't indicate that he decided it on 'civil rights ' issues.

If DOMA is unconstitutional then perhaps an amendment is needed .
In 1890 the courts decided that polygamy was not a protected right under the equal protection clause.(Reynolds v US) . Does that mean Reynolds was ALSO wrongly decided ? Perhaps the State of Utah should be allowed to permit polygamy.. and Federal laws pertaining to spousal rights extended to all the wives??

[excon]

Judge Joseph L. Tauro decided that DOMA was unconstitutional because it [I] "plainly intrues on a core area of state sovereignty - the ability to define the marital status of its citizens.".....

It will be an interesting case in SCOTUS if indeed the issue is A "civil rights" issue . But the quotes above doesn't indicate that he decided it on 'civil rights ' issues.

Hello again, tom:

In a ruling in a separate case filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley, Tauro ruled that the act violated the equal protection cluse of the Constitution. He said, "Congress undertook this classification for one purpose that lies entirely OUTSIDE of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification the Constitution CLEARLY will NOT permit"

excon

[tomder55]

So was Reynolds unproperly decided ?

[speechlesstx]

...but States rights apply when the discussion turns to sanctuary cities ,violating Federal drug standards ,and whether a state can decide on the issues of marriage.

Don't forget gun control.

[excon]

So was Reynolds unproperly decided ?

Hello again, tom:

No. The equal protection clause protects citizens from the government denying rights to THEM, that it grants to others. But, no other classification of people has the right to marry more than one person, so THIS particular group WASN'T denied anything that other groups already have.

Now, I don't know if Reynolds was decided on those grounds, but those are the grounds that seem appropriate to me.

excon

[tomder55]

Reynolds was ruled wrong on not only equal protection ,but also under free exercise reasons if this ruling by judge Tauro stands .

Not only that but Tauro's rulings are contradictory . In one ruling he says it's up to the states to decide what is marriage The other ruling he says it isn't ,that it's an equal protection issue.

Well what is it ?

If the Federal Government can't define what marriage is for the purposes of benefits it will have to dismantle the whole nanny state ,the tax code, and start over. The Federal Government has been making all types of decisions regarding families since at least Roosevelt and probably since the Reconstruction era . If you apply his state's rights argument to the equation then one has to wonder what was the Federal justification for any family supporting program .

[Catsmine]

Well what is it ?

If the Federal Government can't define what marriage is for the purposes of benefits it will have to dismantle the whole nanny state ,the tax code, and start over.

And the down side to that is..

[tomder55]

Nothing . I was just illustrating the house of cards the Judge creates with his contradictory decision .

[Catsmine]

Well what is it ?

I'm on the Equal Protection side in this instance, with a dash of ERA thrown in. If you cannot deny someone a job based on gender, then you should not deny someone retirement benefits from their spouse.

The entire debate never really answered my basic question, however, is marriage a sacrament or a contract?

[excon]

The entire debate never really answered my basic question, however, is marriage a sacrament or a contract?

Hello again, Cats:

That's easy. The church thinks it's a sacrament, and the government thinks it's a contract.

excon

[Catsmine]

Hello again, Cats:

That's easy. The church thinks it's a sacrament, and the government thinks it's a contract.

excon

Your opinion? I can't see both.

[tomder55]

Cats we are in agreement . But that is easily remedied by recognition of civil union benefits for all recognized couples regardless of their marital status . That alone is where any government's interest lie.All the other state interests in promoting marriage is historical but not very relevant today.

The reason it is culturally explosive issue is in the redefinition of the word;because marriage does entail a religious aspect.

Detractors of my position say you can't have 'separate but equal ' which is nonsense. If the state understood marriage as between a man and woman and all matters of recognition regarding legal code ,tax code ,and nannystate distributions as civil unions then in no way is it discriminatory.

[excon]

Hello again, Cats:

I'd be happy if one institution or the other took it over.

excon

[Catsmine]

Hello again, Cats:

I'd be happy if one institution or the other took it over.

excon

I'd prefer to see marriages left to the churches and civil partnerships, including spousal privileges in hospitals and courtrooms, named something else. Churches coined the term first, after all.

[Fr_Chuck]

Actually it prevents people from discriminating against those classes of people listed. Also the Constitution is only to give the Federal Government the rights not already given to the states.

Marriage is not a federal right or law. There are no Federal marriage laws, no federal marriage license.
Each state has its own laws on marriage, with different ages, different requrements.

[Catsmine]

There are no Federal marriage laws, no federal marriage license.

There are, however, Federal regulations pertaining to marital status, such as Social Security eligibility or Income Tax filing status or whether you can be compelled to testify in Federal Courts.

Thus my feelings on relegating the Sacrament to the churches and calling life partnerships something else.

That or give me a tax break for being Baptized.

[excon]

That or give me a tax break for being Baptized.

Hello again, Cats:

How about if we give your church a tax break?? Oh, that's right. We already DO.

excon

[tomder55]

Hello again, Cats:

How about if we give your church a tax break???? Oh, that's right. We already DO.

excon

I think things like special tax status given to religious organizations are actually 1st Amendment violations... and more importantly; a religious organization accepting them is compromising it's principles and surrendering quite a bit of it's independence and "freedom" from the State .

That is the lesson of the recent SCOTUS CLS case against UC Hastings .