4 Signs that DOMA is doomed

[WorldWatcher]

In a state that does not allow common law marriage, you cannot enter into a common law marriage.

Correct. But if you enter into a Common Law Marriage in a State that does allow a Common Law Marriage - that Civil Marriage (and yes Common Law Marriages are a valid Civil Marriage) is recognized by both the federal government and other states. If you are legally married in Georgia under it's Common Law and move to Virginia (which doesn't allow for the assumption of Common Law Marriages) you are still legally married in Virginia and still legally married for federal purposes.

" 3. Does Virginia have "Common Law Marriages?"

No. A common law marriage is one by agreement of two people who consider themselves married without any formal ceremony or license and hold themselves out as married. Such arrangements are not marriages in Virginia, but they will be recognized here if they were valid in the state where they took place and if they were between people who would have been eligible to marry under Virginia law."​

Virginia State Bar -


>>>>

But you cannot enter into a common law marriage in Virginia.

Again, that is correct, but that's not what I said. The statement was along the lines that Common Law Marriages are not valid in other states if that state does not allow for the assumption of Common Law Marriages under it's own laws.

That is incorrect. State recognize as valid Common Law Marriages from other states even if they don't allow it themselves.

So if a same sex couple could get married in a state that recognizes such marriages but not married in a state that doesn't does that work for you?

No. As it targets same-sex couples specifically because there is no compelling government interest in treating them differently.

Now under Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution it provides that Congress can define the effect thereof of public acts between the States. If Congress passed a law that allowed States to no recognize ANY Civil Marriage (different-sex or same-sex) that did not conform to it's own Civil Marriage laws but that acceptance or rejection of such marriages was all other nothing.

Whether or not gays are married, should not in any way affect the right of individuals who choose to conduct their lives according to the way they see fit. This includes the individual right to refuse services or goods to same sex couples.

I agree, but the issue isn't Civil Marriage laws in that case because Civil Marriage laws define the relationship between the couple and the government only. The problem is Public Accommodation laws where government mandates how private business entities conduct their business. I've supported the repeal of Public Accommodation laws being applied to private business for a number of years. They should only apply to how government entities conduct business.



>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

I actually hope DOMA gets overturned, but for other reasons. Marriage is a contract managed at the state level, the feds should have nothing to do with it, just as the courts should have nothing to do with it, at any level. It is something for the state legislatures to determine as if proper for thier power to legislate government interactions with its citizens.

Its not that easy. You can't move among states and be married or not married

ALL states will have to honor the marital status issued by other states. You can't say.....We accept heterosexual marriages from NY but not gay marriages

Sooner or later the courts will have to weigh in and every state will have to accept gay marriage whether they issued it or not

Different states can have different concealed carry rules, and people choose to go or not to go to a given state because of those rules. With marriage, why would one want to move into a state that doesnt want to support gay marriage if you are in one?

For travel purposes, as long as the state recognizes basics like health coverage, and visitiation rights in hospitals, why would they need to give full marriage recognition to visitors?

The military now openly accepts gays. Those gays are allowed to marry in their home state. What happens when a gay soldier is stationed in Ft Hood Texas and there is a medical emergency with their spouse or children and the state of Texas will not accept the marriage? What about other marital rights when soldiers go off post?

 

[martybegan]

Correct. But if you enter into a Common Law Marriage in a State that does allow a Common Law Marriage - that Civil Marriage (and yes Common Law Marriages are a valid Civil Marriage) is recognized by both the federal government and other states. If you are legally married in Georgia under it's Common Law and move to Virginia (which doesn't allow for the assumption of Common Law Marriages) you are still legally married in Virginia and still legally married for federal purposes.

" 3. Does Virginia have "Common Law Marriages?"

No. A common law marriage is one by agreement of two people who consider themselves married without any formal ceremony or license and hold themselves out as married. Such arrangements are not marriages in Virginia, but they will be recognized here if they were valid in the state where they took place and if they were between people who would have been eligible to marry under Virginia law."​

Virginia State Bar -


>>>>

But you cannot enter into a common law marriage in Virginia.

Again, that is correct, but that's not what I said. The statement was along the lines that Common Law Marriages are not valid in other states if that state does not allow for the assumption of Common Law Marriages under it's own laws.

That is incorrect. State recognize as valid Common Law Marriages from other states even if they don't allow it themselves.

So if a same sex couple could get married in a state that recognizes such marriages but not married in a state that doesn't does that work for you?

No. As it targets same-sex couples specifically because there is no compelling government interest in treating them differently.

Now under Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution it provides that Congress can define the effect thereof of public acts between the States. If Congress passed a law that allowed States to no recognize ANY Civil Marriage (different-sex or same-sex) that did not conform to it's own Civil Marriage laws but that acceptance or rejection of such marriages was all other nothing.

Whether or not gays are married, should not in any way affect the right of individuals who choose to conduct their lives according to the way they see fit. This includes the individual right to refuse services or goods to same sex couples.

I agree, but the issue isn't Civil Marriage laws in that case because Civil Marriage laws define the relationship between the couple and the government only. The problem is Public Accommodation laws where government mandates how private business entities conduct their business. I've supported the repeal of Public Accommodation laws being applied to private business for a number of years. They should only apply to how government entities conduct business.



>>>>

I agree with you on that, the problem is that is a very difficult proposition. Plus I would think you would have to include some buinesses in the laws, such as hotels, gas stations, supermarkets, and any private mass transit or road transport.

That being said the inclusions should be well defined. If a photographer doesnt want to work a gay, white, straight, wiccan or black wedding he shouldnt be forced to on pain of losing his livelyhood via government or judical action.

Now if people want to boycott his/her ass, then have at it.

 

[martybegan]

Its not that easy. You can't move among states and be married or not married

ALL states will have to honor the marital status issued by other states. You can't say.....We accept heterosexual marriages from NY but not gay marriages

Sooner or later the courts will have to weigh in and every state will have to accept gay marriage whether they issued it or not

Different states can have different concealed carry rules, and people choose to go or not to go to a given state because of those rules. With marriage, why would one want to move into a state that doesnt want to support gay marriage if you are in one?

For travel purposes, as long as the state recognizes basics like health coverage, and visitiation rights in hospitals, why would they need to give full marriage recognition to visitors?

The military now openly accepts gays. Those gays are allowed to marry in their home state. What happens when a gay soldier is stationed in Ft Hood Texas and there is a medical emergency with their spouse or children and the state of Texas will not accept the marriage? What about other marital rights when soldiers go off post?

Life is tough sometimes? Just because a problem is sticky doesnt mean we just make crap up in the consitution. What you have to do is convince enough people in the state your position is right, and get the law changed via the legislature, or make a federal amendment forcing the states to do it. Using the courts is not what was intended when the framers set it up.

 

[Katzndogz]

The reason why there won't be a Constitutional amendment to secure the right to same sex marriage is that it would never be ratified by 2/3 of the states. Liberals couldn't even get the Equal Rights Amendment through.

 

[Gadawg73]

If only there was such a thing as Gay marriage.

No state laws have been written based on sexual orientation. The proper term is "Same-sex Civil Marriage" as no State in the union has a test or even asks a question about sexual orientation. So ya, two heterosexuals of the same-sex could get Civilly Married.

And yes, there are a number of States where Same-sex Civil Marriage exists.



>>>>

Civil marriage isn't quite what gays want. What they want is the same as they want in the UK, a law mandating that all religious institutions must perform marriage rites. The legal trappings of marriage isn't what they want. They want to debase the religion of others.

No religious institution is required to marry straight folks in America.

 

[Katzndogz]

No state laws have been written based on sexual orientation. The proper term is "Same-sex Civil Marriage" as no State in the union has a test or even asks a question about sexual orientation. So ya, two heterosexuals of the same-sex could get Civilly Married.

And yes, there are a number of States where Same-sex Civil Marriage exists.



>>>>

Civil marriage isn't quite what gays want. What they want is the same as they want in the UK, a law mandating that all religious institutions must perform marriage rites. The legal trappings of marriage isn't what they want. They want to debase the religion of others.

No religious institution is required to marry straight folks in America.

Which is exactly as it should be.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The reason why there won't be a Constitutional amendment to secure the right to same sex marriage is that it would never be ratified by 2/3 of the states. Liberals couldn't even get the Equal Rights Amendment through.

And on the other side of the coin there will never be a Constitutional amendment to barring the right to Same-sex Civil Marriage is that it would never be ratified by 2/3 of the states.

Hell, social authoritarians have been trying for years, they can't even get it through Congress let alone to the States.


>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

The reason why there won't be a Constitutional amendment to secure the right to same sex marriage is that it would never be ratified by 2/3 of the states. Liberals couldn't even get the Equal Rights Amendment through.

Take a course in constitutional law and get back to us.
There doesn't have to be a Constitutional amendment to secure the right of same sex marriage.

 

[martybegan]

The reason why there won't be a Constitutional amendment to secure the right to same sex marriage is that it would never be ratified by 2/3 of the states. Liberals couldn't even get the Equal Rights Amendment through.

And on the other side of the coin there will never be a Constitutional amendment to barring the right to Same-sex Civil Marriage is that it would never be ratified by 2/3 of the states.

Hell, social authoritarians have been trying for years, they can't even get it through Congress let alone to the States.


>>>>

The key thing here is that at any given time, it should take 2/3 of both houses, and 3/4 of the states to either create governmental protection for a right, or eliminate government protection of that right. It should be difficult EITHER way at the federal level, and not as simple as convicing 5 of 9 unelected lawyers of varying political leanings that your proposed right giving or taking away is a good idea.

To get equal civil rights in this country we needed a civil war, 90 years of jim crow, and a massive civil unrest to get to where we are now. Change that monumental needs actions that monumental, not some $400 lawyer in a suit arguing for you.

 

[Gadawg73]

Civil marriage isn't quite what gays want. What they want is the same as they want in the UK, a law mandating that all religious institutions must perform marriage rites. The legal trappings of marriage isn't what they want. They want to debase the religion of others.

No religious institution is required to marry straight folks in America.

Which is exactly as it should be.

Which is exactly the way it will be with no changes when gays are allowed to marry.
Do you realize how stupid your claim is?


"We want to get married in your church. You do not want us to, are against it, believe us to be immoral 2nd class citizens but we want to force government to do it"
With demonstrations from the Westboro Baptist Church, you and your gang, all other anti gay marriage at the front of the church to throw tomatoes at them while their friends attempt to throw rice.
You do not even believe the claims you make. You are just throwing bombs away to cover your bigotry.
NO gay or lesbian would want to have a scenario of forced marriages. Anyone that makes that claim does so with no evidence and only out of desperation.

 

[martybegan]

No religious institution is required to marry straight folks in America.

Which is exactly as it should be.

Which is exactly the way it will be with no changes when gays are allowed to marry.
Do you realize how stupid your claim is?


"We want to get married in your church. You do not want us to, are against it, believe us to be immoral 2nd class citizens but we want to force government to do it"
With demonstrations from the Westboro Baptist Church, you and your gang, all other anti gay marriage at the front of the church to throw tomatoes at them while their friends attempt to throw rice.
You do not even believe the claims you make. You are just throwing bombs away to cover your bigotry.
NO gay or lesbian would want to have a scenario of forced marriages. Anyone that makes that claim does so with no evidence and only out of desperation.

never deal in absolutes. Some asshole will sue a given church/synagouge/temple sooner or later if same sex marriage is determined to be a right.

You wouldnt think people would sue because the 10 commandments on a courthouse face, or a cross on a hill offends them, but they do it anyway.

 

[Katzndogz]

No religious institution is required to marry straight folks in America.

Which is exactly as it should be.

Which is exactly the way it will be with no changes when gays are allowed to marry.
Do you realize how stupid your claim is?


"We want to get married in your church. You do not want us to, are against it, believe us to be immoral 2nd class citizens but we want to force government to do it"
With demonstrations from the Westboro Baptist Church, you and your gang, all other anti gay marriage at the front of the church to throw tomatoes at them while their friends attempt to throw rice.
You do not even believe the claims you make. You are just throwing bombs away to cover your bigotry.
NO gay or lesbian would want to have a scenario of forced marriages. Anyone that makes that claim does so with no evidence and only out of desperation.

That isn't the way it is working in the UK.
Gay marriage plans 'not enough' | UK | News | Daily Express

But in a survey, six out of 10 gay people said the Government's plans would not create "equal marriage", and that equality would only be achieved when churches, synagogues and mosques are required to carry out same-sex weddings.

The poll found that half of all LGBT people expect the courts to remove the remaining protections on places of worship.

Are gays in the US somehow different than gays in the UK?

I would love to see the reaction if mosques are required to perform same sex marriage ceremonies. The Christian churches and Jewish synagogues would complain. The mosques will do much more than that.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The reason why there won't be a Constitutional amendment to secure the right to same sex marriage is that it would never be ratified by 2/3 of the states. Liberals couldn't even get the Equal Rights Amendment through.

And on the other side of the coin there will never be a Constitutional amendment to barring the right to Same-sex Civil Marriage is that it would never be ratified by 2/3 of the states.

Hell, social authoritarians have been trying for years, they can't even get it through Congress let alone to the States.


>>>>

The key thing here is that at any given time, it should take 2/3 of both houses, and 3/4 of the states to either create governmental protection for a right, or eliminate government protection of that right. It should be difficult EITHER way at the federal level, and not as simple as convicing 5 of 9 unelected lawyers of varying political leanings that your proposed right giving or taking away is a good idea.

To get equal civil rights in this country we needed a civil war, 90 years of jim crow, and a massive civil unrest to get to where we are now. Change that monumental needs actions that monumental, not some $400 lawyer in a suit arguing for you.

I disagree, rights were never intended to be listed and granted by the Constitution, simply look to the 9th Amendment to verify. The framers did not a country in which the only rights that you possed where those listed in a government document. And everyone already has the right to equal treatment under the law which is embodied in the 14th Amendment. It just seems that some people get upset with the idea that same-sex couple deserve the right to that equal treatment (equal, not separate but equal).

If you disagree with the idea of a Supreme Court, then get an amendment passed to strike Article III from the Constitution. I wouldn't hold my breath on that happening though.


>>>>

 

[Gadawg73]

Which is exactly as it should be.

Which is exactly the way it will be with no changes when gays are allowed to marry.
Do you realize how stupid your claim is?


"We want to get married in your church. You do not want us to, are against it, believe us to be immoral 2nd class citizens but we want to force government to do it"
With demonstrations from the Westboro Baptist Church, you and your gang, all other anti gay marriage at the front of the church to throw tomatoes at them while their friends attempt to throw rice.
You do not even believe the claims you make. You are just throwing bombs away to cover your bigotry.
NO gay or lesbian would want to have a scenario of forced marriages. Anyone that makes that claim does so with no evidence and only out of desperation.

never deal in absolutes. Some asshole will sue a given church/synagouge/temple sooner or later if same sex marriage is determined to be a right.

You wouldnt think people would sue because the 10 commandments on a courthouse face, or a cross on a hill offends them, but they do it anyway.

Where is there a law suit anywhere that made it past summary judgment forcing any religious institution to marry a straight couple?
Same thing.

 

[Gadawg73]

Which is exactly as it should be.

Which is exactly the way it will be with no changes when gays are allowed to marry.
Do you realize how stupid your claim is?


"We want to get married in your church. You do not want us to, are against it, believe us to be immoral 2nd class citizens but we want to force government to do it"
With demonstrations from the Westboro Baptist Church, you and your gang, all other anti gay marriage at the front of the church to throw tomatoes at them while their friends attempt to throw rice.
You do not even believe the claims you make. You are just throwing bombs away to cover your bigotry.
NO gay or lesbian would want to have a scenario of forced marriages. Anyone that makes that claim does so with no evidence and only out of desperation.

That isn't the way it is working in the UK.
Gay marriage plans 'not enough' | UK | News | Daily Express

But in a survey, six out of 10 gay people said the Government's plans would not create "equal marriage", and that equality would only be achieved when churches, synagogues and mosques are required to carry out same-sex weddings.

The poll found that half of all LGBT people expect the courts to remove the remaining protections on places of worship.

Are gays in the US somehow different than gays in the UK?

I would love to see the reaction if mosques are required to perform same sex marriage ceremonies. The Christian churches and Jewish synagogues would complain. The mosques will do much more than that.

Would a Christian church conduct a Muslim wedding?
Would a mosque conduct a Christian wedding?

Keep it up. You are a RIOT!!

 

[Katzndogz]

Which is exactly the way it will be with no changes when gays are allowed to marry.
Do you realize how stupid your claim is?


"We want to get married in your church. You do not want us to, are against it, believe us to be immoral 2nd class citizens but we want to force government to do it"
With demonstrations from the Westboro Baptist Church, you and your gang, all other anti gay marriage at the front of the church to throw tomatoes at them while their friends attempt to throw rice.
You do not even believe the claims you make. You are just throwing bombs away to cover your bigotry.
NO gay or lesbian would want to have a scenario of forced marriages. Anyone that makes that claim does so with no evidence and only out of desperation.

never deal in absolutes. Some asshole will sue a given church/synagouge/temple sooner or later if same sex marriage is determined to be a right.

You wouldnt think people would sue because the 10 commandments on a courthouse face, or a cross on a hill offends them, but they do it anyway.

Where is there a law suit anywhere that made it past summary judgment forcing any religious institution to marry a straight couple?
Same thing.

Up until there was a lawsuit forcing the military to admit open homosexuals, where was the lawsuit that made it past summary judgment forcing the military to admit gays?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Which is exactly as it should be.

Which is exactly the way it will be with no changes when gays are allowed to marry.
Do you realize how stupid your claim is?


"We want to get married in your church. You do not want us to, are against it, believe us to be immoral 2nd class citizens but we want to force government to do it"
With demonstrations from the Westboro Baptist Church, you and your gang, all other anti gay marriage at the front of the church to throw tomatoes at them while their friends attempt to throw rice.
You do not even believe the claims you make. You are just throwing bombs away to cover your bigotry.
NO gay or lesbian would want to have a scenario of forced marriages. Anyone that makes that claim does so with no evidence and only out of desperation.

never deal in absolutes. Some asshole will sue a given church/synagouge/temple sooner or later if same sex marriage is determined to be a right.

Could you provide any evidence of a successful law suit for any of the following:

1. A suit forcing a "church/synagouge/temple" to perform interracial Religious Marriages,

2. A suit forcing a "church/synagouge/temple" to perform interfaith Religious Marriages,

3. A suit forcing a "church/synagouge/temple" to perform Religious Marriages were one (or both) party(ies) were divorced against the religous tenents of that institution, or

4. Since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been legal in at least one State since 2004, a suit forcing a "church/synagouge/temple" to perform Same-sex Religious Marriages.​

If none have been successful for interracial, interfaith, or divorced Religious Marriages, the idea that it would work same-sex Religious Marriages is a boogeyman.

You wouldnt think people would sue because the 10 commandments on a courthouse face, or a cross on a hill offends them, but they do it anyway.

I would, the government has no business respecting Christianity over other religious views.


>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

Which is exactly the way it will be with no changes when gays are allowed to marry.
Do you realize how stupid your claim is?


"We want to get married in your church. You do not want us to, are against it, believe us to be immoral 2nd class citizens but we want to force government to do it"
With demonstrations from the Westboro Baptist Church, you and your gang, all other anti gay marriage at the front of the church to throw tomatoes at them while their friends attempt to throw rice.
You do not even believe the claims you make. You are just throwing bombs away to cover your bigotry.
NO gay or lesbian would want to have a scenario of forced marriages. Anyone that makes that claim does so with no evidence and only out of desperation.

That isn't the way it is working in the UK.
Gay marriage plans 'not enough' | UK | News | Daily Express

But in a survey, six out of 10 gay people said the Government's plans would not create "equal marriage", and that equality would only be achieved when churches, synagogues and mosques are required to carry out same-sex weddings.

The poll found that half of all LGBT people expect the courts to remove the remaining protections on places of worship.

Are gays in the US somehow different than gays in the UK?

I would love to see the reaction if mosques are required to perform same sex marriage ceremonies. The Christian churches and Jewish synagogues would complain. The mosques will do much more than that.

Would a Christian church conduct a Muslim wedding?
Would a mosque conduct a Christian wedding?

Keep it up. You are a RIOT!!

Is there a demand from gay activists to force religious institutions to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies. Yes. It has nothing to do with forcing one religion to marry adherents to another religion. Don't change the parameters of the demand.

 

[martybegan]

And on the other side of the coin there will never be a Constitutional amendment to barring the right to Same-sex Civil Marriage is that it would never be ratified by 2/3 of the states.

Hell, social authoritarians have been trying for years, they can't even get it through Congress let alone to the States.


>>>>

The key thing here is that at any given time, it should take 2/3 of both houses, and 3/4 of the states to either create governmental protection for a right, or eliminate government protection of that right. It should be difficult EITHER way at the federal level, and not as simple as convicing 5 of 9 unelected lawyers of varying political leanings that your proposed right giving or taking away is a good idea.

To get equal civil rights in this country we needed a civil war, 90 years of jim crow, and a massive civil unrest to get to where we are now. Change that monumental needs actions that monumental, not some $400 lawyer in a suit arguing for you.

I disagree, rights were never intended to be listed and granted by the Constitution, simply look to the 9th Amendment to verify. The framers did not a country in which the only rights that you possed where those listed in a government document. And everyone already has the right to equal treatment under the law which is embodied in the 14th Amendment. It just seems that some people get upset with the idea that same-sex couple deserve the right to that equal treatment (equal, not separate but equal).

If you disagree with the idea of a Supreme Court, then get an amendment passed to strike Article III from the Constitution. I wouldn't hold my breath on that happening though.


>>>>

Rights themselves are not from the government. However to be protected from said government, such a right needs to be in the consitution. That protects them from legislative and judicial action to prevent the free excercise of said right. Anything not so listed, while it could be an intrinsic right, is properly left to the mercies of various legislatures, perferring the state legislatures over the federal one unless specifically mandated by the consitution.

What the consitution does is protect an individual right from the right of the majority to have control over said right, within well defined and stringent limits.

In the balance between the right of a state via its legislature to regulate its marriage contract vs. the individual right to have whatever marriage contract they want, I do not see the consitution explicitly protecting the individual's right to it. Thus it goes to the states. This is the same reason I see DOMA as unconsitutional, as there is no mention of federal control over a state given contract. I DO see loving being valid, as this does meet equal protection, but only as you were denying a man and a woman the same thing another man and women were entiltled to.