4 Signs that DOMA is doomed

[martybegan]

Article IV Section 1, Full Faith and Credit - it allows for Congress to determine the effect of public acts. They did that in the United States Code Section 18 regarding firearms.



First of all your arguing against a Strawman of your own creation as I didn't say it was absolute, just that there needed to be a valid government interest. To date none has been provided that survives a logical examination.




Already examined and upheld by the SCOTUS.



Could be possible. However young age incest is typically and abusive situation in which their is a valid reason to prevent abuse. For older adults, not so much.

My sisters lived together in the North East in the town we grew up in. My oldest sister had serious health problems with kidney failure, heart issues, blindness, etc. and move back in with my middle sister when they were in their 50's who because the primary care giver. Life would have been much easier in terms of dealing with hospitals, tax, financial arrangements, etc if they were extended the same considerations as Civilly Married folks.



Get back to us when animals are legally recognized to sign contracts.



Civil Marriage establishes a legal family relationship with another non-related person.




I'll agree your slippery slope arguments are silly and you are arguing with yourself. I didn't say that equal protection was absolute.



>>>>

For your sisters, power of attorney laws would allow for this easily.

Powers of Attorney do not create all the same rights, responsibilities, and benefits of Civil Marriage.

For example no matter a POA would not change their tax filing, it did nothing for inheritance, and (after my older sister passed) would have done nothing for the tax exemption of a spouse upon the sale of a home.


>>>>

But they would have helped in that situation vis a vis medical situations.

For the rest of this, that is what wills are for.

In fact, what is stopping same sex couples from creating a brand new contract that is exactly the same as marriage, but is called something else? Say "blarriage" for comical example. If given the same rights, but not the same name, would that meet the requirements of equal protection?

Remember seperate but equal was struck down because the systems were inherently unequal. In this case that would not be.

 

[WorldWatcher]

For your sisters, power of attorney laws would allow for this easily.

Powers of Attorney do not create all the same rights, responsibilities, and benefits of Civil Marriage.

For example no matter a POA would not change their tax filing, it did nothing for inheritance, and (after my older sister passed) would have done nothing for the tax exemption of a spouse upon the sale of a home.


>>>>

But they would have helped in that situation vis a vis medical situations.

Didn't say they didn't help, I said they didn't replace.

For the rest of this, that is what wills are for.

A will does not change tax code.

In fact, what is stopping same sex couples from creating a brand new contract that is exactly the same as marriage, but is called something else? Say "blarriage" for comical example. If given the same rights, but not the same name, would that meet the requirements of equal protection?

In Virginia it's a Constitutional Amendment passed in the early part of the 2000's that says that same-sex couples are denied Civil Marriage, Civil Unions, or any other legal or contractual status that attempts to recreate in whole or in part conditions equal to Civil Marriage.

Remember separate but equal was struck down because the systems were inherently unequal. In this case that would not be.

Separate but equal systems which intends to place one group (heterosexual) in a superior class then another group (homosexuals) is inherently unequal.


As a compromise I would support removing Civil Marriage from all Local, State, and Federal laws and replace it will Civil Unions for everyone. That also solves the separate but equal issue.


>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

Gender is a biological condition. Gender identity is not.

 

[Katzndogz]

Powers of Attorney do not create all the same rights, responsibilities, and benefits of Civil Marriage.

For example no matter a POA would not change their tax filing, it did nothing for inheritance, and (after my older sister passed) would have done nothing for the tax exemption of a spouse upon the sale of a home.


>>>>

But they would have helped in that situation vis a vis medical situations.

Didn't say they didn't help, I said they didn't replace.



A will does not change tax code.

In fact, what is stopping same sex couples from creating a brand new contract that is exactly the same as marriage, but is called something else? Say "blarriage" for comical example. If given the same rights, but not the same name, would that meet the requirements of equal protection?

In Virginia it's a Constitutional Amendment passed in the early part of the 2000's that says that same-sex couples are denied Civil Marriage, Civil Unions, or any other legal or contractual status that attempts to recreate in whole or in part conditions equal to Civil Marriage.

Remember separate but equal was struck down because the systems were inherently unequal. In this case that would not be.

Separate but equal systems which intends to place one group (heterosexual) in a superior class then another group (homosexuals) is inherently unequal.


As a compromise I would support removing Civil Marriage from all Local, State, and Federal laws and replace it will Civil Unions for everyone. That also solves the separate but equal issue.


>>>>

That's the way it is now. Is it helping? States that have civil unions, are just legal unions without benefit of a religious ceremony. All those who are very religious still have to comply with all the laws of a civil union. You aren't married until the papers are signed. They can be signed in a church, in a county recorder's office or a judge's chambers. It's the same papers. There is no discernible difference between a marriage and a civil union legally. Where the difference occurs is that one officiating person says "We are present in the sight of God to join this man and this woman in the bonds of holy matrimony." Another officiating person does not. And that is what gays want to change.

To get divorced, it's the same papers. The difference is in a box that informs the court where you got married or unionized if you prefer.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Gender is a biological condition. Gender identity is not.

DOMA is written in terms of gender, a biological condition - not sexual orientation.

DOMA has nothing to do with "gender identity".

Homosexual and someone who has Gender Identity issues are two different thing. A lesbian (correct me if I'm wrong ladies) is perfectly comfortable with being a woman, she however is attracted to other women for a mate. On the other hand Gender Identify would be a woman (biologically) that wants to be a man. Two different things.


>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Here is the Constitutional issue that I see. If one state has declared you to be married, another state cannot nullify that wedding

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.



Marriage is a public act, public record and judicial proceeding. How can one state nulify a wedding performed by another?

1. States "nullify" weddings from other states all the time, they are called divorces.

2. With that said the the premise is that State A isn't "nullifying" the Civil Marriage from State B. They are just not recognizing it in State A, the couple is still Civilly Married in State B. (Which is different then a divorce which does end the Civil Marriage.)

3. The "How" is found in the end of the section you quoted. Congress gets to define what effect of public acts between states.



>>>>

I did not mean nullify as in to disolve but nullify as to not acknowledge. That marriage is a legal act in their own state and should be covered under the Full Faith and Credit clause.

Yes Congress can define the impact of gay marriages between states and that is what I think they and the courts will have to decide.

Point being, I do not believe gay marriage is something that can be decided by the states themselves

 

[WorldWatcher]

But they would have helped in that situation vis a vis medical situations.

Didn't say they didn't help, I said they didn't replace.



A will does not change tax code.



In Virginia it's a Constitutional Amendment passed in the early part of the 2000's that says that same-sex couples are denied Civil Marriage, Civil Unions, or any other legal or contractual status that attempts to recreate in whole or in part conditions equal to Civil Marriage.

Remember separate but equal was struck down because the systems were inherently unequal. In this case that would not be.

Separate but equal systems which intends to place one group (heterosexual) in a superior class then another group (homosexuals) is inherently unequal.


As a compromise I would support removing Civil Marriage from all Local, State, and Federal laws and replace it will Civil Unions for everyone. That also solves the separate but equal issue.


>>>>

That's the way it is now. Is it helping? States that have civil unions, are just legal unions without benefit of a religious ceremony.

Actually many couples in States with Civil Marriage and Civil Unions will opt for a Religious Ceremony - but that is separate from the Civil component.

All those who are very religious still have to comply with all the laws of a civil union. You aren't married until the papers are signed.

Incorrect. All people (homosexual and heterosexual) are free to have a Religious Wedding with no Civil component to it. In the eyes of that religious institution they are married, but that religious marriage is simply not recognized by the law.

They can be signed in a church, in a county recorder's office or a judge's chambers. It's the same papers. There is no discernible difference between a marriage and a civil union legally.

Try getting a Civil Union and filing a joint tax return to Uncle Sam.

Try getting a Civil Union and buying a house with your partner. If that partner dies and you need to sell the house a Civilly Married surviving spouse can take a $500,000 tax exemption on the sale of the house. In a Civil Union you cannot, you only get the single exemption of $250,000.

Try gettgin a Civil Union and enrolling your spouse on your companies health insurance. For a Civilly Married couple there are no tax consequences. For a couple in a Civil Union, you as the employee have to treat the employer portion of any health insurance payments as income that is taxed. That does not happen with Civil Marriage.

Where the difference occurs is that one officiating person says "We are present in the sight of God to join this man and this woman in the bonds of holy matrimony." Another officiating person does not. And that is what gays want to change.

Gays already have that as there are many Churches in the land that will perform Religious Weddings for them.

DOMA is about Civil Marriage not Religious Marriage.



>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

Didn't say they didn't help, I said they didn't replace.



A will does not change tax code.



In Virginia it's a Constitutional Amendment passed in the early part of the 2000's that says that same-sex couples are denied Civil Marriage, Civil Unions, or any other legal or contractual status that attempts to recreate in whole or in part conditions equal to Civil Marriage.



Separate but equal systems which intends to place one group (heterosexual) in a superior class then another group (homosexuals) is inherently unequal.


As a compromise I would support removing Civil Marriage from all Local, State, and Federal laws and replace it will Civil Unions for everyone. That also solves the separate but equal issue.


>>>>

That's the way it is now. Is it helping? States that have civil unions, are just legal unions without benefit of a religious ceremony.

Actually many couples in States with Civil Marriage and Civil Unions will opt for a Religious Ceremony - but that is separate from the Civil component.



Incorrect. All people (homosexual and heterosexual) are free to have a Religious Wedding with no Civil component to it. In the eyes of that religious institution they are married, but that religious marriage is simply not recognized by the law.

They can be signed in a church, in a county recorder's office or a judge's chambers. It's the same papers. There is no discernible difference between a marriage and a civil union legally.

Try getting a Civil Union and filing a joint tax return to Uncle Sam.

Try getting a Civil Union and buying a house with your partner. If that partner dies and you need to sell the house a Civilly Married surviving spouse can take a $500,000 tax exemption on the sale of the house. In a Civil Union you cannot, you only get the single exemption of $250,000.

Try gettgin a Civil Union and enrolling your spouse on your companies health insurance. For a Civilly Married couple there are no tax consequences. For a couple in a Civil Union, you as the employee have to treat the employer portion of any health insurance payments as income that is taxed. That does not happen with Civil Marriage.

Where the difference occurs is that one officiating person says "We are present in the sight of God to join this man and this woman in the bonds of holy matrimony." Another officiating person does not. And that is what gays want to change.

Gays already have that as there are many Churches in the land that will perform Religious Weddings for them.

DOMA is about Civil Marriage not Religious Marriage.



>>>>

Aside from federal benefits, in California all the benefits provided by companies and the state are equally available to both married and unionized. Any insurance or company benefit available to a spouse is available to a civil union partner. When I was a notary, a 50 year old man came in with his 18 year old civil union partner so that I could notarize their papers. As it turned out, the boy was the best friend of the man's son and they were filing a civil union specifically to get the boy on the man's insurance.

What's love got to do with it? Nothing apparently.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's the way it is now. Is it helping? States that have civil unions, are just legal unions without benefit of a religious ceremony.

Actually many couples in States with Civil Marriage and Civil Unions will opt for a Religious Ceremony - but that is separate from the Civil component.



Incorrect. All people (homosexual and heterosexual) are free to have a Religious Wedding with no Civil component to it. In the eyes of that religious institution they are married, but that religious marriage is simply not recognized by the law.




Try getting a Civil Union and filing a joint tax return to Uncle Sam.

Try getting a Civil Union and buying a house with your partner. If that partner dies and you need to sell the house a Civilly Married surviving spouse can take a $500,000 tax exemption on the sale of the house. In a Civil Union you cannot, you only get the single exemption of $250,000.

Try gettgin a Civil Union and enrolling your spouse on your companies health insurance. For a Civilly Married couple there are no tax consequences. For a couple in a Civil Union, you as the employee have to treat the employer portion of any health insurance payments as income that is taxed. That does not happen with Civil Marriage.

Where the difference occurs is that one officiating person says "We are present in the sight of God to join this man and this woman in the bonds of holy matrimony." Another officiating person does not. And that is what gays want to change.

Gays already have that as there are many Churches in the land that will perform Religious Weddings for them.

DOMA is about Civil Marriage not Religious Marriage.



>>>>

Aside from federal benefits, in California all the benefits provided by companies and the state are equally available to both married and unionized. Any insurance or company benefit available to a spouse is available to a civil union partner. When I was a notary, a 50 year old man came in with his 18 year old civil union partner so that I could notarize their papers. As it turned out, the boy was the best friend of the man's son and they were filing a civil union specifically to get the boy on the man's insurance.

No federal benefits not aside. They are why Civil Unions and Civil Marriages are not treated the same.

What's love got to do with it? Nothing apparently.

I've never said "love" had anything to do with it. And to my knowledge no State in the union as a "love test" as a requirement for getting a Civil Marriage license (or a Civil Union license for that matter).



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

For your sisters, power of attorney laws would allow for this easily.

Powers of Attorney do not create all the same rights, responsibilities, and benefits of Civil Marriage.

For example no matter a POA would not change their tax filing, it did nothing for inheritance, and (after my older sister passed) would have done nothing for the tax exemption of a spouse upon the sale of a home.


>>>>

But they would have helped in that situation vis a vis medical situations.

For the rest of this, that is what wills are for.

In fact, what is stopping same sex couples from creating a brand new contract that is exactly the same as marriage, but is called something else? Say "blarriage" for comical example. If given the same rights, but not the same name, would that meet the requirements of equal protection?

Remember seperate but equal was struck down because the systems were inherently unequal. In this case that would not be.

It is unequal...it costs more and is not recognized all places that a simple marriage license is.

 

[bodecea]

That's the way it is now. Is it helping? States that have civil unions, are just legal unions without benefit of a religious ceremony.

Actually many couples in States with Civil Marriage and Civil Unions will opt for a Religious Ceremony - but that is separate from the Civil component.



Incorrect. All people (homosexual and heterosexual) are free to have a Religious Wedding with no Civil component to it. In the eyes of that religious institution they are married, but that religious marriage is simply not recognized by the law.




Try getting a Civil Union and filing a joint tax return to Uncle Sam.

Try getting a Civil Union and buying a house with your partner. If that partner dies and you need to sell the house a Civilly Married surviving spouse can take a $500,000 tax exemption on the sale of the house. In a Civil Union you cannot, you only get the single exemption of $250,000.

Try gettgin a Civil Union and enrolling your spouse on your companies health insurance. For a Civilly Married couple there are no tax consequences. For a couple in a Civil Union, you as the employee have to treat the employer portion of any health insurance payments as income that is taxed. That does not happen with Civil Marriage.

Where the difference occurs is that one officiating person says "We are present in the sight of God to join this man and this woman in the bonds of holy matrimony." Another officiating person does not. And that is what gays want to change.

Gays already have that as there are many Churches in the land that will perform Religious Weddings for them.

DOMA is about Civil Marriage not Religious Marriage.



>>>>

Aside from federal benefits, in California all the benefits provided by companies and the state are equally available to both married and unionized. Any insurance or company benefit available to a spouse is available to a civil union partner. When I was a notary, a 50 year old man came in with his 18 year old civil union partner so that I could notarize their papers. As it turned out, the boy was the best friend of the man's son and they were filing a civil union specifically to get the boy on the man's insurance.

What's love got to do with it? Nothing apparently.

Apparently also true for all straight couples who get a legal marriage.....what's love got to do with it? Nothing apparently.

 

[martybegan]

Powers of Attorney do not create all the same rights, responsibilities, and benefits of Civil Marriage.

For example no matter a POA would not change their tax filing, it did nothing for inheritance, and (after my older sister passed) would have done nothing for the tax exemption of a spouse upon the sale of a home.


>>>>

But they would have helped in that situation vis a vis medical situations.

Didn't say they didn't help, I said they didn't replace.



A will does not change tax code.

In fact, what is stopping same sex couples from creating a brand new contract that is exactly the same as marriage, but is called something else? Say "blarriage" for comical example. If given the same rights, but not the same name, would that meet the requirements of equal protection?

In Virginia it's a Constitutional Amendment passed in the early part of the 2000's that says that same-sex couples are denied Civil Marriage, Civil Unions, or any other legal or contractual status that attempts to recreate in whole or in part conditions equal to Civil Marriage.

Remember separate but equal was struck down because the systems were inherently unequal. In this case that would not be.

Separate but equal systems which intends to place one group (heterosexual) in a superior class then another group (homosexuals) is inherently unequal.


As a compromise I would support removing Civil Marriage from all Local, State, and Federal laws and replace it will Civil Unions for everyone. That also solves the separate but equal issue.


>>>>

How would one be superior to the other under the law? Is the word marriage somehow superior. Your solution is probably the best one, but then someone will challange the fact it is limited to only two people.

As for the virigina amendment, it is classical overreaction, and would probably be struck down just due to its restriction on contracts between people that probably delve over into the private sector.

 

[martybegan]

Powers of Attorney do not create all the same rights, responsibilities, and benefits of Civil Marriage.

For example no matter a POA would not change their tax filing, it did nothing for inheritance, and (after my older sister passed) would have done nothing for the tax exemption of a spouse upon the sale of a home.


>>>>

But they would have helped in that situation vis a vis medical situations.

For the rest of this, that is what wills are for.

In fact, what is stopping same sex couples from creating a brand new contract that is exactly the same as marriage, but is called something else? Say "blarriage" for comical example. If given the same rights, but not the same name, would that meet the requirements of equal protection?

Remember seperate but equal was struck down because the systems were inherently unequal. In this case that would not be.

It is unequal...it costs more and is not recognized all places that a simple marriage license is.

If it were recognized as a contract, then what? As for the cost, something this important shouldnt depend on cost, or how hard it is to implement, or at least is shouldnt be.

Does it boil down to the fact that people in favor of this really want to use the word "marriage?"

 

[WorldWatcher]

Does it boil down to the fact that people in favor of this really want to use the word "marriage?"

Why use different words for the same thing?

Does it boil down to the fact that people in favor of this really want to use the word "marriage?"

But with that said...

I'm fine with the use of the word "marriage" as in Civil Marriage. The same just needs to be applied to both.

I'm also fine with the use of the word "union" as in Civil Union. The same just needs to be applied to both.



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Gender is a biological condition. Gender identity is not.

Neither is religion.

 

[Gadawg73]

Gender is a biological condition. Gender identity is not.

Bet you can not prove that.

 

[WorldWatcher]

While I would vote to approve same sex marriage at the state level, I do not see any constitutional right to it. With regards the constitution I have always been a strict constructionist, and am wary of 5 of 9 people being able to create a right out of thin air, mostly because those that create one can limit or destroy one just as easy. Anyone who puts all thier faith in the courts must remember it was the courts that created the civil rights issues of the 50's and 60's with thier terrible plessey v. Fergueson ruling.

We have bypassed the amendment process with judges who legislate rather and adjudicate.

Plessy v. Ferguson was a 1896 case where the SCOTUS ruled that "separate but equal" was Constitutionally valid.

Brown v. Board of Education was a 1954 case where the SCOTUS overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and showed that "separate but equal" was not a Constitutionally valid way to operate government entities.



>>>>

Yes, it was in 1896. So what? What it shows is that the court basically decided to ignore an amendment, (actually several amendments), using popular opinion in the place of deference to the consitution. what resulted was an terrible blemish on the nation, and all b ecause the court decided it was lord and master, and bowed to popular (southern) opinion.

In the case now, you agree with what the courts are finding, that this is a "right." While I agree with the results, I cannot agree with the method used to get there. There is no "right" to gay marriage in the consitution, thus it is up to legislatures to determine the nature of the contract.

The other thing is I hope DOMA is struck down, as marriage has always been a state issue, and should remain there.

The emphasized part appears to be the basis for where we disagree.

You feel that because the word "marriage" does not appear in the Constitution that there is no right to Same-sex Civil Marriage. I look at the Constitution and see the 14th Amendment that says that State deny neither the privileges and immunities of citizens, nor due process, nor the equal protection of it's laws.

You don't see the word "marriage" and conclude that the State can do anything it want's with Civil Marriage, which of course is false as the Loving case showed.

I agree though that there is no "right" to Civil Marriage within a State. A State could choose not to offer Civil Marriage to anyone, if that were their choice then they can do that because it treats all citizens equally as no one can get Civilly Married. I view it on the other hand that if the State offers Civil Marriage to some couples, then they must have a compelling government interest in treating similarly situated couples differently. In this case the couples are law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults that are different-sex couples and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults that are same-sex couples. And as Loving showed, the evaluation of treatment when it comes to Civil Marriage in cases like this is based on the treatment of the couple - not the individual. It was the treatment of Mildred Jeter (Loving) and Richard Loving as a couple that was weighed in that case as Miss. Jeter and Mr. Loving could have married others on an individual basis.


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does every state recognize common law marriage? Absolutely not.

Actually they do. Most States do not allow for the assumption of Common Law Marriage under their State law, however they recognize as legally valid legal Common Law Marriages from another State and in addition the federal government recognizes them as valid if entered into in a State that allows for the assumption of Common Law Marriages.


>>>>

Actually, that is inaccurate. The federal government generally ignores common law marriages if the state you reside in does. The rule for taxes is different in that they will recognize it if the state that the marriage it originated in does.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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?

Because the States themselves have chosen to recognize Civil Marriage from other States. If a State were to choose not to recognize any Civil Marriage performed from another State I suppose that would be Constitutional.

Absolutely not: it would violate the full faith and credit clause.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Does every state recognize common law marriage? Absolutely not.

Actually they do. Most States do not allow for the assumption of Common Law Marriage under their State law, however they recognize as legally valid legal Common Law Marriages from another State and in addition the federal government recognizes them as valid if entered into in a State that allows for the assumption of Common Law Marriages.


>>>>

Actually, that is inaccurate. The federal government generally ignores common law marriages if the state you reside in does. The rule for taxes is different in that they will recognize it if the state that the marriage it originated in does.

Actually, that is inaccurate. The federal government will recognize common law marriages as valid for federal purposes (taxes and other purposes) if the legal Civil Marriage was entered into in a State which allows for the creation of Common Law Civil Marriages.

One example is Federal Benefits. From the Code of Federal Regulations

Title 20 Employee Benefits
§ 404.726
Evidence of common-law marriage.
(a) General. A common-law marriage is one considered valid under certain State laws even though there was no formal ceremony. It is a marriage between two persons free to marry, who consider themselves married, live together as man and wife, and, in some States, meet certain other requirements.

20 CFR 404.726 - Evidence of common-law marriage. | Title 20 - Employees' Benefits | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute​

Then there is the example of Social Security Benefits to a Spouse...

Social Security follows the state laws. So, check the laws in your state. To get survivors or spouses benefits you generally must live in a state that recognizes common-law marriage. However, most states (even those that do not recognize in-state common-law marriage) will recognize a common-law marriage entered into in another state that does.

Recognizing common-law marriage​

The federal government will recognize Common Law Marriages if the State you reside in recognizes you as Civilly Married whether the marriage was entered into in that state or not. And as the Social Security Administration notes, most states do recognize Common Law Marriages (even if it's from another state). Now true, there may be a couple that don't, but in general most people will be just fine.


>>>>