Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
DOMA A) is not a constitutional amendment and B) circumvents the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
1. Of course DOMA is not a Constitutional Amendment, it is federal law enacted under Congress's authority under Article IV Section 1 and their power to define the "effects thereof" of public acts between the States.
2. "Circumvents the 10th"? Incorrect. Circumventing the 10th Amendment would involve imposing restrictions on States in regard to their own laws. However under Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution Congress is specifically empowered to weigh in on public acts between States. (Whether a discriminatory law based on gender is in itself Constitutional is a different question all together. The fact that Congress is empowered to weigh on on public acts between States is irrefutable - from a Constitutional standpoint.)
>>>>
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Do you know what that means?
How do you interpret that??
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Congress can overturn the unconstitutional DOMA...
And it is the Supreme Court that will make the decision on marriage, not the states.
The Supreme Court cannot but take it up with them and the gays will not win because they have no basis for their claim that a law that states marriage is between a man and woman automatically discriminates against gays when there is no law that specifically states in its language that gays can't marry.
While everyone knows the purpose of the law (DOMA, the desire to deny equal treatment under federal law for legal Civil Marriages of homosexuals) a strict interpretation of the words used in the law does not show discrimination against homosexuals (although that is the intent), the letter of the law is discriminatory based on gender. Gender, a purely biological factor just as race is a purely biological factor.
A situation that brings the arguments against same-sex Civil Marriage even closer to the arguments against inter-racial Civil Marriage.
Good job.
>>>>
1. Of course DOMA is not a Constitutional Amendment, it is federal law enacted under Congress's authority under Article IV Section 1 and their power to define the "effects thereof" of public acts between the States.
2. "Circumvents the 10th"? Incorrect. Circumventing the 10th Amendment would involve imposing restrictions on States in regard to their own laws. However under Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution Congress is specifically empowered to weigh in on public acts between States. (Whether a discriminatory law based on gender is in itself Constitutional is a different question all together. The fact that Congress is empowered to weigh on on public acts between States is irrefutable - from a Constitutional standpoint.)
>>>>
Do you know what that means?
How do you interpret that??
Do you have a point?
Do you believe that asking questions while providing no argument makes you look smart?
BY the way the powers we are speaking of were granted to the federal government by the constituntion which was ratified by the states.
the 14th amendment spells it out quite nicely
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Have you taken the time to read it yet?
Oh yeah thats right - this whole debate has absolutely NOTHING to do with contract or marriage and EVERYTHING to do with activism.
You see, gays don't want the "right" of marriage - they want to fight the system or fight their enemy the conservative capitalists.
?
It has nothing to do with activism, or capitalists, for hat matter (???)
It has only to do with Americans equal access to marriage laws as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment mentions nothing about equal access to marriage laws.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
?
It has nothing to do with activism, or capitalists, for hat matter (???)
It has only to do with Americans equal access to marriage laws as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment mentions nothing about equal access to marriage laws.
Uh have you read the 14th amendment??
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Forget about the fourteenth amendment. The tenth amendment is key in homosexual marriage debate.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Also, not one single homosexual marriage case has cited the US Constitution--all have cited state constitutions. I would love, absolutely love for the Supreme Court to rule on homosexual marriage. Gay rights organizations are afraid of a Supreme Court ruling.
That's great and all but when state law (prohibiting freedom of religion) violates federal law (religious freedom) who wins?
Gays are not arguing for gay marriage on religious grounds, thats a strawman since homosexuality is not a religion.
The Supreme Court cannot but take it up with them and the gays will not win because they have no basis for their claim that a law that states marriage is between a man and woman automatically discriminates against gays when there is no law that specifically states in its language that gays can't marry.
While everyone knows the purpose of the law (DOMA, the desire to deny equal treatment under federal law for legal Civil Marriages of homosexuals) a strict interpretation of the words used in the law does not show discrimination against homosexuals (although that is the intent), the letter of the law is discriminatory based on gender. Gender, a purely biological factor just as race is a purely biological factor.
A situation that brings the arguments against same-sex Civil Marriage even closer to the arguments against inter-racial Civil Marriage.
Good job.
>>>>
You're still wrong, DOMA doesn't deny marriage to anyone based on gender, it never says that men can only marry and or that women cannot marry, that would be discrimination based on gender.
That's great and all but when state law (prohibiting freedom of religion) violates federal law (religious freedom) who wins?
Gays are not arguing for gay marriage on religious grounds, thats a strawman since homosexuality is not a religion.
OMG you really are retarded aren't you? I have already explained this to you multiple times and yet you stil fail to grasp it. LOL
No one is claiming that homosexuality is a religion. For you to continue that argumnet only serves to make you look even more ridiculous than you did yesterday.
BTW I see that you failed to answer my question. You focused on the tenth amendment so I asked you a question that has to do with your argument and you couldn't answer it. Why is that? what are you afraid of?
You're arguing a damn strawman argument by hiding behind language in the 14th Amendment that doesn't apply, nothing in the 14th Amendment nor the Consitution mentions anything about marriage laws, nor marriage being a right, you have no proof so keep spamming the same shat. Equal proection is not the same as equal treatment.
While everyone knows the purpose of the law (DOMA, the desire to deny equal treatment under federal law for legal Civil Marriages of homosexuals) a strict interpretation of the words used in the law does not show discrimination against homosexuals (although that is the intent), the letter of the law is discriminatory based on gender. Gender, a purely biological factor just as race is a purely biological factor.
A situation that brings the arguments against same-sex Civil Marriage even closer to the arguments against inter-racial Civil Marriage.
Good job.
>>>>
You're still wrong, DOMA doesn't deny marriage to anyone based on gender, it never says that men can only marry and or that women cannot marry, that would be discrimination based on gender.
I didn't say DOMA denied marriage based on gender, as a matter of fact I pointed out that there are legal same-sex Civil Marriages. What DOMA does is deny equal recognition of (and therefore denial of equal protection) of State laws at the federal level. Which BTW the Federal government historically recognized State powers to define Civil Marriages for well over 200 years until DOMA was passed.
For federal purposes:
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Recognized
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Recognized
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Recognized
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Recognized
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Not Recognized
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Not Recognized
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Not Recognized
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Not Recognized
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Not Recognized
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Not Recognized
What is the discriminatory factor in the above?
Now if you say since homosexuals can marry "someone" and therefore there is no discrimination, then you would logically have to disagree with the Loving v. Virginia opinion of the court because "colored" could marry someone.
If the position presented is to be interpreted consistently that is.
>>>>
Marriage is not a right just like driving is not a right. My argument is that the 14th Amendment cannot be used by gays to make an argument, this has nothing to do with whether I believe they should marry or not.
Since you keep telling others to read the constitution perhaps you should start with the 1st amendment which states that the govenrment shall not make any law that prohibits the people from freely exercising their religious rights.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Have you read the constitution??
Gay activism and homosexuality is a religious right? WTF?
You're arguing a damn strawman argument by hiding behind language in the 14th Amendment that doesn't apply, nothing in the 14th Amendment nor the Consitution mentions anything about marriage laws, nor marriage being a right, you have no proof so keep spamming the same shat. Equal proection is not the same as equal treatment.
Are you of the opinion that rights must be enumerated in the United States Constitution to be held by the people?
>>>>
Any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry for what ever reason they please.
They can. No one is stopping anyone from entering into any relationship they want. That doesn't mean the government needs to recognize or regulate that relationship.
Last thing we need is more government involvement in people's lives.
You're still wrong, DOMA doesn't deny marriage to anyone based on gender, it never says that men can only marry and or that women cannot marry, that would be discrimination based on gender.
I didn't say DOMA denied marriage based on gender, as a matter of fact I pointed out that there are legal same-sex Civil Marriages. What DOMA does is deny equal recognition of (and therefore denial of equal protection) of State laws at the federal level. Which BTW the Federal government historically recognized State powers to define Civil Marriages for well over 200 years until DOMA was passed.
For federal purposes:
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Recognized
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Recognized
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Recognized
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Recognized
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Not Recognized
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Not Recognized
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Not Recognized
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Not Recognized
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Not Recognized
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Not Recognized
What is the discriminatory factor in the above?
Now if you say since homosexuals can marry "someone" and therefore there is no discrimination, then you would logically have to disagree with the Loving v. Virginia opinion of the court because "colored" could marry someone.
If the position presented is to be interpreted consistently that is.
>>>>
You can't follow my argument, since there is not discriminatory language in DOMA that specifically states that homosexuals cannot marry homosexuals have no argument, DOMA doesn't deny marriage based on gender either
Since you keep telling others to read the constitution perhaps you should start with the 1st amendment which states that the govenrment shall not make any law that prohibits the people from freely exercising their religious rights.
Have you read the constitution??
Gay activism and homosexuality is a religious right? WTF?
AGAIN?? Please tell me that you are really not this ignorant and are just playing stupid.
Here we go again.
Marriage is at it's core a religious institution.
Based on that fact alone the government should not recognize any marriage.
However, we know that the government already does recognize heterosexual marriage for tax purposes and spousal rights.
Therefore according to the the 14th amendment and equal protection under the law it is wrong for the government to recognize one type of marriage and not another.
They just want the same rights as heterosexual citizens. What right do you have to deny them equal treatment?
I didn't say DOMA denied marriage based on gender, as a matter of fact I pointed out that there are legal same-sex Civil Marriages. What DOMA does is deny equal recognition of (and therefore denial of equal protection) of State laws at the federal level. Which BTW the Federal government historically recognized State powers to define Civil Marriages for well over 200 years until DOMA was passed.
For federal purposes:
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Recognized
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Recognized
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Recognized
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Recognized
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Not Recognized
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Not Recognized
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Not Recognized
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Not Recognized
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Not Recognized
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Not Recognized
What is the discriminatory factor in the above?
Now if you say since homosexuals can marry "someone" and therefore there is no discrimination, then you would logically have to disagree with the Loving v. Virginia opinion of the court because "colored" could marry someone.
If the position presented is to be interpreted consistently that is.
>>>>
You can't follow my argument, since there is not discriminatory language in DOMA that specifically states that homosexuals cannot marry homosexuals have no argument, DOMA doesn't deny marriage based on gender either
DOMA limits federal recognition of legal Civil Marriages based on gender. But you claim it is not gender discrimination because a man or a woman is allowed to marry someone (i.e. an approved gender).
Virginia limited legal Civil Marriages on race. They claimed it was not discrimination because a colored was allowed to marry someone (i.e. an approved race).
That argument worked pretty well in the Loving decision didn't it? Today if you ask people "Is it discrimination to deny inter-racial Civil Marriage to members of different races?" I'm pretty sure most respondents would recognize it as discrimination. Your position appears to be very similar yet the claim is that it is not discrimination. It's been 50 years since denial of Civil Marriage based on race went by the way side. 50-years after same-sex Civil Marriage achieves national approval, the recognition of the discriminatory standpoint will be just as recognized. (IMHO of course.)
>>>>
You're arguing a damn strawman argument by hiding behind language in the 14th Amendment that doesn't apply, nothing in the 14th Amendment nor the Consitution mentions anything about marriage laws, nor marriage being a right, you have no proof so keep spamming the same shat. Equal proection is not the same as equal treatment.
Are you of the opinion that rights must be enumerated in the United States Constitution to be held by the people?
>>>>
How do you draw that conclusion? the Constitution is the framework under which state laws must abide by, the Constitution doesn't dictate to the states which laws they must have. A law and a right are two different things.
You can't follow my argument, since there is not discriminatory language in DOMA that specifically states that homosexuals cannot marry homosexuals have no argument, DOMA doesn't deny marriage based on gender either
DOMA limits federal recognition of legal Civil Marriages based on gender. But you claim it is not gender discrimination because a man or a woman is allowed to marry someone (i.e. an approved gender).
Virginia limited legal Civil Marriages on race. They claimed it was not discrimination because a colored was allowed to marry someone (i.e. an approved race).
That argument worked pretty well in the Loving decision didn't it? Today if you ask people "Is it discrimination to deny inter-racial Civil Marriage to members of different races?" I'm pretty sure most respondents would recognize it as discrimination. Your position appears to be very similar yet the claim is that it is not discrimination. It's been 50 years since denial of Civil Marriage based on race went by the way side. 50-years after same-sex Civil Marriage achieves national approval, the recognition of the discriminatory standpoint will be just as recognized. (IMHO of course.)
>>>>
Virginia said a black could not marry a white, that is discriminatory language, DOMA mentions nothing about homosexuals not being able to marry nor does it say only heterosexuals can marry, so you can't compare the two.
DOMA limits federal recognition of legal Civil Marriages based on gender. But you claim it is not gender discrimination because a man or a woman is allowed to marry someone (i.e. an approved gender).
Virginia limited legal Civil Marriages on race. They claimed it was not discrimination because a colored was allowed to marry someone (i.e. an approved race).
That argument worked pretty well in the Loving decision didn't it? Today if you ask people "Is it discrimination to deny inter-racial Civil Marriage to members of different races?" I'm pretty sure most respondents would recognize it as discrimination. Your position appears to be very similar yet the claim is that it is not discrimination. It's been 50 years since denial of Civil Marriage based on race went by the way side. 50-years after same-sex Civil Marriage achieves national approval, the recognition of the discriminatory standpoint will be just as recognized. (IMHO of course.)
>>>>
Virginia said a black could not marry a white, that is discriminatory language, DOMA mentions nothing about homosexuals not being able to marry nor does it say only heterosexuals can marry, so you can't compare the two.
Sure you can.
Race is a biological status, Virginia denied Civil Marriage based on biology. Gender is a biological status, the federal government denies equal recognition of legal Civil Marriages based on biology.
It's gender based discrimination with no compelling government interest.
>>>>
My argument, revised. Gays cannot use the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause it simply doesn't apply, some factors which support my claim are there are no laws that specifically state that marriage is for "heterosexuals" only and or that "homosexuals cannot marry, if any of those two scenarios were the case then they could invoke the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. If a law states that marriage is define as union of a man and woman gays cannot invoke the 14th Amendment because technically a gay man and gay woman could marry each other or a person of the opposite sex, thus "homosexuals" are not denied marriage.
