Gay Marriage Thread #53112 - It's a States' Rights Issue!

IdiotsOpposite

IdiotsOpposite

Boom, headshot.
Joined
Mar 10, 2007
Messages
2,718
Location
America.
Linkie

An appeals court ruled Thursday that the heart of a law that denies a host of federal benefits to gay married couples is unconstitutional.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against married same-sex couples by denying them federal benefits.

The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004.

The appeals court agreed with a lower court judge who ruled in 2010 that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.

The court didn't rule on the law's other provision, which said states without same-sex marriage cannot be forced to recognize gay unions performed in other states.

During arguments before the court last month, a lawyer for gay married couples said the law amounts to "across-the-board disrespect." The couples argued that the power to define and regulate marriage had been left to the states for more than 200 years before Congress passed DOMA.

An attorney defending the law argued that Congress had a rational basis for passing it in 1996, when opponents worried that states would be forced to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. The group said Congress wanted to preserve a traditional and uniform definition of marriage and has the power to define terms used to federal statutes to distribute federal benefits.

Since DOMA was passed in 1996, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, including Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Washington state and the District of Columbia. Maryland and Washington's laws are not yet in effect and may be subject to referendums.

Last year, President Barack Obama announced the U.S. Department of Justice would no longer defend the constitutionality of the law. After that, House Speaker John Boehner convened the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend it.
Click to expand...

So remember, if you're pro-DOMA, you're against states' rights.

I for one welcome the downfall of half of DOMA.
 
Ah the pieces fall.

This doesn't just impact taxes, but would impact Federal employees getting spousal benefits (military for one) and would allow for immigration sponsorship of same-sex couples.
 
Yeah, I know, but that's my main personal concern. I would rather there not be any federal benefits for marriage anyway, so I don't care about that aspect of DOMA.
 
um...uh...but Bill Clinton taught constitutional law

impeach him again ;)

If states have the "right" (power) to define marriage, then what happens to the full faith and credit provision of the Constitution? What happened when black/white couples moved to a state that didn't allow those marriages? Well, I know what happened... But did the court rule on that back then?

Doh! Must have, the states didn't give up that power voluntarily
 
Save_Ferris said:
If it's up to the states, some will have marriage. If it's up to the country, none will. Different cultures for ya. We might as well be conservative Europe.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, this will change in time.
 
cardgame said:
Is it going to go that far? Don't believe that was mentioned...
Click to expand...
Isn't it funny how the Supreme Court has turned into the last bastion of prejudice ever since the last 3 Republican presidents appointed 5 Christian reactionaries.
 
I don't think SCOTUS would agree with it though, at the current level.

As I said, I personally don't care terribly as long as states can still say no, even if the marriage is in another state.
 
I'm surprised, actually, that the feds are already looking at it this way. I didn't think it would be so soon, but at this point I think it will be less than ten years before we get a Loving v Virginia. :goodjob:
 
GhostWriter16 said:
I don't think SCOTUS would agree with it though, at the current level.

As I said, I personally don't care terribly as long as states can still say no, even if the marriage is in another state.
Click to expand...
Why would you wanyt a state to deny the liberty interest of two individuals?

How far would you extend this? Should a state be able to deny recognizing a corporation formed in another state? The shareholders would not be protected from liability if the "corporation" did something sue-worthy in that state that refused recognition.

Should a state be able to not recognize a driver's license issued in another state? To drive on the roads within the stetae, you would need to obtain a license in that state?

Could a state give you the right to bears arms, but only of arms manufactured in that particular state?

Should a state be able to restrict your possession of a religious book such as a Bible and ban the possession of any such book that was not published by an in-state publisher?
 
IdiotsOpposite said:
So remember, if you're pro-DOMA, you're against states' rights.
Click to expand...
Not true. (Nice try, though)
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.
Click to expand...
It all comes down to this: does the Constitution define marriage? Does it specify who should? Does it prohibit the states or the people from defining marriage? I actually have read the entire Constitution cover to cover, but by the time I reach the end I've forgotten parts of it, so I'm not 100% sure of this, but I'm guessing the answer to all of those questions is "no".

In which case the question of who should have the right to marry is largely up to the states and the people.

JollyRoger said:
Why would you wanyt a state to deny the liberty interest of two individuals?
Click to expand...
Depends which liberty. Some are important, others are laughingstock. Freedom of speech? Very important. Freedom of the press? Ditto. Right to keep and bear arms? Essential for preventing the government from going all Assad on its own citizens.

The right to marry? :lol: Yeah, I can really see the Republic collapsing into dust if that one gets deleted from the books.
 
BasketCase said:
Not true. (Nice try, though)

It all comes down to this: does the Constitution define marriage? Does it specify who should? Does it prohibit the states or the people from defining marriage? I actually have read the entire Constitution cover to cover, but by the time I reach the end I've forgotten parts of it, so I'm not 100% sure of this, but I'm guessing the answer to all of those questions is "no".

In which case the question of who should have the right to marry is largely up to the states and the people.
Click to expand...

"No, it's not about states' rights. It's just about states' rights."

Do you even read your own posts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Birdjaguar
SCOTUS news and opinions
14 15 16
Replies
307
Views
11K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
All things SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US)
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
5K
EnglishEdward
EnglishEdward
Broken_Erika
US Debt Ceiling
7 8 9
Replies
178
Views
7K
Farm Boy
Farm Boy
C
Texas State Law Declares Most Texas Elected Officials to be Communists.
2 3
Replies
41
Views
3K
Caesar of Bread
Caesar of Bread
BvBPL
[RD] Will Joe Biden Undo Errors of Past Governments?
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
BvBPL
BvBPL
Top Bottom