Political Crossfire Forums

[Oriden]

(I understand there are several other very important facets to this issue that I would like to address in other posts later, but if possible let's please keep to this topic.)

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DoMA) states that “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or
claim arising from such relationship.” (See for yourself:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3396.ENR: )

Article IV, Section I of the Constitution states that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given to each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other State.”

I believe it would then follow that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

We rely on Article IV, Section I every time we, for example, take a road trip to another state. My driver's license is good in any of the other 49 states. If I got married to another man in one state, DoMA says that no other state has to recognize the validity of the marriage. Were I married to a woman, DoMA would have no issue with me.

The arguments that I've heard against this are that the Constitution should then be amended to exclude same-sex marriages from validity, or that DoMA is important to states' rights.

But the last time I've checked, 0 amendments to the Constitution thusfar contain overt discrimination. In fact, the amendments have been securing rights, not denying them.

Furthermore, why is this a states' rights issue and not a human rights issue?

Strictly from a constitutional standpoint, I believe that DoMA is invalid and should be discarded.

Thoughts?

[John Galt]

Have to waitfor a case but I believe theCourt would rule as you said. An amendment clarifing here what Congress and the people actually want (which is the DoMA) would be prudent for the people who want this... an amendment that basically says the same thing (or something drastically different, of course) would be Constitutional,as it would be... part of the Constitution. That's settled and no one with a reasonable grasp of Constitutional law could possibly come up with an argument grounded in the Constitution to say that an amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional. That's just plain silly and should literally be laughed out of court.

However there is an intriguing counter argument to the first part about the DoMA. What if one state refused to recognize state marriages all together and said it is a religious institution to which the state hasno buisness in. Would that state be forced to "recognize" marriages of people from other states? Why or why not?

If not, why can't they pick and choose -- why would they be forced to recognize all or not be forced to recognize any?

If they would be forced to "recognize" the marriages, does that not run counter to the framework of the seperate state governments and the small Federal government the Constituion purportedly provides for?

[Oriden]

John Galt wrote: An amendment clarifing here what Congress and the people actually want (which is the DoMA) would be prudent for the people who want this... an amendment that basically says the same thing (or something drastically different, of course) would be Constitutional,as it would be... part of the Constitution. That's settled and no one with a reasonable grasp of Constitutional law could possibly come up with an argument grounded in the Constitution to say that an amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional. That's just plain silly and should literally be laughed out of court.

Maybe I did not state my point clearly, if that is the case, I apologize. What I meant was that if we amend the Constitution to exclude same-sex marriages, won't that be sending a terrible message about our priorities? Unless any have snuck by while I wasn't watching, there have only been 27 amendments to the Constitution, none of which contain discriminatory legislation. My point is that if the amendment is passed, it will be the first piece of discrimination added into our federal Constitution, where all other amendments before have served to secure freedoms rather than deny them.

John Galt wrote: However there is an intriguing counter argument to the first part about the DoMA. What if one state refused to recognize state marriages all together and said it is a religious institution to which the state hasno buisness in. Would that state be forced to "recognize" marriages of people from other states? Why or why not?

If not, why can't they pick and choose -- why would they be forced to recognize all or not be forced to recognize any?

If they would be forced to "recognize" the marriages, does that not run counter to the framework of the seperate state governments and the small Federal government the Constituion purportedly provides for?

I'm no consitutional law expert, but I believe that Article IV, Section I would require the marriages to be valid. Let's use the driver's license example again: you can drive anywhere in the country with only one license, but does that (as you wrote) "run counter to the framework of the seperate state governments and the small Federal government the Constituion purportedly provides for?"

If that does, please clarify your claim.

[John Galt]

Oriden wrote: John Galt wrote: An amendment clarifing here what Congress and the people actually want (which is the DoMA) would be prudent for the people who want this... an amendment that basically says the same thing (or something drastically different, of course) would be Constitutional,as it would be... part of the Constitution. That's settled and no one with a reasonable grasp of Constitutional law could possibly come up with an argument grounded in the Constitution to say that an amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional. That's just plain silly and should literally be laughed out of court.

Maybe I did not state my point clearly, if that is the case, I apologize. What I meant was that if we amend the Constitution to exclude same-sex marriages, won't that be sending a terrible message about our priorities? Unless any have snuck by while I wasn't watching, there have only been 27 amendments to the Constitution, none of which contain discriminatory legislation. My point is that if the amendment is passed, it will be the first piece of discrimination added into our federal Constitution, where all other amendments before have served to secure freedoms rather than deny them.

Try the 16th and 17th for starters. Also look at how the 16th was "ratified." Furthermore I don't see how stating that states are exempt from the fullfaithand credit clause in regards to marriage laws is some how "discriminatory." :?

Quote: John Galt wrote: However there is an intriguing counter argument to the first part about the DoMA. What if one state refused to recognize state marriages all together and said it is a religious institution to which the state hasno buisness in. Would that state be forced to "recognize" marriages of people from other states? Why or why not?

If not, why can't they pick and choose -- why would they be forced to recognize all or not be forced to recognize any?

If they would be forced to "recognize" the marriages, does that not run counter to the framework of the seperate state governments and the small Federal government the Constituion purportedly provides for?

I'm no consitutional law expert, but I believe that Article IV, Section I would require the marriages to be valid. Let's use the driver's license example again: you can drive anywhere in the country with only one license, but does that (as you wrote) "run counter to the framework of the seperate state governments and the small Federal government the Constituion purportedly provides for?"

If that does, please clarify your claim.

I need to rephrase. Let's say thegreat state of New Hampshire decides that marriages will no longer be recongized by the state. Let's say that a heterosexual married couple and a homosexual married couple from anotherstate both move there. Should both or either or just one be forced into recognition by the state? Does the Federal government have the authority to force recognition of them by the State governments because of the income tax and whatnot?

As for your thing about driver's licenses: lets say New Hampshire decides you don't need a drivers license anymore. So ifyou are driving from out of state your license would be worthless. If you move there, same thing. But if an out of state couple, let's say married in a civil ceremony by a judge, come to New Hampshire -- would they be legally married anymore? Would the Federal government still see them as such in regards to tax exemptions and the plethra of handouts that they give out left and right to married couples? My point here is that if they are to be forced to recognize the laws of other states in regards to marriage they would in effect be subverting themselves to the will of the people in other states and not thewill of their own people. Would they be forced to recognize marriages from otherstates -- even though the state has left marriage soley in the hands of religious institutions? I would say they should not.