Homophobic bigots want judge ruling thrown out because he is gay.

[Zen0]

Well what BIGNATE is saying is that gay marriage affects gay people but it doesnt affect straight people. So straight people should be the ones to judge if gay marriage hurts straight people. Wait what?

Precisely!!!

 

[Wreckem]

Well what BIGNATE is saying is that gay marriage affects gay people but it doesnt affect straight people. So straight people should be the ones to judge if gay marriage hurts straight people. Wait what?

And thats the fallacy of the whole argument by those opposed to gay marriage.

Gay marriage absolutely does NOT hurt ANYONE GOD DAMN ONE. It does not effect straight people. It does not harm straight people.

The only people that get uppity about gay marriage and gay rights are religious people.

 

[Zen0]

And thats the fallacy of the whole argument by those opposed to gay marriage.

Gay marriage absolutely does NOT hurt ANYONE GOD DAMN ONE. It does not effect straight people.

The only people that get uppity about gay marriage and gay rights are religious people.

Come to Boston and you can see all the straight people crying themselves to bed as their marriages have all turned to shambles in the 7 years it's been legal here.

 

[werepossum]

From the OP's article:

Because he's never disavowed the possibility? Seems like a bit of a reach.

SNIP

I tend to agree with this. Showing that someone could conceivably benefit from a civil rights ruling is not quite the same as showing a clear conflict of interest. I can see their point, but at the same time one would have to show that a hetero judge either had no interest in the issue or actively wanted a result opposite his/her own ruling. Seems a rather unworkable standard.

Meh. Let it stand and be subject to review.

Come to Boston and you can see all the straight people crying themselves to bed as their marriages have all turned to shambles in the 7 years it's been legal here.

LOL +1
I have to wonder during abolition if there were actually people arguing "You can't free the slaves, if there are no slaves I'll be less free!"

 

[werepossum]

SNIP
The "acceptance" of homosexuality is a generational shift. There will come a time, soon, in which being gay is treated and thought of with no more enmity than being left-handed. Without knowing what you mean, exactly, by "accepted fully".. there's no basis for asserting anything beyond what I've said.

This is true. I attended high school in the Bible Belt (rural southeastern Tennessee) where being called gay was the absolute worst insult imaginable. Gay people were a myth we really never completely believed existed outside of a few places like San Fransisco, New Orleans and France. My son attended the same high school and being gay and/or bisexual was no big deal to most people. As more gays come out of the closet*, gays will be more accepted. It's impossible to keep thinking gays are some horrible deviants when you discover people you have known and liked for years are gay.

*Or are more open about being gay; one could be out of the closet without necessarily wearing it on one's sleeve.

 

[woolfe9999]

You're confusing bias with conflict of interest. One would hope that judges have no biases, but we know this is never the case. However, there is an obvious difference between growing up in a pro-gun or anti-gun household and owning stock in a gun manufacturing or sitting on the board of an anti-gun organization. The later cases involve personal or financial gain and are a conflict of interest.

This was the /thread on page 1. Further comment is unnecessary.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This was the /thread on page 1. Further comment is unnecessary.

From a legal standpoint then conflict of interest is merely a matter of money?

 

[classy]

You're so confused - so intent on rationalizing your bigotry - that you're logic is completely tangled.

I am not debating being gay, being born gay, being bisexual, being sexually repressed, gay loving, who is the husband or wife, who gives or recieves.

My statement is solely was the voted on amendment legally done. The answer is yes. Has similar measures been voted on in other states and have those amendments been honored. The answer is yes.

Will it be allowed to stand on appeal, I believe that answer will be yes. Why? Because it is was legally done and has been done all across the country. The voters have the right to shape their state constitutions. And short of a federal law trumping state law, these checks and balances at the state level are not only legal, but binding.

When it comes to marriage, federal law has always allowed each individual state to define what constitutes marriage.

 

[Zen0]

This is true. I attended high school in the Bible Belt (rural southeastern Tennessee) where being called gay was the absolute worst insult imaginable. Gay people were a myth we really never completely believed existed outside of a few places like San Fransisco, New Orleans and France. My son attended the same high school and being gay and/or bisexual was no big deal to most people. As more gays come out of the closet*, gays will be more accepted. It's impossible to keep thinking gays are some horrible deviants when you discover people you have known and liked for years are gay.

*Or are more open about being gay; one could be out of the closet without necessarily wearing it on one's sleeve.

I'm a Grad at Boston Closet, so one could say I'm still part of the closet.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well we haven't really gotten a grasp of the principles of recusal, so at the risk of quoting Wikipedia.

Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, refers to the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer. Applicable statutes or canons of ethics may provide standards for recusal in a given proceeding or matter. Providing that the judge or presiding officer must be free from disabling conflicts of interest makes the fairness of the proceedings less likely to be questioned.
Contents

[hide]

• 1 Recusal in the United States
• 2 Applicable to most countries
• 3 Responsibility and consequences
• 4 Waiver and substitution
• 5 See also
• 6 References

[edit] Recusal in the United States

In the United States, the term "recusal" is used most often with respect to court proceedings. Two sections of Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provide standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned "Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge," provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The same section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding.
28 U.S.C. sec. 144, captioned "Bias or prejudice of judge," provides that under circumstances, when a party to a case in a United States District Court files a "timely and sufficient Motion that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of an adverse party," the case shall be transferred to another judge.
The general rule is that to warrant recusal, a judge's expression of an opinion about the merits of a case or familiarity with the facts or the parties must have originated in a source outside the case itself. This is referred to in the United States as the "extra-judicial source rule" and was recognized as a general presumption, although not an invariable one, in the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Liteky v. United States.
Often justices or judges will recuse themselves sua sponte (on their own motion), recognizing that facts leading to their disqualification are present. However, where such facts exist, a party to the case may suggest recusal. Generally, each judge is the arbiter of a motion for the judge's recusal, which is addressed to the judge's conscience and discretion. However, where lower courts are concerned, an erroneous refusal to recuse in a clear case can be reviewed on appeal or, under extreme circumstances, by a petition for a writ of prohibition.
In the Supreme Court of the United States, the Justices typically voluntarily recuse themselves from participating in cases in which they have a financial interest. For example, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor generally did not participate in cases involving telecommunications firms because she owned stock in such firms, while Justice Stephen Breyer has disqualified himself in some cases involving insurance companies because of his participation in a Lloyd's of London syndicate. Justices also have declined to participate in cases in which close relatives, such as their children, are lawyers for one of the parties. On occasion, recusal takes place under more unusual circumstances; for example, in two cases, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist stepped down from the bench when cases were argued by Arizona attorney James Brosnahan, who had testified against Rehnquist at his confirmation hearing in 1986. Whatever the reason for recusal, the United States Reports will record that the named Justice "took no part in the consideration or decision of this case."
Historically, standards for recusal in the Supreme Court and lower courts were less rigorous than they have become in more recent years. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall participated in the decision and authored the opinion of the Court even though Marshall's actions as Secretary of State two years prior could be seen as the subject of the proceeding. On the other hand, Marshall did recuse himself in both the 1813 and 1816 hearings of Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, despite its equally significant constitutional implications, as he and his brother had contracted with Martin to buy the land in dispute. Moreover, during the 19th century, the U.S. federal court system was structured so that an appeal from a judge's decision was often heard by an appellate panel containing the same judge, who was expected to sit in impartial review of his own earlier ruling. This situation is no longer permissible, and 28 U.S.C. sec. 47 provides that "No judge shall hear or determine an appeal from the decision of a case or issue tried by him."
One of the most notable disputes over recusal in U.S. Supreme Court history took place in 1946, when Justice Hugo Black participated in deciding the Jewell Ridge Coal case although a former law partner of Black's argued for the prevailing side. The losing party in the 5–4 decision sought reargument on the ground that Black should have been disqualified; Black declined to recuse himself and the decision stood, but Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote a short opinion suggesting that the decision that Black should sit in the case was Black's alone and the Court did not endorse it. The dispute aggravated infighting between Black and Jackson and it has been suggested that this was one of the reasons that when Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone died, President Harry S. Truman appointed Fred M. Vinson to succeed Stone rather than promote a sitting Associate Justice to the Chief Justice.
In 1973, then-Associate Justice Rehnquist wrote a lengthy in-chambers opinion declining to recuse himself in Laird v. Tatum, a case challenging the validity of certain arrests, even though Rehnquist had previously served as a White House lawyer who had opined that the arrest program was valid. In 2004, Justice Antonin Scalia declined to recuse himself in a case to which Vice President Dick Cheney was a party in his official capacity, despite the contention of several environmental groups that Scalia's participation created an appearance of impropriety in view of the fact that Scalia had recently participated in a widely publicized hunting trip with the Vice President. The same year, however, Scalia recused himself in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a First Amendment case challenging inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, after giving a public speech in which Scalia stated his view that Newdow's claims were meritless.
In certain special situations, circumstances that would otherwise call for recusal of a judge or group of judges may be disregarded, when otherwise no judge would be available to hear the case. For example, if a case concerns a salary increase payable to a judge, that judge would ordinarily be disqualified from hearing the case. However, if the pay raise is applicable to all the judges in the entire court system, the judge will keep the case, because the grounds for recusal would be equally applicable to any other judge. The principle that a judge will not be disqualified when the effect would be that no judge could hear the case is sometimes referred to as the "rule of necessity".
Outside the judicial system, the concept of recusal is also applied in administrative agencies. When a member of a multi-member administrative body is recused, the remaining members typically determine the outcome. When the sole occupant of an official position is recused, the matter may be delegated to the official's deputy or to a temporarily designated official; for example, when the Solicitor General of the United States is recused from a case, the Deputy Solicitor General will handle the matter in his place.
Concepts analogous to recusal also exist in the legislative branch. The rules of the United States Senate and House of Representatives provide that a Member should not vote on a measure as to which he or she has a personal financial interest. In such cases, the Senator or Representative may record a vote of "Present" instead of Yea or Nay.
[edit] Applicable to most countries

This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2010) Laws or court rules provide for recusal of judges. Although the details vary, the following are nearly universal grounds for recusal.

• The judge is related to a party, attorney, or spouse of either party (usually) within three degrees of kinship.
• The judge is a party.
• The judge is a material witness unless pleading purporting to make the Judge a party is false (determined by presiding judge, but see Substitution (law)).
• The judge has previously acted in the case in question as an attorney for a party, or participated in some other capacity.
• The judge prepared any legal instrument (such as a contract or will) whose validity or construction is at issue.
• Appellate judge previously handled case as a trial judge.
• The judge has personal or financial interest in the outcome. This particular ground varies by jurisdiction. Some require recusal if there is any interest at all in the outcome, while others only require recusal if there is interest beyond a certain value.
• The judge determines he or she cannot act impartially.

[edit] Responsibility and consequences

A judge who has grounds to recuse himself is expected to do so. If a judge does not know that grounds exist to recuse themselves (but does) the error is harmless. If a judge does not recuse themselves when they should have known to do so, they may be subject to sanctions, which vary by jurisdiction. Depending on the jurisdiction, if an appellate court finds a judgment to have been made when the judge in question should have been recused, it may set aside the judgment and return the case for retrial.
[edit] Waiver and substitution

The recusal rule may be avoided or ignored if all parties and the judge agree, although in practice this rarely occurs. If recusal is avoided in this manner, a full and complete record of the facts that qualify as grounds, above, must be made for the appellate court.
If a judge fails to recuse themselves sua sponte and a party believes the judge has a bias the party may motion for substitution. In some jurisdictions litigants may have the right to substitute a judge, even if no bias is demonstrated.

This of course leaves the situation clear as mud

 

[Rainsford]

I am not debating being gay, being born gay, being bisexual, being sexually repressed, gay loving, who is the husband or wife, who gives or recieves.

My statement is solely was the voted on amendment legally done. The answer is yes. Has similar measures been voted on in other states and have those amendments been honored. The answer is yes.

Will it be allowed to stand on appeal, I believe that answer will be yes. Why? Because it is was legally done and has been done all across the country. The voters have the right to shape their state constitutions. And short of a federal law trumping state law, these checks and balances at the state level are not only legal, but binding.

When it comes to marriage, federal law has always allowed each individual state to define what constitutes marriage.

I'm not sure that's actually true. I seem to remember hearing arguments that the "full faith and credit" clause in the US Constitution means that legal agreements like marriage can't be recognized differently by different states. So if you're married in Iowa, Texas can't say you're not married.

I'm not sure this has been tested by the Supreme Court, but it raises some interesting questions. At the very least, when rights and legal agreements are mostly portable between states, and when living in several different states in your life is no longer unusual, does it make sense for marriage to be defined on a state-by-state basis?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm not sure that's actually true. I seem to remember hearing arguments that the "full faith and credit" clause in the US Constitution means that legal agreements like marriage can't be recognized differently by different states. So if you're married in Iowa, Texas can't say you're not married.

I'm not sure this has been tested by the Supreme Court, but it raises some interesting questions. At the very least, when rights and legal agreements are mostly portable between states, and when living in several different states in your life is no longer unusual, does it make sense for marriage to be defined on a state-by-state basis?

This is going to be something that takes shape over time. While one state may recognize the marriage of another, it's not automatic that all will have to accept the definition of what constitutes a marriage. This has always been a vague sort of thing. Consider handguns. Someone who lives in a state and has fulfilled its requirements for concealed carry ought to be allowed to do so in all fifty states, just as if they have a drivers license can operate a vehicle on any public road. The reality is quite different from the principle however.

We'll just have to see how this shakes out.

 

[shira]

I am not debating being gay, being born gay, being bisexual, being sexually repressed, gay loving, who is the husband or wife, who gives or recieves.

My statement is solely was the voted on amendment legally done. The answer is yes. Has similar measures been voted on in other states and have those amendments been honored. The answer is yes.

Will it be allowed to stand on appeal, I believe that answer will be yes. Why? Because it is was legally done and has been done all across the country. The voters have the right to shape their state constitutions. And short of a federal law trumping state law, these checks and balances at the state level are not only legal, but binding.

When it comes to marriage, federal law has always allowed each individual state to define what constitutes marriage.

What nonsense. The DOMA - a federal law - said specifically that if a state allows same-sex marriages, then those marriage will NOT be recognized as such for federal purposes and no other state is obliged to recognize such marriages. In other words, DOMA essentially says that a state can legalize same-sex marriages in name only - those marriages won't be considered valid anywhere else.

Look in the mirror and see yourself for the bigot you are.

 

[Moonbeam]

What nonsense. The DOMA - a federal law - said specifically that if a state allows same-sex marriages, then those marriage will NOT be recognized as such for federal purposes and no other state is obliged to recognize such marriages. In other words, DOMA essentially says that a state can legalize same-sex marriages in name only - those marriages won't be considered valid anywhere else.

Look in the mirror and see yourself for the bigot you are.

I don't think Classy has much use for bigots of the racial kind so I don't think he's too anxious to know he's one of a slightly different kind. His bigotry is from religion and religion is important to him. There are a lot of silly religious people out there who think if one thing they were taught about religion is false then everything else they were taught will prove to be false too. It takes some courage for a guy who things he'll lose his immortal soul if he grants gays the right to be human. It's sort of like asking the owner of a vast plantation who makes millions on slave labor, to abandon the practice because black men are also human.

 

[classy]

What nonsense. The DOMA - a federal law - said specifically that if a state allows same-sex marriages, then those marriage will NOT be recognized as such for federal purposes and no other state is obliged to recognize such marriages. In other words, DOMA essentially says that a state can legalize same-sex marriages in name only - those marriages won't be considered valid anywhere else.

Look in the mirror and see yourself for the bigot you are.

God you are so dense. DOMA was specifically written as a stop gap to an amendment defining marriage between opposite sexes. DOMA continues the practice of allowing states to define marriage, but excludes same sex marriage of being recognized by the feds or other states. In states that recognize common law marriage, the federal government also recognizes it as do other states.

The feds don't determine marriage law, marriage law has always been a state regulated thing. Marriage is not specifically define anywhere on the federal level. Typically the right to marry has been assumed to be wrapped in general freedoms afforded to all people. But because marriage specifically has been defined at the state level, hence the battle now that we have those who desire to be married of the same sex.

 

[jonks]

God you are so dense....

The feds don't determine marriage law, marriage law has always been a state regulated thing. Marriage is not specifically defined anywhere on the federal level.

Uh...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/7.html
TITLE 1 > CHAPTER 1 > § 7
§ 7. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

I think you need to look up the word "definition".

 

[classy]

Uh...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/7.html
TITLE 1 > CHAPTER 1 > § 7
§ 7. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

I think you need to look up the word "definition".

For the umpteenth time, yes and the federal government has derived its definition from state law. Thats why all the suits filed for gay marriage are on a state level. That same us code is what would honor a common law marriage despite the fact it only exists in a dozen or so states. If federal law was concrete that marriage was between only a man and woman, all the states that have gay marriage would be overturned because federal law always trumps state law. But we know that not to be the case.

 

[jonks]

For the umpteenth time, yes and the federal government has derived its definition from state law. Thats why all the suits filed for gay marriage are on a state level. That same us code is what would honor a common law marriage despite the fact it only exists in a dozen or so states. If federal law was concrete that marriage was between only a man and woman, all the states that have gay marriage would be overturned because federal law always trumps state law. But we know that not to be the case.

Stop.

You said "Marriage is not specifically defined anywhere on the federal level."

I posted a federal statute section titled "DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE". I don't care if it's "derived" from state law or Martian law. The federal govt has a definition of marriage enshrined in law as between a man and woman.

This is where you should say "I misspoke." There is no spinning this. You said they have no definition, I showed you the definition. It is not weakness to admit obvious error, it is weakness not to. Until you admit this error, you are a de facto troll.

Now, moving on to what you posted above.

Thats why all the suits filed for gay marriage are on a state level.

Care to explain what you mean by this untruth? No gay marriage suits were filed at the federal level?

DOMA sec 3 (a federal law defining marriage) has been struck down by the Federal District Court of Massachusetts. The David Boise/Ted Olson Prop 8 (a CA state law defining marriage) law suit was filed in California's Northern District Federal Court.

That is in contrast to the 2004 coordinated "In re Marriage Cases" filed in California State Court. Or the state court case filed in Minnesota: http://www.uniquefamilylaw.com/minnesota-trial-court-dismisses-gay-marriage-lawsuit

You know we have state courts and federal courts right? Lawsuits have been brought at both the state and federal level against both state and federal marriage laws.

Admit your error again, or stand by a simply, utterly, factually and demonstrably incorrect statement like any troll would.

federal law always trumps state law

I assume you are referring to the supremacy clause. Your understanding and articulation is supremely simplistic and, as it happens, inaccurate. Federal law is only "supreme" where conflict exists with state law. Since Federal law has no bearing on benefits granted within a state, there is no conflict within the state. The conflict that currently exists is where a same sex couple married within a state wishes to file joint federal tax returns. There, the supremacy clause intercedes, and the definition of marriage AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL is controlling, and thus the state marriage is not recognized for federal purposes. Ditto for attempting to get a green card for a same sex spouse.

In Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled: "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute." In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist
1 - when Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible, or
2 - "...state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress..."

 

[classy]

Stop.

You said "Marriage is not specifically defined anywhere on the federal level."

I posted a federal statute section titled "DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE". I don't care if it's "derived" from state law or Martian law. The federal govt has a definition of marriage enshrined in law as between a man and woman.

This is where you should say "I misspoke." There is no spinning this. You said they have no definition, I showed you the definition. It is not weakness to admit obvious error, it is weakness not to. Until you admit this error, you are a de facto troll.

Now, moving on to what you posted above.



Care to explain what you mean by this untruth? DOMA sec 3 (a federal law defining marriage) has been struck down by the Federal District Court of Massachusetts. The David Boise/Ted Olson Prop 8 (a CA state law defining marriage) law suit was filed in California's Northern District Federal Court.

That is in contrast to the 2004 coordinated "In re Marriage Cases" filed in California State Court. You know we have state courts and federal courts right?

Admit your error again, or stand by a simply, utterly, factually and demonstrably incorrect statement like any troll would.

Did you read what I said about DOMA previously, clearly no. DOMA has clouded the marriage thing further. Marriage is not a federally regulated or defined by federal law. Marriage has always been defined in state constitutions that the fedral government has accepted as guidelines for legal marriage.

If what you said was true, any gay marriage would not be legal because of federal law. You did study branches of government didn't you.

If marriage was federally mandated and controlled, we would not have gay marriage anywhere or in any state.

 

[jonks]

Did you read what I said about DOMA previously, clearly no. DOMA has clouded the marriage thing further. Marriage is not a federally regulated or defined by federal law. Marriage has always been defined in state constitutions that the fedral government has accepted as guidelines for legal marriage.

If what you said was true, any gay marriage would not be legal because of federal law. You did study branches of government didn't you.
If marriage was federally mandated and controlled, we would not have gay marriage anywhere or in any state.

See above re: supremacy clause.

"Marriage is not a federally regulated or defined by federal law." Wrong. STATE MARRIAGE is not defined by federal law. The federal govt has not defined marriage at the state level, it has defined it at the federal level for purposes of all federal laws and administrative agencies. Where conflict exists with state law (i.e. federal tax filings, green cards) federal law is supreme and trumps state law.

And yes, there was reference to the branches of govt in law school.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EQPrFR9KRo#t=26s

 

[classy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EQPrFR9KRo#t=26s

Maybe having the President say it will help

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U&feature=relmfu

 

[jonks]

Maybe having the President say it will help

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U&feature=relmfu

You know we have federal law other than the constitution? I can't believe I'm wasting my time answering this shit.

You keep omitting responses to points where you clearly lose. Apparently long posts confuse you so let's stick with just one point until you admit you are wrong. Let's start with the one most easily debunked by empirical evidence and work up from there.

"Thats why all the suits filed for gay marriage are on a state level."

I responded. Your rebuttal?

 

[classy]

See above re: supremacy clause.

"Marriage is not a federally regulated or defined by federal law." Wrong. STATE MARRIAGE is not defined by federal law. The federal govt has not defined marriage at the state level, it has defined it at the federal level for purposes of all federal laws and administrative agencies. Where conflict exists with state law (i.e. federal tax filings, green cards) federal law is supreme and trumps state law.

And yes, there was reference to the branches of govt in law school.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EQPrFR9KRo#t=26s

Ok lets try this slowly.

The federal government accepts and recognizes state law for purposes of a what constitutes a legal marriage. Read that again. Let it sink in.

Now that is true of all marriages except, gay marriage. DOMAs purpose was/is two fold. First to provide a legal standing where the federal government doesn't have to accept gay marriage legal in some states. Read first sentence again.
The second is because any marriage considered legal by the federal government also has to be considered legal by any and all state governments. That is why no other state has to accept gay marriage at this moment, because it is not recognized on a federal level.

Is that clear enough?

Marriage historically has only been wrapped into legality from a taxes and liability standpoint. Now we have the argument before us as to whether any two people regardless of sexual orientaion can get married. The right to marry is at dispute here.

 

[jonks]

Ok lets try this slowly.
SNIP

We'll get to this and why you're wrong in a minute. But as you said, let's go slowly. Let's do the easy stuff first.

Thats why all the suits filed for gay marriage are on a state level.

No gay marriage suits were filed at the federal level?

DOMA sec 3 (a federal law defining marriage) has been struck down by the Federal District Court of Massachusetts. The David Boise/Ted Olson Prop 8 (a CA state law defining marriage) law suit was filed in California's Northern District Federal Court.

That is in contrast to the 2004 coordinated "In re Marriage Cases" filed in California State Court. Or the state court case filed in Minnesota: http://www.uniquefamilylaw.com/minne...rriage-lawsuit

You know we have state courts and federal courts right? Lawsuits have been brought at both the state and federal level against both state and federal marriage laws.

Respond.

 

[classy]

We'll get to this and why you're wrong in a minute. But as you said, let's go slowly. Let's do the easy stuff first.


Respond.

Wiki's page seems pretty good



Federal law

The legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the United States are complicated by the nation's federal system of government. Prior to 1996, the federal government did not define marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967 due to anti-miscegenation laws). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly defined in federal law as a union of one man and one woman. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.)

DOMA has been under challenge in the federal courts, and on July 8, 2010, Judge Joseph Tauro of the District Court of Massachusetts held that the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married Massachusetts same-sex couples under the DOMA is unconstitutional, under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.[8][9] This ruling is currently under a stay, but would affect residents residing within the federal district that covers Massachusetts if the stay is lifted. If this decision is appealed and affirmed, the ruling could apply elsewhere in the U.S. For now, no act or agency of the federal government—except within the state of Massachusetts if the stay is lifted—may recognize same-sex marriage.

According to the federal government's Government Accountability Office (GAO), more than 1,138 rights and protections are conferred to U.S. citizens upon marriage by the federal government; areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law.

However, many aspects of marriage law affecting the day to day lives of inhabitants of the United States are determined by the states, not the federal government, and the Defense of Marriage Act does not prevent individual states from defining marriage as they see fit.

The United States Supreme Court in 1972 dismissed Baker v. Nelson, a case originating in Minnesota, "for want of a substantial federal question". The Defense of Marriage Act, as well as marriage laws in 45 states, could be affected by the outcome of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a case challenging the validity of California's Proposition 8 under the United States Constitution.[10]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States