How can DOMA possibly be defended against an equal-protection lawsuit?

[theeedude]

Sometimes such laws are passed to codify a pre-existing understanding; to clarify.

It doesn't necessarily mean that marriage had no legal definition, rather it may be that Congress chose to clarify the question by legislation rather than putting it to the courts.

Fern

If this was already a legal definition, it wouldn't need to be codified. Plus it would still be in conflict with the the equal protection clause, and thus still up to the courts.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Defining it as a union between a man and a woman does NOT violate equal protection. Because that IS the definition of a marriage as it has been accepted for thousands of years.

You're a fucking moron. It absolutely violates equal protection, regardless of what definitions are used. We're not talking about the discrimination of couples, but the discrimination of individuals. If I cannot enter into the same marriage contract as someone else because I am not the same gender as that person, then a disparity of rights exists. This has literally nothing to do with how a given contract is named.

You seem confused. It is the gay marriage people who are trying to take a term and redefine its meaning. Marriage has always been accepted as a union between a man and a woman. The only way you can have gay marriage is to redefine the term marriage. And if you can redefine it one way then you can redefine it anyway you want.

Only morons argue on the basis of "true" definitions. That would apparently include you.

The ONLY way you can use the equal protection cause to promote gay marriage is for you to first get the definition of marriage changed. Once you get the definition of marriage changed then you can run around and claim that the government is violating the 14th amendment.

Typical republican idiocy.

 

[Craig234]

as a technical matter, they can't appeal. they can petition for a writ of certiorari

The reporting I saw, for better or worse, was that they had the right to appeal and chose not to, locking in the decision for that region but preventing it from becoming national.

At least, until someone sues in other regions and the courts there make the same decision, possibly looking at this one.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If it's about equal "rights",

Why would you put "rights" in quotations like that? Do you not believe that gay people are entitled to the same rights as everyone else? The Constitution says that they are.

why not just give all marriage benefit to all people, married or not.

I don't think you understand what the marriage benefits are, because if you did you would realize that your suggestion is incoherent on its face.

Moreover, there's nothing inherently unconstitutional about recognizing certain priviledges for couples entering into a marriage agreement. It only becomes unconstitutional when the government decides that certain people cannot enter into the same contract as other people because of their gender.

All people deserve the same rights correct?

You ask that as though you would expect us to realize that people do not deserve the same rights, which in fact only reveals your own bigotry.

 

[ProfJohn]

You're a fucking moron. It absolutely violates equal protection, regardless of what definitions are used. We're not talking about the discrimination of couples, but the discrimination of individuals.If I cannot enter into the same marriage contract as someone else because I am not the same gender as that person, then a disparity of rights exists. This has literally nothing to do with how a given contract is named.

Wrong.

I love how you guys just assume that your definition of marriage is the correct one and that the definition of marriage that has been accepted for thousands of years is the wrong one.

In the eyes of the Federal government a marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore, in the eyes of the Federal government two men CAN NOT be married, no mater what some local or state law may claim. Therefore, since two men can not be married they are NOT entitled to the same benefits as a married couple because they are not married under Federal law.

You can claim all day long that your rights are being denied, but as long as the Federal government refuses to recognize the union of two men/women as a marriage you are NOT entitled to any rights extended to married couple because you are NOT married.

BTW the law has been in existence for 14 years!!!!! If it was as wrong as you guys claim then it would have been over turned LONG ago. However, as of today the Supreme Court has refused to review any cases involving that law.

 

[rchiu]

Why would you put "rights" in quotations like that? Do you not believe that gay people are entitled to the same rights as everyone else? The Constitution says that they are.



I don't think you understand what the marriage benefits are, because if you did you would realize that your suggestion is incoherent on its face.

Moreover, there's nothing inherently unconstitutional about recognizing certain priviledges for couples entering into a marriage agreement. It only becomes unconstitutional when the government decides that certain people cannot enter into the same contract as other people because of their gender.


You ask that as though you would expect us to realize that people do not deserve the same rights, which in fact only reveals your own bigotry.

blah blah blah...all these words and circle around the wagon, not one word addressing the core issue. What is the definition of marriage. Why one man or one woman cannot bend the definition of marriage while two man or two woman can. Why is two man or two woman is entitled to the "right" to marriage and the benefit that comes with it, but one man or one woman is not.

Denying black the same right as rest of the people is bigotry. Calling black people white is dumb.

Denying gay union the same "right" (I quote right to differentiate it from privilege) is bigotry. Calling gay union marriage is dumb.

What is "right" for gay union and what is "privilege" should be looked at and discussed rationally because of the inherent difference between gay union and marriage. There are privileges given to married couple because the contribution of their marriage to the foundation of the society. If gay union contribute the same, give them the same privilege, if not, don't, simple as that. Just have an open and rational discussion.

Just don't call marriage and gay union the same. That's what irrational politically correct don't want to think person do.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Wrong.

Which part is wrong? You simply stated that I said something wrong and then launch in to a bunch of gibberish that has nothing to do with what I said.

I love how you guys just assume that your definition of marriage is the correct one and that the definition of marriage that has been accepted for thousands of years is the wrong one.

I never stated anything about what a "correct" definition of marriage is. The idea of a "correct definition" is itself incoherent.

In the eyes of the Federal government a marriage is between a man and a woman.

In the eyes of the state, a marriage is a contract. By denying me the the same rights that a female enjoys -- namely, the right to marry a certain male -- an inequality of rights exists. This is the same point I made previously which you have utterly failed to rebut.

Therefore, in the eyes of the Federal government two men CAN NOT be married, no mater what some local or state law may claim. Therefore, since two men can not be married they are NOT entitled to the same benefits as a married couple because they are not married under Federal law.

It seems that you do not understand the point being made. Maybe you should take another attempt to actually address the point that I have made, you imbecilic troglodyte.

You can claim all day long that your rights are being denied, but as long as the Federal government refuses to recognize the union of two men/women as a marriage you are NOT entitled to any rights extended to married couple because you are NOT married.

Tautologies are tautologies. What a deep concept, Confucious.

BTW the law has been in existence for 14 years!!!!! If it was as wrong as you guys claim then it would have been over turned LONG ago.

Wanna take a guess at how long the rights of blacks were inequal to the rights of whites in America? What an utterly foolish argument.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

blah blah blah...all these words and circle around the wagon, not one word addressing the core issue. What is the definition of marriage. Why one man or one woman cannot bend the definition of marriage while two man or two woman can. Why is two man or two woman is entitled to the "right" to marriage and the benefit that comes with it, but one man or one woman is not.

Those questions have all been answered.

Denying gay union the same "right" (I quote right to differentiate it from privilege) is bigotry.

Marriage is not a privilege. You apparently have no idea what a "right" is.

Calling gay union marriage is dumb.

You are welcome to your own opinion. That and $3.50 will get you a latte at Starbucks.

What is "right" for gay union and what is "privilege" should be looked at and discussed rationally because of the inherent difference between gay union and marriage.

The only difference exists in your mind.

There are privileges given to married couple because the contribution of their marriage to the foundation of the society. If gay union contribute the same, give them the same privilege, if not, don't, simple as that. Just have an open and rational discussion.

I would be happy to have a rational discussion. You would have to be rational in order for that to happen, however. As it stands, you appear to be unable.

Just don't call marriage and gay union the same. That's what irrational politically correct don't want to think person do.

Only an irrational and ignorant person would think that a particular definition is a "true" one. That appears to describe you.

 

[First]

Common law or what was the precedent for thousands of years doesn't really mean all that much when the equal protection violation easily overrides a definition technicality based on the history of gays, which started with marriage being defined as one man and woman based entirely on the false notion that everyone but a few isolated persons were heterosexual as well as prejudiced stigma of being gay resulting in gays simply not being recognized or thought about. Thankfully we've come a long way since then, same way we have with interracial marriage. The same arguments against gay marriage were used for interracial marriage so it's not really anything new. They just have even less merit than they used to which is why gays have progressively received more and more rights and why it'll eventually be permanent the way it is with interracial couples.

 

[Patranus]

How does a "progressive" income tax not apply in the same situation. You have a law that is not applied equally to different groups based on certain criteria.

Question: Can a Mormon claim multiple wives as dependents?

 

[zsdersw]

There are privileges given to married couple because the contribution of their marriage to the foundation of the society. If gay union contribute the same, give them the same privilege,

Same-sex marriage *would* contribute to the betterment of society for similar reasons that heterosexual marriage does. Government gives privileges to married couples because it creates a good environment for the raising of children. It represents an ideal that the government can provide incentives for. So, too, would same-sex marriages represent an ideal that the government should provide incentives for.

Monogamous relationships that people have expressed a desire in pursuing, as evidenced by their desire to be married, should be regarded as a good thing by the government, whether the relationship is hetero- or homosexual, because they are a good thing for the two people involved, for their families, and for the rest of society.