Something the Dog Said wrote: So according to you, Congress does not have the power to define marriage, yet DOMA did just that.
No, what DOMA did was clarify what the Congress intended in its use of those words for the purposes of clarifying who the laws they wrote were intended to apply to. A State redefining for itself what marriage is should not have any bearing on what the word means when used in federal legislation and given the history of using judicial "interpretation" to justify legislating from the bench, Congress clarified what their use of those words was intended to mean to prevent the judiciary from assigning a definition of their own.
As well as allow the states to deny equal protection and to deny other states contracts under the full faith and credit clause.
There is not a denial of equal protection under the law. Colorado is not prohibited from giving full faith and credit to the homosexual marriages performed in other States that belong to the union if they desire to do so. However, the several States are protected from having a single one of their number make a decision which affects them all by DOMA - which is precisely what Congress was delegated the power to do by the Constitution. One of its primary functions is to regulate the federal relations between the States belonging to the union such that they do not start conflicts with each other, and that is exactly what Section 2 of DOMA does. One State doesn't have the power to define what marriage is for the other 49 anymore than the federal government does, which is all that Section 2 or DOMA states to be true.
PS, you are another partisan hack, twisting and turning to justify your core beliefs. You have exposed yourself as just another phony, very sad, I thought better of you.
You keep saying that jmc - but your remarks are directed at me, not the arguments that I offer in support of my premise. Care to offer an alternative premise and support it with arguments instead of commenting on me? We can have a discussion at that point, a discussion in which you may be able to persuade me that my reasoned conclusions are deficient in some manner.
Or, you could simply continue to follow the traditional Alinsky model and persist in your efforts to try and make it all about me in the hopes that my reasoned and logical arguments will fall by the wayside. Your choice.
PrintSmith wrote: You keep saying that jmc - but your remarks are directed at me, not the arguments that I offer in support of my premise. Care to offer an alternative premise and support it with arguments instead of commenting on me? We can have a discussion at that point, a discussion in which you may be able to persuade me that my reasoned conclusions are deficient in some manner.
Or, you could simply continue to follow the traditional Alinsky model and persist in your efforts to try and make it all about me in the hopes that my reasoned and logical arguments will fall by the wayside. Your choice.
I am attacking your slanted view of the Constitution to fit your own personal political view. You try to come off as objective, that is what makes you a phony. You use your limited constitutional knowledge to support your prejudices. No consistency at all.
I see you have chosen to continue to make it about me for some strange reason. Tell me jmc, do you remember the events occurring at that moment in time without resorting to Google? I do - quite clearly in fact - which is why the revisionist nonsense about Congress seeking to define marriage with DOMA tickles me so. If you'd care to discuss where my "limited" understanding of the Constitution fails to support my premise, by all means, enlighten me with your deeper understanding. We can discuss our views - revisit the events leading up to DOMA that persuaded Congress to pass the legislation and Clinton to sign it into law and perhaps walk away with both of us having learned a thing or two. It's an open invitation jmc - we can talk about DOMA or each other's shortcomings from our individual perspective - which would be more preferable to you?
Something the Dog Said wrote: So according to you, Congress does not have the power to define marriage, yet DOMA did just that.
No, what DOMA did was clarify what the Congress intended in its use of those words for the purposes of clarifying who the laws they wrote were intended to apply to. A State redefining for itself what marriage is should not have any bearing on what the word means when used in federal legislation and given the history of using judicial "interpretation" to justify legislating from the bench, Congress clarified what their use of those words was intended to mean to prevent the judiciary from assigning a definition of their own.
As well as allow the states to deny equal protection and to deny other states contracts under the full faith and credit clause.
There is not a denial of equal protection under the law. Colorado is not prohibited from giving full faith and credit to the homosexual marriages performed in other States that belong to the union if they desire to do so. However, the several States are protected from having a single one of their number make a decision which affects them all by DOMA - which is precisely what Congress was delegated the power to do by the Constitution. One of its primary functions is to regulate the federal relations between the States belonging to the union such that they do not start conflicts with each other, and that is exactly what Section 2 of DOMA does. One State doesn't have the power to define what marriage is for the other 49 anymore than the federal government does, which is all that Section 2 or DOMA states to be true.
\
Of course it violates both equal protection and full faith and credit.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
I believe it might be helpful for you to read the entire first paragraph of Article IV Dog - where you will find that Congress was delegated the power to make exactly the kind of distinction contained in Section 2 of DOMA between one State deciding what it wishes to do with regards to itself and one State deciding what all the others will do as a result of it's decisions. How very ironic that "progressives" object when Congress exercises one of its expressly delegated powers but supports Congress exercising powers it was not expressly delegated almost without exception.
Why didn't you guys start another thread about how the govt should or can legally be involved in your marriage and all the acronyms you can use to limit your rights? This one was supposed to be to discuss why people want the govt involved in marriage or why the govt is involved at all...or why you would even let them start the discussion. You guys wrote 4 pages about the nuts and bolts of the laws, but did not discuss whether the laws are just. Would you accept govt. debate on how many times you can legally crap in a day, to debate marriage in our govt halls is just plain nuts.
It's kind of like me asking if we should tie a 4 pound ball to everyone's ankle and you guys post 4 pages of ball designs and legal limits on ball weight??
By even having these conversations, you semi-condone having others decide aspects of your relations, what's up with that...for those of you that want other people outside of your relationships to make decisions about your relationships, can you explain why the opinion of others would matter to you....or why they should give a crap about your opinion of their relationships (who the heck are you anyway).
This has nothing to do with fed vs. states, unless you have already gone over the deep end to let them into your bedroom or heart (I feel sorry for you folks). This has to do with your relationships vs. your govt. sanctioned relationships with adjustments in your rights.
There is no need to have any govt regulations in regards to marriage what so ever, we all loose as soon as you debate the details of how they should or have the right to be involved. Give individuals basic rights, or rather preserve them and let those rights be sustained regardless of who associates/relates to who.
popcorn eater wrote: There is no need to have any govt regulations in regards to marriage what so ever, we all loose as soon as you debate the details of how they should or have the right to be involved. Give individuals basic rights, or rather preserve them and let those rights be sustained regardless of who associates/relates to who.
popcorn eater wrote: There is no need to have any govt regulations in regards to marriage what so ever, we all lose as soon as you debate the details of how they should or have the right to be involved. Give individuals basic rights, or rather preserve them and let those rights be sustained regardless of who associates/relates to who.
