Is DOMA Unconstitutional?

People go from gay to straight all the time. It's been done, there is no denying it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/720747/posts
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,840542,00.html
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjQT4QXBpEQ&feature=related"]Dr. Joseph Nicolosi - November 2008 - Denver, CO - Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]

The 14th Amendment applies to former slaves as it relates to their citizenship. It has nothing to do with marriage, sex, or sexual orientation.

I posted a Virginia marriage law from 1793. It places limitations on marriage. That is just one of the original 13 states...do I have to find 12 more for you?

 

Can someone show me anywhere in the constitution where homosexuality is even mentioned?

And to whoever said the founding fathers were not religious: The founding fathers all had a strong belief in order and they Did believe in a creator. Some people want to have their own history. I actually too a class on the writings of the founding fathers and God was very much in their lives.

 

no special rights were awarded. equal rights were.

 

Another rectal cavity argument? We must truly wonder how large that cavity really is.

Gay and lesbians are not seeking a new or special Constitutional right but instead they seek the enforcement of a Constitutional right that is already enumerated. They are entitled to equal protection under the law just like everyone else.

Why are so many opposed to affording equal protection under the law to anyone? This violates the very ideals upon which America was founded and I don't even understand how anyone could consider themself to be an American when they are opposed to the Declaration of Independence which established that ALL people have inalienable Rights and the very purpose of government was to protect those Rights, not violate them!

 

When the basis for your argument is false, then you have no argument whatsoever. There is no Constitutional right that is enumerated for Gays and lesbians.

 

unfortunately for you, mariage was not defined as a union between a woman and a man until 1996. Same sex marriages were not excluded, as a matter of law, until the 1970's.

 

Wow did we not cover this already? Protected class is discrimination at the highest level. It is Gubermint sanctioned discrimination.

It is not about DOMA it is about the Gay agenda. It is about those already seeking protected group status and with recent precedents and DOMA going down we are one more person to stomp on: "the heterosexual white man".

Most of us do not give a rats ass weather you get married or not; really. Keep it out of our churches and stuff; but really it is about what comes next.

 

no he didn't. no law existed prior to the 1970's excluding same sex marriage.

 

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

The founders of America were very much opposed to religion and the tyranny that it represents. Those that endorse the discrimination against gay and lesbians today which violates their Right of Equal Protection Under the Law are exactly the type of religious people that the founders of America despised.

 

Sound bites from you. Try this:

Thomas Jefferson
3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event."
--Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.

"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.

 

It's all about "denying it" actually!

 

Sure people go from gay to straight all the time. You can spank the gay out, didn't you know?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_o_zfQcdgQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_o_zfQcdgQ[/ame]

 

Gay couple next door have been trying this for years.

It's still not working!!

 

Oh gee, lets add the qualifier "legal" to marriage, and pretend like you dont mean the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage. No more a denial of civil rights to deny gay marriage the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of heterosexual marriage, than it is to deny owners of medium and large busineses, the tax breaks and governmental entilements made available to owners of small businesses. Tax breaks and governmental entitlements arent civil rights.

 

no, they're not. but marriage is a civil right. it just so happens that tax breaks and govn't entitlements go along with that civil right. that civil right is currently being denied based on gender. which is a violation of the 14th amendment. which is why bans on gay marriage are being declared unconstitutional in federal courts.

small and large businesses are not comparable to the civil right of marriage.

 

"Man and wife". Wife is by definition a woman, and of course a man is always a man. Matrimony, latin root of the word "mater", MOTHER.

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

 

I am one of those who support what you allege to be discrimination, and Im not religious, and I suspect the founding fathers support of marriage limited to a man and a woman had nothing to do with their religious beliefs and is instead because they couldnt even imagine a marriage that was anything other than between a man and a woman.

 

A secular humanist would oppose any government involvement in social institutions. They would recognize that from a government perspective marriage is nothing but a personal partnership where financial assets and liabilities are merged. They would oppose all marriage laws and would instead hold the position that it is the financial partnership and the Rights of Property that the government should be protecting and that this is best accomplished under contract law which is non-discriminatory. There is no rational reason for "marriage" laws at all.

The government should not be involved in the private affairs of the People except to protect the Rights of the People.

 

Sooooo somebody such as yourself, actually demanding MORE government involvement, by insisting that government expand its involvement to include homosexual couples, is most unlike a secular humanist. Actually claiming a constitutional right to more government involvement.

 

If gay couples are treated differently then ANY other couples it is special rights.
There is no way to prove it wrong.

 

I have repeatedly stated that all marriage laws should be abolished because they are inherently discriminatory and that personal partnerships should be a matter of contract law which is non-discriminatory. Realizing that this is unlikely to happen then I hold the pragmatic position that the marriage laws should be all encompasing. Anyone involved in a personal and financial partnership should be allowed to legally marry and receive the identical benefits and privileges afforded to the legal institution of marriage.

So yes, if we cannot abolish all marriage laws then same-sex couples should be allowed to marry under the marriage laws.

So should adults living in voluntary polygamous personal partnerships as well as mutually consenting adult family members (i.e. incestuous marriage). As long as coercion is not involved and it's the choice of consenting adults then they should be allowed to legally marry so long as the legal institution of marriage exists. Remember that polygamous and incestuous personal partnerships exist today and those that choose these partnerships should be afforded equal protection under the law identical to opposite-sex couple and same-sex couples.

It is not the goverment's role or responsibility to be involved in the personal relationships of consenting adults. The role of government is to protect the Rights of those that are involved in personal relationships with other consenting adults.

 

Personally I'd have no problem with it, I do believe marriage should be a legal contract any two consenting adults can enter into, but I'd say that the government would not wish to allow marriages between family members because it unavoidably codifies 'incest' into the law - or at least gives increased legitimacy to those types of relationships. Regardless of the absence of any actual sexual activity the result is still the same. No government would want to be seen putting what arguably amounts to the ultimate 'stamp of approval' of incest.

I don't think SSM supporters and gay people should be expected to fight that fight though, as it would obviously hurt their chances of passing legislation. And unlike same sex marriage no one is really crying out for it.