NationStates Jolt Archive

I know that this is a week old but I just now saw this:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040821-115526-6139r.htm

A federal judge in Washington state last week upheld the federal Defense of Marriage Act as constitutional, marking the first time a federal court has ruled on the 1996 law, which defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
"The case for same-sex marriage has been undermined," said Glen Lavy, senior counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal group that opposes homosexual "marriage" and recently lost a state case in Washington on the issue. "The bottom line message is ... same-sex marriage is not inevitable in this country. We can win this battle."

In a decision issued Tuesday from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Tacoma, Wash., federal bankruptcy Judge Paul B. Snyder ruled that DOMA is indeed constitutional and that it "does not violate the principles of comity, or the Fourth, Fifth, or Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution."
Judge Snyder also wrote, "DOMA does not burden a fundamental right, nor target a suspect class."
The case only challenged federal DOMA's definition of marriage. It did not involve the other half of the law, which says states can't be forced to recognize same-sex "marriages" from other states.

So it looks like DOMA will be arround! Anyone care to place bets this heads to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals then to SCOTUS?

Oh those wacky guys in the 9th Circuit....want to hazard a guess which way they will go? ;) They waste so much taxpayers money with their antics. How many times do they have to be overturned before they realize they are not the all knowing wizards?

Isn't the government's recognition of marriage unconstitutional? After all, marriage is traditionally a religious tradition. Establishment clause anyone?

Yes. It will most likely be appealed.

But I have two questions:

1) What the hell was this doing in Bankruptcy court?!?

and

2) What about the First Amendment? Marriage is a religious ceremony and the First Amendment forbids government from passing any law regarding an establishment of religion. The bottom line is that is a church decides to marry gay couples, the government has no recourse.

Oh those wacky guys in the 9th Circuit....want to hazard a guess which way they will go? ;) They waste so much taxpayers money with their antics. How many times do they have to be overturned before they realize they are not the all knowing wizards?

Most overturned court in the land if my memory serves me right! I think I know which why they'll go but the Supreme Court is another matter.

Yes. It will most likely be appealed.

But I have two questions:

1) What the hell was this doing in Bankruptcy court?!?

and

2) What about the First Amendment? Marriage is a religious ceremony and the First Amendment forbids government from passing any law regarding an establishment of religion. The bottom line is that is a church decides to marry gay couples, the government has no recourse.

2. Religious ceremonies are one thing, but unless combined with a marraige license the marraige is not recognized by the state. A couple can get married into any religion they want to and that is ok, but it is the signed license that makes the marraige official. I know a lot of couples who are "married" in religious ceremonies but not in a civil cremony so their marraiges are not "legally" binding.

So it looks like DOMA will be arround! Anyone care to place bets this heads to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals then to SCOTUS?

Well, they didn't challenge it on the right Constitutional grounds. I wasn't all that surprised to see it upheld under that particular challenge. It will be on Article 4 and Amendment 14 challenges that it will eventually fall.

The case only challenged federal DOMA's definition of marriage. It did not involve the other half of the law, which says states can't be forced to recognize same-sex "marriages" from other states.



learn to read, that is the part thats illegal, good job ignoring the actual problem while trying to make it look like you are right

Frankly, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why my marriage needs "defending" from the unions of others.

My vows, my commitment, my love, and my life in marriage sure as hell don't depend on the quality of the vows, commitment, or love of my straight neighbours. If he beats her, she cheats on him, they have kinky sex, or if they don't even sleep together at all - it has absolutely zero impact on my life. None! My marriage - believe it or not - is a completely seperate relationship to that of my neighbours.

And it would be the same damn thing if a gay couple moves in next door.

Anyone who thinks that it either affects or diminishes their own relationship sure doesn't hold their spouse or their vows in very high regard....

Tell me you disagree with gay marriage for religeous reasons - I'll say that it is your right to believe that. But don't tell me for one instant that the relationship of another couple ever really impacts your own in the way the rhetoric seems to imply that it would.

That is a lame-assed cop-out in my books, and pretty much the same one that was used when discussing mixed-race marriages 40 years ago.


It's just a dumb argument.

"Defense of marriage" my ass! Such a stupid name for it......

My vows, my commitment, my love, and my life in marriage sure as hell don't depend on the quality of the vows, commitment, or love of my straight neighbours. If he beats her, she cheats on him, they have kinky sex, or if they don't even sleep together at all - it has absolutely zero impact on my life. None! My marriage - believe it or not - is a completely seperate relationship to that of my neighbours.

And it would be the same damn thing if a gay couple moves in next door.

Anyone who thinks that it either affects or diminishes their own relationship sure doesn't hold their spouse or their vows in very high regard....

Ah come on Zepp, didn't you know that having a straight couple beating each other up next door is infinitely better than having a loving gay couple next door? I mean, isn't it obvious that just having the gay couple next door to you will make you personally less moral and might convince your kids to go to the gay side?

Ah come on Zepp, didn't you know that having a straight couple beating each other up next door is infinitely better than having a loving gay couple next door? I mean, isn't it obvious that just having the gay couple next door to you will make you personally less moral and might convince your kids to go to the gay side?
This describes my home situation exactly. Battling straight couple on the right, happy lesbian couple on the left. Me, I'm a happily divorced single guy in the middle, and I don't need either of them to help convince me that I'm happier unmarried than married.

You want a true DOMA? Tackle divorce rates. Until then, the government can STFU.

Gay on the left, straight on the right, me in the center ... coincidence?
Of course I could face the back of my property and turn the entire political spectrum upside down.

Frankly, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why my marriage needs "defending" from the unions of others.

My vows, my commitment, my love, and my life in marriage sure as hell don't depend on the quality of the vows, commitment, or love of my straight neighbours. If he beats her, she cheats on him, they have kinky sex, or if they don't even sleep together at all - it has absolutely zero impact on my life. None! My marriage - believe it or not - is a completely seperate relationship to that of my neighbours.

And it would be the same damn thing if a gay couple moves in next door.

Anyone who thinks that it either affects or diminishes their own relationship sure doesn't hold their spouse or their vows in very high regard....

Tell me you disagree with gay marriage for religeous reasons - I'll say that it is your right to believe that. But don't tell me for one instant that the relationship of another couple ever really impacts your own in the way the rhetoric seems to imply that it would.

That is a lame-assed cop-out in my books, and pretty much the same one that was used when discussing mixed-race marriages 40 years ago.


It's just a dumb argument.

"Defense of marriage" my ass! Such a stupid name for it......

well said!

Marriage isn't being defended here. People are just imposing their limited beliefs on others because they can't handle seeing something they have always been brainwashed into believing was wrong.

1) What the hell was this doing in Bankruptcy court?!?


I'm wondering this myself.

1) What the hell was this doing in Bankruptcy court?!?

Maybe because one member of the couple bought some things for the household and they are being sold in his filing for bankruptcy while a straight couple has laws that prevent things like couch, table, bed to fall under the bankrupt debt, whereas a gay couple have not such privilege under DOMA.

I'm just speculating here.

Maybe because one member of the couple bought some things for the household and they are being sold in his filing for bankruptcy while a straight couple has laws that prevent things like couch, table, bed to fall under the bankrupt debt, whereas a gay couple have not such privilege under DOMA.

I'm just speculating here.

Basically. The couple tried to file for bankruptcy jointly and were denied. Then, one of the women died. Instead of getting to keep her stuff, the surviving member of the couple had it all taken away to go to creditors since it *technically* belonged to the other woman.

In other words, it's bullshit and stuff like this needs to be overturned. Unfortunately, her lawyers didn't challenge it properly so she still got screwed.

Another interesting point that just got brought to my attention. Now that a US court has denied recognition of a Canadian marriage, people have looked into it and realized that we have no treaty with Canada that requires the two countries to recognize each others' marriage licenses.

So now, if Canada wants to, it can say "Fine, you won't recognize our marriages, we won't recognize yours either! Nannynannybooboo!"

Formal Dances hates gays. OK, maybe that looks like a flame, but there really are no other reasons for opposing gay marriage.

Gay on the left, straight on the right, me in the center ... coincidence?
Of course I could face the back of my property and turn the entire political spectrum upside down.
How is homosexuality either right-wing or left-wing? I think it's one of those things that transcends artificial political divides.