Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Time to get the government out of the marriage business. The only reason the goverment starting issuing licenses to get married was to prevent whites from marrying outside their race. Turn it back over to the church since the word "marriage" is religious anyway.
Time to get the government out of the marriage business. The only reason the goverment starting issuing licenses to get married was to prevent whites from marrying outside their race. Turn it back over to the church since the word "marriage" is religious anyway.
You have to get rid of all of the tax benefits relating to marriage as well.
That was a very badly written article. First of all, DOMA is not anything like what the article describes. DOMA is a statutory law that allows the various States to ignore the "Full Faith & Credit" Clause of the US Constitution with regard to marriage.
Under the "Full Faith & Credit" Clause of the US Constitution every State is required to acknowledge the public acts of another State, and marriage is a public act. DOMA allows States to refuse to acknowledge marriages that are not between one man and one woman. THAT is why it is unconstitutional, not because of the bilge being spewed in that stupid article. You cannot alter the US Constitution by statutory law, as is being done with DOMA. It requires a ratified amendment to change the US Constitution.
I don't think it was poorly written. It was an accurate description of the case and of the discriminatory effect of DOMA. You're correct in that DOMA undermines the full faith and credit clause - that's section 2 of DOMA (although court cases dealing with section 2 of DOMA have been mixed). This lawsuit dealt with section 3 of DOMA. Section 3 says:
"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."
Most of the rights of marriage are federal. Section 3 of DOMA denies to any homosexual couple - whether legally married in Iowa, in a civil union in New Jersey, etc - access to any federal rights associated with marriage. For instance, the legal gay husband of a military member cannot live in base housing or shop at the commissary or PX whereas the straight wife of a military member can.
This case is about a women who works for the federal government. Her employment comes with health insurance to which you can add your spouse. She is legally married to another women, and she tried to add her wife to her health insurance, but, because of DOMA, she was denied. The court (rightfully I might add), found that this violates her Constitutional right (under the 5th and 14th Amendments) to equal protection under our civil laws.
Great, more loony liberal judges legislating from the bench. Oh wait, the judge was a GW Bush appointee. Damn you Dubya for sowing the seeds of destruction of traditional marriage!
You have to get rid of all of the tax benefits relating to marriage as well.
The tax benefits are there to encourage people to stay together to raise the children they bring into the world. I would agree to this if we also deduct the tax incentives you get for having kids.
Time to get the government out of the marriage business. The only reason the goverment starting issuing licenses to get married was to prevent whites from marrying outside their race. Turn it back over to the church since the word "marriage" is religious anyway.
The concept of "marriage" pre-dates religions and isn't limited to a religion or two or three or...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsRock
The tax benefits are there to encourage people to stay together to raise the children they bring into the world. I would agree to this if we also deduct the tax incentives you get for having kids.
Incentives should be to raise kids, not for being a kid-factory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
