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.
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley says a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman interferes with her state's right to regulate the institution.<snip> Please click on the link below for the full article.
The Defense Of Marriage Act should be struck down. Anyone who believes in states rights should be offended by it.
In the news yesterday, a lesbian married couple from Massachusetts got a divorce decree in an Austin court, only to get the Texas Atty General attempt to reverse it the following day. This is a problem when legally married Mass gays attempt to divorce in other states where their marriages are not recognized, espec a bigoted state like Texas where politicians are ALWAYS playing to their conservative base. Mass requires a 1 year residency to either get married or get divorced. since this couple no longer resided in mass, they could not meet that stiff requirement. This clearly violates the "Full Faith & Credit" clause of the Constitution. I wonder if the current SCOTUS would interpret this correctly. DOMA does need to be struck down.
In the news yesterday, a lesbian married couple from Massachusetts got a divorce decree in an Austin court, only to get the Texas Atty General attempt to reverse it the following day. This is a problem when legally married Mass gays attempt to divorce in other states where their marriages are not recognized, espec a bigoted state like Texas where politicians are ALWAYS playing to their conservative base. Mass requires a 1 year residency to either get married or get divorced. since this couple no longer resided in mass, they could not meet that stiff requirement. This clearly violates the "Full Faith & Credit" clause of the Constitution. I wonder if the current SCOTUS would interpret this correctly. DOMA does need to be struck down.
I have to agree with the OP. I am against gay marriage on a moral and religious basis, but as a strict-constructionist, the federal government has not the authority given in the constitution to regulate such affairs. This is a state affair.
The proper way for the feds to go about a ban on gay marriage would be through a constitutional amendment. Just like they had to with prohibition.
No it shouldn't . Just another example of special interest groups wanting it there way.
Rail about big government yet continue to push big government
I actually agree that the Marriage Law is indeed unconstitutional unless the states ratify the law, but I do find it hypocritical that the very same individuals shouting down the Marriage Law because it opposes state rights, are the very same ones shouting for national healthcare..
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.
