- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,990
- Reaction score
- 60,556
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
A federal appeals court Thursday declared that the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally denies federal benefits to married gay couples, a ruling all but certain to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
In its unanimous ruling, the three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the 1996 law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman discriminates against gay couples because it doesn't give them the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples.
The court didn't rule on the law's other politically combustible provision, which said states without same-sex marriage cannot be forced to recognize gay unions performed in states where it's legal. It also wasn't asked to address whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry.
Then maybe it's time to scrap the old Constitution and write one where the invocation of MORALITY as the highest Legal determinator is more clearly defined.
Then maybe it's time to scrap the old Constitution and write one where the invocation of MORALITY as the highest Legal determinator is more clearly defined.
Nope, sorry your not winning this battle.
Then maybe it's time to scrap the old Constitution and write one where the invocation of MORALITY as the highest Legal determinator is more clearly defined.
You know what I find interesting..... The fact that I can willingly claim that a new Constitution would be a good idea to support my viewpoint on this issue, but you folks on the left are still unwilling to indicate that much of your legislative and philosophical agenda should require at least a Constitutional Amendment to make legitimate.
Then maybe it's time to scrap the old Constitution and write one where the invocation of MORALITY as the highest Legal determinator is more clearly defined.
What criteria should we use to determine this "MORALITY"?
You know what I find interesting..... The fact that I can willingly claim that a new Constitution would be a good idea to support my viewpoint on this issue, but you folks on the left are still unwilling to indicate that much of your legislative and philosophical agenda should require at least a Constitutional Amendment to make legitimate.
Exactly. Given the current TEMPORARY slant of the SCOTUS many seek to use it in place of constitutional amendment. If the constitution can be "interpretted" to allow this, such as in Roe vs. Wade, then we are left with essentially no constitution at all. What is so sacred about a "partnership" of only two persons in a marraige? If gender is not "important" then why not simply make marraige the same as any business "partnership" contract and allow any number of partners of any gender?
And of course,you get to dictate MORALITY for everybody. What criteria should we use to determine this "MORALITY"?
Seems to me more and more people don't seem to have a problem with gays.
How about a couple thousand years of human history, that worked out pretty well compared to the last century and a half which hasn't.
Under the current structure neither I nor anyone else can prevent those people from making poor decisions like that.
Then maybe it's time to scrap the old Constitution and write one where the invocation of MORALITY as the highest Legal determinator is more clearly defined.
Tigger's of course.
Exactly. Given the current TEMPORARY slant of the SCOTUS many seek to use it in place of constitutional amendment. If the constitution can be "interpretted" to allow this, such as in Roe vs. Wade, then we are left with essentially no constitution at all. What is so sacred about a "partnership" of only two persons in a marraige? If gender is not "important" then why not simply make marraige the same as any business "partnership" contract and allow any number of partners of any gender? Polygamy is much more common than SSM worldwide, and removes all bias and social, moral or religious barriers from a "traditional" marraige contract. Law should say what it means and mean what is says (eliminating the need for most lawyers).
How about a couple thousand years of human history, that worked out pretty well compared to the last century and a half which hasn't.
Note, for some who are having trouble with the issue --
This ruling is not based on discrimination by sex (gender).
This ruling is based on discrimination against homosexuality.
This has been true of every ruling.
Can you clarify the significance of your distinction?
Then maybe it's time to scrap the old Constitution and write one where the invocation of MORALITY as the highest Legal determinator is more clearly defined.
This is a complicated issue, but I believe that denying ANYBODY any rights that others have deprives them of equality, which according to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution makes DOMA unconstitutional. But don't take my word for it. 2 out of 3 of the judges who ruled were appointed by Reagan and Bush I, respectively, and are fairly strict constructionists. For this reason, I believe that SCOTUS will uphold the ruling that was handed down today.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?