• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DOMA and DADT

WilliamJB

WilliamJB

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
314
Reaction score
59
Location
Albany, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
With all the talk recently about how Obama/Congressional Democrats are "shredding the constitution," I'm curious about where the push from the right and/or the Tea Partiers is to repeal/strike down DOMA and DADT, both of which are pretty much as unconstitutional as you can get?

Relatedly, anyone want to take a stab at explaining to me how these laws are NOT unconstitutional?
 
Last edited:
WilliamJB said:
With all the talk recently about how Obama/Congressional Democrats are "shredding the constitution," I'm curious about where the push from the right and/or the Tea Partiers is to repeal/strike down DOMA and DADT, both of which are pretty much as unconstitutional as you can get?

Relatedly, anyone want to take a stab at explaining to me how these laws are NOT unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

Which amendment does these violate?
 
Equal Protection in both cases, Full Faith and Credit in the case of DOMA (which isn't an amendment, of course, it's part of the body of the constitution).
 
the makeout hobo said:
I would think DOMA violates the full faith and credit clause.
Click to expand...

That and for the first time since prohibition laws, it would preemptively dispel rights. Nowhere else in the constitution do you see rights of citizens prohibited.
 
WilliamJB said:
Equal Protection in both cases,

Full Faith and Credit in the case of DOMA (which isn't an amendment, of course, it's part of the body of the constitution)
Click to expand...

How?The law applies to everyone equally.Are you saying only certain men can marry only certain women or that only certian people engaging in homosexual acts can be booted from the military?
 
jamesrage said:
How?The law applies to everyone equally.Are you saying only certain men can marry only certain women or that only certian people engaging in homosexual acts can be booted from the military?
Click to expand...

DOMA means that a marriage certificate from Massachusetts might not be honored in Oklahoma. That violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
 
jamesrage said:
How?The law applies to everyone equally.Are you saying only certain men can marry only certain women or that only certian people engaging in homosexual acts can be booted from the military?
Click to expand...

It does not apply equally. I can do something legally a woman can not do. And that would be to marry a woman.
 
jamesrage said:
How?The law applies to everyone equally.Are you saying only certain men can marry only certain women or that only certian people engaging in homosexual acts can be booted from the military?
Click to expand...

Exact same argument put forward in Loving v. Virginia. You really want to go down that road?

But in any case, the law does not apply equally to everyone. If you're gay, you cannot marry the person of your choice. If you're straight you can.
 
WilliamJB said:
With all the talk recently about how Obama/Congressional Democrats are "shredding the constitution," I'm curious about where the push from the right and/or the Tea Partiers is to repeal/strike down DOMA and DADT, both of which are pretty much as unconstitutional as you can get?

Relatedly, anyone want to take a stab at explaining to me how these laws are NOT unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

I'd just like to point out that DADT is a Democrat policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

Also, DADT is a national security policy, whereas DOMA is a social policy.

Positions on each can very widely due to that critical difference.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
I'd just like to point out that DADT is a Democrat policy: Don't ask, don't tell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, DADT is a national security policy, whereas DOMA is a social policy.

Positions on each can very widely due to that critical difference.
Click to expand...

OK, but that doesn't answer the question. Are the laws constitutional, and if so, why?

Also, something being related to national security doesn't insulate it from constitutional scrutiny. Particularly if the policy has no impact on national security at all, as is the case with DADT.

As for DADT being passed by democrats... well... yes it was. And I objected to it then, too.
 
WilliamJB said:
OK, but that doesn't answer the question. Are the laws constitutional, and if so, why?
Click to expand...

They're constitutional as of the time they were passed, but are perhaps now in need of updating.

DOMA, for example, does not infringe on any constitutionally protected right because marriage is not a right afforded or denied by the federal constitution. However, since per the 10th Amendment marriage is a state right, I submit that DOMA may be unconstitutional if it infringes on a state's ability to decide the issue for itself. Likewise, any federal mandate to allow same-sex marriage would be unconstitutional as well.

As for DADT, that is a pro-gay rights policy. DADT could only be unconstitutional if the Constitution prohibited gays from serving. Before DADT, gays were completely barred from military service. DADT gave them the ability to serve in silence and opened the door for us to now take the next step and allow gays to serve openly. If it weren't for DADT, we probably would not be discussing the likely possibility of gays serving openly in the next few years.

WilliamJB said:
Also, something being related to national security doesn't insulate it from constitutional scrutiny. Particularly if the policy has no impact on national security at all, as is the case with DADT.
Click to expand...

People like to mix DADT and DOMA under the umbrella of "gay rights". While the 2 policies may share that general theme, simply labeling them both "gay rights" issues washes away the important distinction. One might be strongly against gay marriage for a religious reason while strongly in support for gays serving openly for the sake of a strong military. In so far as I can see you wouldn't oppose gays in the military for religious reasons nor would you support gay marriage so the military was strong. Each position is supported by very different facts and lines of logic.

If such a person were against gay marriage and in support of gays serving openly, then we couldn't say with any degree of accuracy that this person is "for gay rights" or "against gay rights". Such ambiguity is another reason why the "rights" argument fails every time it's tried.
 
Last edited:
I'm still waiting to hear how the FFAC clause isn't violated.
 
Gipper said:
Then why won't Shakira return my calls?
Click to expand...

I don't know, are you from Arizona???

But in seriousness, let me rephrase. Two people can marry the people of their choice, if they're straight. Not if they're LGBT.
 
WilliamJB said:
I don't know, are you from Arizona???

But in seriousness, let me rephrase. Two people can marry the people of their choice, if they're straight. Not if they're LGBT.
Click to expand...

The (idiotic) counterargument conservatives respond with is "but a gay person can still choose to marry someone of the opposite sex!"

Turner v Schlafly (I might be wrong on that second name), SCOTUS actually identified love as a key component of marriage, but they tend to ignore that somehow.
 
Deuce said:
The (idiotic) counterargument conservatives respond with is "but a gay person can still choose to marry someone of the opposite sex!"

Turner v Schlafly (I might be wrong on that second name), SCOTUS actually identified love as a key component of marriage, but they tend to ignore that somehow.
Click to expand...

Yes, and in Loving v. Virginia, marriage was recognized as a fundamental right. Oops, selective amnesia again.
 
jallman said:
I dunno. I'll ask her hips cuz they don't lie.
Click to expand...

They also don't speak... although I bet she could beat out some Morse code on them.
 
Jerry said:
Also, DADT is a national security policy, whereas DOMA is a social policy.
Click to expand...

Give me a break, Jerry. We've been down this road a few times already.
Most soldiers/sailors don't give a ratzazz who saves their butts in combat. As long as we're doing our jobs.
Gays/lesbians don't join just to find sexual partners. They join because they feel as citizens it's their duty...just like anyone else.
The ONLY ones who seem to have problems with it are the back-water-rednecks who would just as soon report someone who actually isn't gay as being gay because they don't like them!
Anyone with half a brain would know that gays/lesbians have ALWAYS been in the military...we're just asking that we not be discharged if it's found out that we are gay! Why should gays/lesbians who feel the duty to serve and answer that call have to feel afraid of their fellow soldiers/sailors?

THAT'S the REAL threat to security/unit cohession and it always has been.
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom