DOMA's Days Are Numbered

[Eos]

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/February/11-ag-222.html


After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

[Sarah]

So this will allow gay marriage?

[kanevaldier]

Lol. Thats funny. The President likes to say one thing like DOMA is unconstitutional while he ignores the courts when they tell him that Obama care is also unconstitutional. He sure does like to pick and chose when he is infavor of the constitution. Just seems to be a double standard to me. Though in reading section 3 of DOMA, it only defines the words marriage and spouse. The definition is exactly the same as that found in the dictionary so I fail to see the problem here.

[Eos]

So this will allow gay marriage?

No, DOMA prevents the federal government from recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages.

[Sarah]

No, DOMA prevents the federal government from recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages.

I'm sorry, I'm confused. Is DOMA for or against same-sex marriage? You said it prevents the federal government from recognizing it, meaning that it's against same-sex marriage, but you said no to me.

I guess I should rephrase my original question.

Is this a step forward for homosexuals looking for equal rights in marriage?

edit: I guess the fact the kanevaldier is against this AND public healthcare should make it pretty obvious that it is a pro-homosexuality movement.

[Eos]

Is this a step forward for homosexuals looking for equal rights in marriage?

Yes.
Removing this doesn't suddenly enable us to marry, it just removes the federal "LA LA LA WE CANT HEAR YOU" that ignores states that allow the marriage.

[Mute]

Yes.
Removing this doesn't suddenly enable us to marry, it just removes the federal "LA LA LA WE CANT HEAR YOU" that ignores states that allow the marriage.

So, basically, go to a state that allows it and the government will have to acknowledge the marriage legally?

[Derosis]

So, basically, go to a state that allows it and the government will have to acknowledge the marriage legally?

Yes

[Words]

So, basically, go to a state that allows it and the government will have to acknowledge the marriage legally?

Yes

Cool :O

[Tigeon]

Lol. Thats funny. The President likes to say one thing like DOMA is unconstitutional while he ignores the courts when they tell him that Obama care is also unconstitutional. He sure does like to pick and chose when he is infavor of the constitution. Just seems to be a double standard to me. Though in reading section 3 of DOMA, it only defines the words marriage and spouse. The definition is exactly the same as that found in the dictionary so I fail to see the problem here.

Thing is, Judicial Branch can make any ruling they want. The Executive and Legaslative branches dont need to follow Judicial Branch's decision. Most presidents in our history actually ignore whatever Judicial Branch rules if they want to continue their plan.

Think of the Supreme Court as elderly advice, not supreme law of the land (even if they say they are!) because really, what the hell can they do? They can't make laws, they can't cut the president's funding if the president continues his decision. Judicial branch is the weakest and most neglected branch in our government to date. Always have, and always will be.

[kanevaldier]

Thing is, Judicial Branch can make any ruling they want. The Executive and Legaslative branches dont need to follow Judicial Branch's decision. Most presidents in our history actually ignore whatever Judicial Branch rules if they want to continue their plan.

Think of the Supreme Court as elderly advice, not supreme law of the land (even if they say they are!) because really, what the hell can they do? They can't make laws, they can't cut the president's funding if the president continues his decision. Judicial branch is the weakest and most neglected branch in our government to date. Always have, and always will be.

What you state is partially true. The judicial branch tends to get neglected. However, it does have real power. The supreme court was set up to interpret the law and the constitution which is the highest law in this nation. That said they can charge the president in contempt if they so chose. Forcing him to go through the court system. Thats part of the checks and balances of our government.

@sarah....no I am not against getting rid of DOMA. But the article focuses on section 3 and that is why I dont see the problem. Section 3 only defines the words marriage and spouse and both definitions are as they are in the dictionary. That doesnt make section 3 unconstitutional at all. DOMA is however unconstitutional because the federal government is not supposed to supercede any of the states laws. Each state makes its own laws for its citizens. Getting rid of DOMA will not change that. Same sex marriage will still be unrecognized in the states that dont recognize it.

[Kabanaw]

Lol. Thats funny. The President likes to say one thing like DOMA is unconstitutional while he ignores the courts when they tell him that Obama care is also unconstitutional. He sure does like to pick and chose when he is infavor of the constitution. Just seems to be a double standard to me. Though in reading section 3 of DOMA, it only defines the words marriage and spouse. The definition is exactly the same as that found in the dictionary so I fail to see the problem here.

Er... you can only think all things are unconstitutional or constitutional? Just because he disagrees with the courts over health care doesn't mean he has to disagree with everything.

[Corn]

DOMA is however unconstitutional because the federal government is not supposed to supercede any of the states laws.

Don't see it anywhere in the Constitution, bud, unless I missed it. It is entirely possible that I missed it since I only skimmed the text, though.

[Fiel]

Leading title.

A better one would be, "President says DOMA Section 3 is unconstitutional"

[Kabanaw]

Don't see it anywhere in the Constitution, bud, unless I missed it. It is entirely possible that I missed it since I only skimmed the text, though.

I only have a vague memory of last year's US History class, but I'm pretty sure federal law actually supercedes any state laws, but as i said it's a vague memory.

[kanevaldier]

Er... you can only think all things are unconstitutional or constitutional? Just because he disagrees with the courts over health care doesn't mean he has to disagree with everything.

I am sorry, but when it comes to the government and the things that go in within the government the only way to look at it is constitutional or unconstitutional. The constitution is the supreme law of this country and must be followed when making legislation. The fact is that DOMA and Obama care are both unconstitutional and therefore should be removed. I used the health care part as an example in my original post. He can disagree with the courts all he wants to but that doesnt mean that he can just say screw you, I can do what I want. The courts are there to prevent such arrogance from taking place.

@corn....It is there in the constitution, just not worded the same way I said it. All you need to do is take the time to read it to see that the states and federal government share power but that the federal governements power is limited to the powers given in the constitution only.

[Kabanaw]

I am sorry, but when it comes to the government and the things that go in within the government the only way to look at it is constitutional or unconstitutional. The constitution is the supreme law of this country and must be followed when making legislation. The fact is that DOMA and Obama care are both unconstitutional and therefore should be removed. I used the health care part as an example in my original post. He can disagree with the courts all he wants to but that doesnt mean that he can just say screw you, I can do what I want. The courts are there to prevent such arrogance from taking place.

@corn....It is there in the constitution, just not worded the same way I said it. All you need to do is take the time to read it to see that the states and federal government share power but that the federal governements power is limited to the powers given in the constitution only.

The president is essentially saying "I think that DOMA is unconstitutional, but I disagree in that I think the health care program is constitutional." There is an entire 200 years worth of presidents disagreeing with the court system. Now if the health care program makes it to the court system, they can then say it's unconstitutional and make rulings against it, but until they the president can do whatever he wants.

federal law > state law. I think you're mis-interpreting the 10th amendment; it states that any powers not given to the federal government is the state's right. And in that sense, the law is unconstitutional because the federal government was not given the right to define marriage. But this does not mean state law supersedes federal law. Article IV of the constitution says that the constitution is the "law of the land," and most of the time when state and federal laws conflict, federal wins.

[kanevaldier]

The president is essentially saying "I think that DOMA is unconstitutional, but I disagree in that I think the health care program is constitutional." There is an entire 200 years worth of presidents disagreeing with the court system. Now if the health care program makes it to the court system, they can then say it's unconstitutional and make rulings against it, but until they the president can do whatever he wants.

federal law > state law. I think you're mis-interpreting the 10th amendment; it states that any powers not given to the federal government is the state's right. And in that sense, the law is unconstitutional because the federal government was not given the right to define marriage. But this does not mean state law supersedes federal law. Article IV of the constitution says that the constitution is the "law of the land," and most of the time when state and federal laws conflict, federal wins.

You are correct in that when state laws conflict with the laws that are stated in the constitution and bill of rights, the federal government will win. That said, you also made my point with the health care part as well. The federal government does not have the right to define marriage and by that same token it also does not have the right to force the people to have to get health coverage. That is one reason Obama care is unconstitutional.

[Kabanaw]

You are correct in that when state laws conflict with the laws that are stated in the constitution and bill of rights, the federal government will win. That said, you also made my point with the health care part as well. The federal government does not have the right to define marriage and by that same token it also does not have the right to force the people to have to get health coverage. That is one reason Obama care is unconstitutional.

This is of questionable legitimacy but



Non exempt persons not securing minimum essential health insurance coverage are also fined under the shared responsibility rules. This requirement to maintain insurance or pay a fine is often referred to as the individual mandate, though being insured is not actually mandated by law. Not being insured will not be a crime and no criminal penalty can attach to non payment of the fine. The fine serves to encourage most people into an insurance pool and to deter healthy individuals from buying insurance only when they become ill.


I may be interpreting this wrong, but i'm pretty sure this is saying no one is forced to get health care.

[kanevaldier]

I may be interpreting this wrong, but i'm pretty sure this is saying no one is forced to get health care.

Obama care contradicts itself many times throughout the entire bill. It is far too long of a bill and there is a ton of BS packed in it. Go actually read the bill and then tell me its completely constitutional.
Back to the topic. Die DOMA die....lol.

[FrozNlite]

Regarding the off-topic conversation of "Obamacare," I love how people are quick to kill anything that may be unconstitutional, even if it's something that provides for the continued well-being of the people of this country. I mean, I understand wanting to prevent the loss of rights or the creation of WMD's that have extreme deleterious effects on a nation's population by ensuring any unconstitutional method of their creation is prevented, but holding up the finger of red tape preventing dying children from receiving life saving procedures because they have a penicillin allergy or some inconsequential preexisting condition is inhumane.

I'm not saying the constitution should be ignored on occasions benefiting the public because then that (obviously) opens huge, easily manipulated loopholes for lots of malicious or at least questionable legislation, but merely that I'd hope those against what they deem "Obamacare" aren't against all methods of comprehensive health care for every citizen of the United States. If it's constitutionality you're worried about, I'm sure there's a way to make things work. But in the 21st century it's becoming evident that health insurance is just as much a necessity to longevity as safe food, shelter, and hygiene.

[Fiel]

^^^ Rationalizing the creation of a bill outside of Congress's power by using comparisons to life threatening illness and other such extremes ^^^

I would hope that people would be swift to kill stuff that is unconstitutional! I don't hate "Obamacare" (I prefer to just call it "the new health care bill"), but if Congress is overstepping its bounds and forcing us to do something which is not allowed by the Commerce clause I would want the government to be put in its place regardless of how good or not the bill is for the people.

The constitution is a contract with the people. You don't go around pushing the meaning the contract even if it's good for the people. That's bad business and bad governance. If you want to change the scope of government - fine, change the contract. But don't go pushing the limits of what the contract states. Otherwise, we common peoplefolk don't know what can be expected from our government as the rules set forth by the constitution are pushed and pushed into meaninglessness.

If it ends up being considered constitutional, I'm fine with that. If it's not constitutional, rip that part out and start over again. By the time its constitutionality is considered Republicans might have another majority in both houses of Congress considering how the previous election went. Then we'll see if they really can design a health care law that is fair and responds well to natural market forces.

[kanevaldier]

Regarding the Obama care...yet again...lol. The solution is really quite simple. Allow the current system to be nation wide. That will promote much more competition between the insurance agancies and yes that also means more coverage for those who really do need it.

[FrozNlite]

I absolutely agree with you, Paul. I suppose my contention should be more clear: all unconstitutionality should be destroyed. However, I hope that in the quest to eliminate unconstitutionality the acceptance and pursuit of some constitutional method of carrying out specific policies that are beneficial to the nation at large aren't ignored or disregarded. In other words, reform the parts in the health care bill that are unconstitutional, but don't repeal it altogether.

...I suppose the easiest way to say it would be: stop unconstitutionality, not universal health care.

[kanevaldier]

In other words, reform the parts in the health care bill that are unconstitutional, but don't repeal it altogether.

Unfortunately the only way to fix the bill would be to scrap it all together and start over because it is so long and completely jacked up that trying to fix it would take more time that starting over.