Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Gelato
I can distinguish between a basic right to privacy and a pseudo "right" to receive an official sanction of a state. By that I mean I agree with the USSC decision in the Texas case because a state cannot take away a right that anyone has. Those rights are reflected in the BOR and the 14th Amendment. A recent 11th Circuit decision ruled that Florida believes that homosexual adoptions are a danger to and therefore will not legalize any within the State. The court said it would not superimpose its own judgment over that of the State. In a recent Utah case, the court found the state had violated Article IV of the Constitution by not recognizing a homosexual adoption legalized in New Jersey. Since Congress had not laid out any ground rules in that area, Utah had an obligation to recognize the adoption.

Congress has however laid out ground rules to non traditional marriage by DOMA. Marriage is not a "right" per se contained anywhere in the Constitution. That is a clear distinction from "privacy" which is pervasive thoughout the Constitution.

So until I see something indicating the USSC will throw out DOMA, I'm not in favor of a constitutional amendment.

42 posted on 05/27/2006 10:09:03 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]


To: MACVSOG68
I agree with the USSC decision in the Texas case because a state cannot take away a right that anyone has....

In Reynolds vs. the U.S., the Supreme Court upheld the majority's right to establish community standards in these areas. Once you throw out that decision, you impose polygamy (and all other forms of marriage) on society, against the codified will of the people.

I suppose next you'll be arguing in favor of the right of streakers to roam the streets. After all, we have no business interfering with their personal choice of dress--or lack thereof--right?

47 posted on 05/27/2006 10:26:24 AM PDT by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

To: MACVSOG68
The DOMA is not protecting the citizens of MA, or for that matter VT or CT, all of whom have been denied their constitutional rights to vote on marriage amendments in their states. A Fed. Amendment would state that no state can be forced to accept it, without a vote by the people.

THAT is why it is needed.
53 posted on 05/27/2006 10:45:02 AM PDT by gidget7 (PC is the huge rock, behind which lies hide!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson