and here i thought it was defined by the Church...
Posted on 07/08/2010 2:09:02 PM PDT by Pyro7480
A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right a state to define marriage.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.
Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens....
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Are you saying that the government cannot define the terms it uses in the laws it enacts?
“A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right a state to define marriage. “
Liberals, in this instance, at this particular point in time, are for States rights.
But in the Arizona case... not so much.
Once marriage is no longer defined by law, marry your kids to avoid inheritance taxes.
That will wake the dems up!
The true move will be the removal of Don't ask Don't tell.
Once the military starts to give "partners" medical care, death benefits and on base housing, the courts will declare the military has set a precident of recognizing gay marriage.
They will use our own military against us to reset social "norms"......
and here i thought it was defined by the Church...
>Once marriage is no longer defined by law, marry your kids to avoid inheritance taxes.
Oh, I hadn’t herd that one!
The jerk judge is blowing smoke with his 10th, 5th Amendments and Due Process clause non-argument.
Oh, I see. The states have rights to support homosexual marriage but they can’t pass and enforce immigration laws to protect their people and property.
Two and a half years more of this insanity. I don’t believe the United States can survive.
The guy is 79 years old, he won’t have to be around to deal with the consequences of his decision.
*
Yes, and yes. When DOMA was first passed, I presumed that it would eventually run into problems with judicial review, especially on a couple of the points of law cited by the judge. While this is only a single District Court decision, I think it foretells of DOMA's eventual fate.
The only way to cure this problem is with a constitutional amendment, and the chances of that happening are slim to none.
There’s no need to define “marriage” any more than there’s a need to define “day” and “night”.
Caca del Tauro
Well, they have the right to SUPPORT homo ‘marriage’, but they have NO RIGHT to oppose it.
What is not prohibited is mandatory.
Reynolds says that the states do not have the right to change the definition of marriage. Sauce for Utah is sauce for Massachusetts.
They can change the specifics, ie, age of amrriage, etc, but they cannot change the definition.
Are you talking about the Reynolds v. US case from the late 19th century about Mormonism and polygamy? If so - and I haven't read that case in probably 30ish years - didn't the central legal argument in that case have to do with 1st Amendment rights and using those rights as a defense of some criminal act - the act in this instance, polygamy?
I'm not sure how instructive that case will be hear, since they are based in two entirely separate legal principles. Maybe you're referring to a separate case?
OK, so does this means the full faith and credit clause will kick in?
Nope. Reread the case. They argue that the federal government has the obligation to recognise marriage as between a man and a woman.
They go on to argue that a state deviating from this principle would result in anarchy.
They also argue that marriage is older than the common law, and that the common law cannot change marriage.
That's a wholly different conversation from what the facts and principles are in this case, which does not address in DOMA the provision that allows states to ignore homosexual marriages granted in other states.
Eventually though, I'm sure a case with the relevant and material set of circumstances will be litigated over questions of that particular provision in DOMA, but this case won't be material to that case, in any way.
Well first, when you say "the case", are you referring to Reynolds v. United States (circa 1870s)?
And again, I haven't read the case in a very long time, but remember what is discussed in dicta is wholly separate from the legal holding (and binding) element of the decision. Dicta can be read (or ignored) as persuasive precedent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.