[laweeks]

WHY IN THE HELL IS THIS A FEDERAL ISSUE?????????

Faggotry should be a state issue!

[mnehring]

Article 1 Section 8 gives the responsibility to the federal level to define weights and measures. Legal definitions fall under measures in order to ensure equal application of the law. As long as marriage is a legal issue, defining the legal term is congress’ responsibility.

[manc]

leave marriage alone, it;s worked pretty well for hundreds of years in this country so why frigging change it to suit some turd pokers

[henkster]

It is not, or at least, should not be a federal issue. But the whole goal of our atheistic communist friends on the left is to elevate a bunch of deviate and immoral conduct to the status of “rights.” This accomplishes many things: destruction of a moral base, destruction of Christian belief, political empowerment of a class of persons dependent upon the government for enforcement and monetary subsidy of their “rights,” and finally a dilution of the real God-given rights of man contained in the Constitution such that those rights become meaningless.

[Godwin1]

This is a federal issue for several reasons. One, social security survivor benefits are available to spouses. Including homosexuals in the mix will add untold billions of dollars to long term commitments we already can't meet. Second, military spouses are entitled to benefits, including housing, survivor pensions, travel, medical benefits. Now that the military has been turned pink, how much will that cost? No one knows. Third, spouses of federal employees are entitled to medical and pension survivor benefits. State Department spouses are also entitled to housing and travel benefits,and are issued diplomatic passports and privileges. Finally, immigration law permits issuance of visas to foreign spouses and fiances. This is already a wide open door to fraud. Can you imagine the future, when the problem is multiplied through homosexual “marriage”? Aging homosexuals importing comely young male “fiances” and “spouses” from the four corners of the earth? Whether we like it or not,this is a federal issue with enormous financial and social consequences. Amoral libertarianism bumps up against economic reality.

[markomalley]

WHY IN THE HELL IS THIS A FEDERAL ISSUE?????????

I agree, this should be a state-by-state deal.

However, there's one little problem:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Article IV Section 1

When a marriage is officially licensed and sanctioned by one state, the above article states that all other states must recognize it (why? because a marriage license is a "public record" and the act of a civil marriage is a "public act."

That's why, if a 21 year old male marries a 13 year old female (with parental consent) in New Hampshire-- which is perfectly legal there -- and then they move to Texas, where the minimum age is 17 (even with parental consent), Texas is required to accept that marriage.

So, using that same principle, a homosexual couple would just go to Massachusetts (or now Maryland, Washington, and Maine), get "married", and then force acceptance of that public record/act by a state that doesn't allow gay "marriage".

DOMA was primarily designed to prevent that kind of chaos.

Sadly, there is not much way I can read DOMA that doesn't put it at variance with Article IV Section 1 (quoted above).

The above statement does not mean I agree with the homosexual lobby position...but the Constitution says what it says.

Sadly, the only way I can see to get around it is if:

1. If Congress quickly (before this case is ruled on) passes a resolution that states that DOMA is not subject to judicial review (sadly, they didn't do that when it was originally passed. They could have added a statement in the text saying that this definition is not subject to judicial review...then SCOTUS or the Ninth Circus or whoever would not be able to touch it)
2. or, Congress completely remove any reference to marriage whatsoever out of federal law and regulation. (And there would be a major ripple effect...a lot of unintended consequences...if that was to happen).

The best thing would have been if the government would have just stayed out of trying to regulate a Christian Sacrament...over a century ago. But they didn't. And now we're dealing with the long-term consequences of that little bit of government over-reach.