Pressure building on Gov. O'Malley to act

Efforts in D.C. to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere have inspired gay Marylanders to try new tactics to win benefits for same-sex couples. “The attorney general’s office previously advised us that the current law did not mandate recognizing out of state marriages,” said gay state Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery County). “But certainly the approach that D.C. is using is new and I think is getting people to look at this in a new and fresh way.” Among those calling for action is the Baltimore Sun, which on May 10 opined that Gov. Martin O’Malley should “demonstrate more than the casual interest he has shown in legalizing civil unions, let alone gay marriage,” by asking Attorney General Doug Gansler to provide “a legal opinion determining whether Maryland law permits the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.” “And if Mr. Gansler finds that it does,” the newspaper wrote, “the governor should immediately sign an executive order directing state agencies to adjust their rules and regulations to do so.” The Sun printed several letters on the topic the next day. In one, same-sex marriage activist Lisa Polyak of Baltimore said leaders of the Maryland General Assembly have “done almost nothing to rectify the second class status of the 178,000 lesbian, gay and bisexual citizens of Maryland — and we watch with awe and sadness as state legislatures all around us finally find the courage to step away from the shameful legacy of discrimination.”

[Daniel P from Long Island]

Article IV. of the U.S. Constitution REQUIRES that each state recognize the marriages performed in other states. There are NO exceptions.

[DNF]

Daniel P from Long Island wrote:

Article IV. of the U.S. Constitution REQUIRES that each state recognize the marriages performed in other states. There are NO exceptions.

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act did an end run around that.

DOMA has two sections, one defining “marriage” for purposes of federal law, and the other affirming federalism principles under the authority granted by Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The first section states that for purposes of federal law, marriage means a legal union between a man and a woman:



In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Pub. L. 104-199, sec 1, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C.§ 7 (1997). The second section reaffirmed the power of the states to make their own decisions about marriage:



No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Pub. L. 104-199 sec. 2, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996), codified at 28 U.S.C.§ 1738C (1997).

http://www.domawatch.org/about/federaldoma.ht...

[Daniel P from Long Island]

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>The Federal Defense of Marriage Act did an end run around that.
DOMA has two sections, one defining “marriage” for purposes of federal law, and the other affirming federalism principles under the authority granted by Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The first section states that for purposes of federal law, marriage means a legal union between a man and a woman:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Pub. L. 104-199, sec 1, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C.§ 7 (1997). The second section reaffirmed the power of the states to make their own decisions about marriage:
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Pub. L. 104-199 sec. 2, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996), codified at 28 U.S.C.§ 1738C (1997).
http://www.domawatch.org/about/federaldoma.ht...

Since the U.S. CONSTITUTION is the "Supreme Law Of The Land" NO federal law can supersede it.

Therefore, it is NOT POSSIBLE for congress to do "an end run around the U.S. CONSTITUTION.

NO law can remain valid if it is found to conflict with the U.S. CONSTITUTION. Even Scalia has said that DOMA "is probably unconstitutional."

[DNF]

Daniel P from Long Island wrote:

<quoted text>
Since the U.S. CONSTITUTION is the "Supreme Law Of The Land" NO federal law can supersede it.
Therefore, it is NOT POSSIBLE for congress to do "an end run around the U.S. CONSTITUTION.
NO law can remain valid if it is found to conflict with the U.S. CONSTITUTION. Even Scalia has said that DOMA "is probably unconstitutional."

Dan, Congress does "end runs" around the Constitution all the time. I am not a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. I am not the entire Court. So I can't simply declare something "unconstitutional" and have any validity.
It is my personal opinion that DOMA should be repealed or, failing that, struck down. However, in order for it to be struck down, SCOTUS has to agree to hear a case that involves it specifically. And at this point in time I think that is unlikely

[Daniel P from Long Island]

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>Dan, Congress does "end runs" around the Constitution all the time. I am not a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. I am not the entire Court. So I can't simply declare something "unconstitutional" and have any validity.
It is my personal opinion that DOMA should be repealed or, failing that, struck down. However, in order for it to be struck down, SCOTUS has to agree to hear a case that involves it specifically. And at this point in time I think that is unlikely

They'll have to hear a case soon, because so many states have now legalized gay marriage, that someone, somewhere, who is gay and legally married, is going to file a joint tax return, and then the lawsuit will follow soon after when the IRS denies it. I'd say anytime in the year 2010.

[Baltstinkmore]

M O M might do that since it will double his chance for a date...and why would anybody want to get married? Just be with who you want...

[snyper]

Great news!