In looming federalism fight, three st...

In looming federalism fight, three states say feds can't 'unmarry' gay couples

There are 16 comments on the Christian Science Monitor story from Sep 8, 2012, titled In looming federalism fight, three states say feds can't 'unmarry' gay couples. In it, Christian Science Monitor reports that:

Three states where members of the clergy and justices of the peace today marry gay couples argued on Friday that it's a violation of states' rights for the federal government to then "unmarry" those people under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Christian Science Monitor.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#1 Sep 8, 2012
"Three states where members of the clergy and justices of the peace today marry gay couples argued on Friday that it's a violation of states' rights for the federal government to then "unmarry" those people under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act ."

I think, ultimately, that this argument will kill DOMA.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#2 Sep 8, 2012
Oh god, and what about *FREEDOM OF RELIGION*?

The antigay arguments will ultimately shoot this in the foot. They are equating CIVIL marriage with RELIGIOUS marriage and claiming they have a right to quash BOTH (where gays are concerned).

This argument instantly opens the door to the *FACT* that forcing religions *NOT* to accept or marry gay couples is a violation of freedom of religion. Simple. I am a little surprised that this argument is not being used MUUUUUCH more forcefully, as it takes the antigay argument, turns it on its head, and completely destroys it.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#3 Sep 8, 2012
Quest wrote:
"Three states where members of the clergy and justices of the peace today marry gay couples argued on Friday that it's a violation of states' rights for the federal government to then "unmarry" those people under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act ."
I think, ultimately, that this argument will kill DOMA.
I agree. DOMA is, and was, unconstitutional from teh get-go, and it's passage was just political grandstanding.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#4 Sep 8, 2012
DOMA was passed to head off the drive for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which would have been VERY difficult to overturn.
AdaminAZ

Scottsdale, AZ

#5 Sep 8, 2012
Yes! I love DOMA. It single handedly staved off a constitutional amendment until the country was ready for 2013 .

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#6 Sep 8, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
DOMA was passed to head off the drive for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which would have been VERY difficult to overturn.
I disagree. A constitutional amendment had no chance of even getting out of congress.

And DOMA is blatantly unconstitutional.

When's the last time a U.S. Constitutional amendment was ratified ?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#7 Sep 9, 2012
Interesting argument, but I think that ex post facto applies.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#8 Sep 9, 2012
snyper wrote:
Interesting argument, but I think that ex post facto applies.
LOL

what ??!!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#9 Sep 9, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. A constitutional amendment had no chance of even getting out of congress.
And DOMA is blatantly unconstitutional.
When's the last time a U.S. Constitutional amendment was ratified ?
All these people claiming a Constitutional Amendment was a slam dunk at the time seem to have forgotten how successful the ERA was.

I don't think for a minute that enough States would have ratified such an amendment in the time allotted by the Constitution.

If a Constitutional Amendment is so easy to achieve why haven't we passed a Balanced Budget Amendment?

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#10 Sep 9, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>All these people claiming a Constitutional Amendment was a slam dunk at the time seem to have forgotten how successful the ERA was.
I don't think for a minute that enough States would have ratified such an amendment in the time allotted by the Constitution.
If a Constitutional Amendment is so easy to achieve why haven't we passed a Balanced Budget Amendment?
CLEARLY you are clueless about the U.S.Constitution. THERE IS NO "time allotted by the Constitution" to pass an amendment. Try looking at the last one, you dope.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#11 Sep 9, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
CLEARLY you are clueless about the U.S.Constitution. THERE IS NO "time allotted by the Constitution" to pass an amendment. Try looking at the last one, you dope.
I stand corrected. Article 5 does not have a time limit. However, I believe most proposed Amendments had a "Sundown" clause (i.e. a time limit for passage).

As for me being a dope, that's possible. But I'm not the one who comes on here claiming there is no Federal Right to Vote in the Constitution. You may want to double check your facts on that one.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amend...
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#12 Sep 9, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. A constitutional amendment had no chance of even getting out of congress.?
Oh yes it did! DOMA was introduced as a compromise. That's not an opinion, that is what happened.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#13 Sep 9, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes it did! DOMA was introduced as a compromise. That's not an opinion, that is what happened.
Ahh the politics of fear.
redneck

Cave Junction, OR

#14 Sep 9, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yes it did! DOMA was introduced as a compromise. That's not an opinion, that is what happened.
You can not compromise the Constitution.Homophobia is a bad word. It does not mean you fear gays, it means that you are an a$$#ole.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#15 Sep 9, 2012
redneck wrote:
<quoted text>You can not compromise the Constitution.Homophobia is a bad word. It does not mean you fear gays, it means that you are an a$$#ole.
In the Oscar winning documentary "The Times of Harvey Milk" there is a scene where a preacher is addressing his congregation. He's asking who wants the children> He says it's the homosexual crowd.

Now here's the Karmic irony.

Go to the religion forum.

Look at the number of stories about fundamentalists and Catholics who got caught diddling little Johnnie and Suzie!

Seems to me the ones who want the children are the preachers who make such a big deal about gays and lesbians!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#16 Sep 9, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
what ??!!
It was in response to "Quest"s:

" Three states where members of the clergy and justices of the peace today marry gay couples argued on Friday that it's a violation of states' rights for the federal government to then "unmarry" those people under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act ."

I think, ultimately, that this argument will kill DOMA."

I think ex post facto applies.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

John Boehner Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Latest on Hastert: Boehner 'shocked' by reports 21 hr Swedenforever 10
News Senate clears White House-backed trade bill Sat swedenforever 2
News Phoenix VA hospital troubles persist a year aft... May 29 VIETNAM VET 1
News Obama wins trade victory in the Senate May 27 swedenforever 11
News Tea Party affiliate FreedomWorks refocuses, cha... May 26 Who guessed it 39
News Senate clears White House-backed trade bill May 23 food for thought 4
News Guinta scandal splits New Hampshire Republicans May 22 Gary 2
More from around the web