Quantcast

Federal Judge In Connecticut Says DOMA Unconstitutional: Do You Agree?

★~DoctorWhoGuru~★ 2012/07/31 20:06:36
Related Topics: 2012, Judge, Obama
You!
Add Photos & Videos
DOMA Unconstitutional  DOMA Unconstitutional

Read More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/doma-unco...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • RobinPeta 2012/07/31 20:38:39
    Yes
    RobinPeta
    +5
    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." ~Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • sol 2012/08/01 17:21:10
    No
    sol
    DOMA makes it where marriage is between a man and a women, but it also makes it where states don't have to recognize a marriage preform in another state. That is not a congress decision but a states decision.
  • art1ej 2012/08/01 12:56:38
    Yes
    art1ej
    +1
    You can't discriminate against gay marriage...
  • Doc. J 2012/07/31 22:56:19
    Yes
    Doc. J
    +3
    There should be ONE standard for constitutional protections.
    Not one for straights, and another for gays.
  • sjalan 2012/07/31 22:32:53
    Yes
    sjalan
    +1
    This makes number 9 against DoMA. But this one goes one better. It does not use the 14th Amendment as do more of the other decisions.

    Good move.
  • ☠ Live Free Or Die ☠ 2012/07/31 21:30:47
    Yes
    ☠ Live Free Or Die ☠
    +3
    Get government out of marriage all together.
  • Burnjuan 2012/07/31 21:03:59
    Yes
    Burnjuan
    +4
    Yes, since the Constitution says that congress shall make no law respecting religion any argument on the basis of what some "god" says is irrelevant.
  • Eddie_DOMA_is_dead 2012/07/31 21:01:55
  • RobinPeta 2012/07/31 20:38:39
    Yes
    RobinPeta
    +5
    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." ~Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
  • ray 2012/07/31 20:32:11
    No
    ray
    Sex acts and marriage fall under the domain of the 10th Amendment .
    This makes it a states rights issue .
  • bricklyn ray 2012/08/01 00:48:21
    bricklyn
    +2
    Myth #7: The 10th Amendment Protects 'States' Rights'

    The Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/co...


    There is nothing at all about sex acts or marriage listed in the Tenth Amendment. You have a great imagination!


    The Fourteenth Amendment: Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
  • Philo-Publius 2012/07/31 20:30:30
    Yes
    Philo-Publius
    +4
    Marriage within the several states is indeed a state issue as someone below rightly pointed out, but that doesn't mean states can discriminate against persons within their jurisdiction. The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause says that no person within the several states can be treated differently than anyone else therein with respect to the law.

    So, while states have broad discretion to set their own rules for marriage (lawful ages, custodial permissions, medical history requirements -- for anything in which there is a compelling public interest), they are not free to ignore the 14th Amendment.
  • ray Philo-P... 2012/07/31 20:39:39
    ray
    "discriminate against persons within their jurisdiction."

    If every single person in a state is granted a thing or forbidden a thing equally , wherein is there discrimination ?
  • Philo-P... ray 2012/07/31 20:45:30
    Philo-Publius
    But that's not the case: Homosexuals are being denied their right to marry the partner of their choice, and heterosexuals are not.
  • ray Philo-P... 2012/07/31 21:10:20
    ray
    +1
    The law in its infinite wisdom forbids the Rich and the Poor from stealing bread and sleeping under bridges.

    Law also defines what constitutes a legal marriage and age of consent .
    Law not suiting ones personal preference does not constitute discrimination .
  • Philo-P... ray 2012/07/31 21:26:18
    Philo-Publius
    +1
    Let me ask you this then – this isn't a 'gotcha' question, we clearly disagree on this issue and that's fine – but I *am* curious: On the same grounds you cite, would it not be lawful if, say for instance, homosexuals were ever to get the upper hand, for them to outlaw heterosexual marriage; to define marriage as 'a union between one person and a person of the same sex only'?

    Under such a scenario, would heterosexuals who wanted to marry a member of the opposite sex (and couldn't) be right in alleging discrimination? I ask because such a law would not suit my *own* personal preference, and I presume yours would not be suited under it either.
  • ray Philo-P... 2012/07/31 22:25:51
    ray
    +1
    If all the gays ( assuming in America ) moved to single state ( Delaware would be a likely candidate with only three counties ) and presented such a political force that single gender marriage were the only one recognized by state law enacted by the state legislature . Would I approve ? no
    Would I accept it ? Yes, With the same reluctance that I accept the other laws I don't like . Yes , it would be fully legal and would be a right of that state.

    California allows Gay marriage , Maryland does not . Two girls went to California and got married . Now living in Maryland they are unable to get a divorce as Maryland don't recognize their marriage as such they cannot get a divorce . http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/07...
    We take each states laws for what they are.
  • AM 2012/07/31 20:26:21
  • RobinPeta AM 2012/07/31 20:34:27
    RobinPeta
    +2
    Because it is not recognized on the federal level.
  • AM RobinPeta 2012/07/31 20:51:29
  • Brian ☮ R P ☮ 2012 ☮ 2012/07/31 20:25:52
    Yes
    Brian ☮ R P ☮ 2012 ☮
    +2
    Government should have absolutely no say in interpersonal relationships between consenting adults.
  • Tom 2012/07/31 20:18:12
    Yes
    Tom
    +1
    yes marriage is genderless
  • Mrkando 2012/07/31 20:16:18
    Yes
    Mrkando
    Government should have no jurisdiction here what-so-ever.
  • Devil's Advocate 2012/07/31 20:15:39
    Yes
    Devil's Advocate
    +1
    As far as I am concerned, marriage law is a state issue and so DOMA has Article 1, Section 8 problems.
  • ray Devil's... 2012/07/31 20:36:24
    ray
    ???? Tax ? borrow ? commerce ? piracy ? Navy ? what part ?
  • Devil's... ray 2012/08/01 00:13:16
    Devil's Advocate
    +1
    The Enumerated Powers clause enumerates to Congress certain powers and gives all others to state government. It makes no mention of marriage law and so it is a state issue, Congress has no right to legislate on it. States can pass laws like this one individually if they wish. I would be saddened by that, but would accept it as legal. I just dont think Congress should legislate in competencies in which the Constitution does not permit.
  • ray Devil's... 2012/08/01 10:47:40
    ray
    Oh, I agree with you . Amendment 10 of the constitution states it clearly.
    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
  • Latti Ice Ganga Gangsta of ... 2012/07/31 20:14:38
    Yes
    Latti Ice Ganga Gangsta of PHAET
  • Max7 2012/07/31 20:12:13
    Yes
    Max7
    +1
    Same sex is taboo
  • RobinPeta Max7 2012/07/31 20:32:43
    RobinPeta
    +1
    In Oklahoma for sure, but that's also not very representative of the country as whole.
  • Burnjuan Max7 2012/07/31 21:05:17
    Burnjuan
    Not in our Constitution.
  • bags the Indigenous Guru 2012/07/31 20:09:06
    Yes
    bags the Indigenous Guru
    +3
    Absolutely.
  • Nimitz 2012/07/31 20:07:53
    Yes
    Nimitz
    +3
    Government involvement in marriage is unconstitutional, period.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/10/31 22:20:23

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals