Federal Judge In Connecticut Says DOMA Unconstitutional: Do You Agree?
(▪‿▪)DoctorWhoGuru(▪‿▪)
2012/07/31 20:06:36
|
|
|||||
|
28 votes
|
|
85% | |||
|
5 votes
|
|
15% | |||
Read More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/doma-unco...
Top Opinion
-
RobinPeta 2012/07/31 20:38:39Yes
+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
Not one for straights, and another for gays.
Good move.
Absolutely, because even in today's society, hospitals can deny visitations to couple they do not recognize as "married".
Absolutely. When my father in law died, the house simply transferred over to my mother in law and without capital gains taxes or transfer fees. I die, and I would have needed to have several legal documents and then inheritance tax, capital gains tax, transfer fees and so on.
I really don't care what religions or religious have to say or think. I do care the religious institutes donating to causes that block or deny my equal rights and access to the law. The same religious institutes should have their non-profit status revoked, and pay income tax on all properties and collection plates.
This makes it a states rights issue .
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.
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.
If every single person in a state is granted a thing or forbidden a thing equally , wherein is there discrimination ?
Law also defines what constitutes a legal marriage and age of consent .
Law not suiting ones personal preference does not constitute discrimination .
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.
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.
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.