Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment

B

Bonestorm

Thrillhouse
But I don't think this is what the States' Righters had in mind:

BOSTON -- A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.

The Justice Department argued the federal government has the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits - including requiring that those benefits only go to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/08/AR2010070804632.html
 
I agree, but would have argued the 1st Amendment as well. Forcing everybody to follow the Judeo-Christian limited definition is a violation of the rights of Free Exercise...
 
while a good starting point, it nonetheless falls far short of reality. DOMA isn't necessarily a federal ban on gay marriage, because there is no federal marriage....rather....it is a federal denial of recognition of gay marriage and any accompanying rights that the federal government grants to married partners and it allows states to ignore the P&I clause.

the 10th amendment is a weak foundation on which to build your argument against gay marriage bans.
 
Yurt said:
while a good starting point, it nonetheless falls far short of reality. DOMA isn't necessarily a federal ban on gay marriage, because there is no federal marriage....rather....it is a federal denial of recognition of gay marriage and any accompanying rights that the federal government grants to married partners and it allows states to ignore the P&I clause.

the 10th amendment is a weak foundation on which to build your argument against gay marriage bans.
Click to expand...


There were actually two decisions in two separate cases, one brought by the state of Massachusetts (by AG, Marha Coakley) and one brought by private parties, same-sex couples denied federal spousal benefits. The case brought by the state was decided on 10th Amendment grounds while the case brought by the same-sex couples was decided on equal protection grounds.
 
Damocles said:
I agree, but would have argued the 1st Amendment as well. Forcing everybody to follow the Judeo-Christian limited definition is a violation of the rights of Free Exercise...
Click to expand...

this misses the greater issue....it is not just the judeo christian pov that is against gay marriage...it is most religions and there are those who are not religious that are against gay marriage...

first amendment is a weak cornerstone....imho...the 14th, using loving v. virginia....is the greatest tool to end the unequal treatment of marriage. if we use your first amendment train of thought, then we must of course get government out of marriage and i just do not see that happening....
 
NigelTufnel said:
There were actually two decisions in two separate cases, one brought by the state of Massachusetts (by AG, Marha Coakley) and one brought by private parties, same-sex couples denied federal spousal benefits. The case brought by the state was decided on 10th Amendment grounds while the case brought by the same-sex couples was decided on equal protection grounds.
Click to expand...

what is your point nigel?
 
NigelTufnel said:
I'm just engaging in a discussion, hombre. What's your damage?
Click to expand...

do you know what:

your point

means nigel? you made a post...i will respond if you clarify what it is your point is. your post was just filler....if you could actually clarify, then you would actually be engaging in the discussion...
 
Yurt said:
do you know what:

your point

means nigel? you made a post...i will respond if you clarify what it is your point is. your post was just filler....if you could actually clarify, then you would actually be engaging in the discussion...
Click to expand...


I didn't really have a point. I made an observation in response to your post. Specifically, you mentioned that the 10th Amendment is a weak foundation to build a case against gay marriage. In response, I noted that there were two lawsuits concerning DOMA in which opinions issued today, one brought by the state based on a 10th Amendment argument and one brought by same-sex couples based on a equal protection argument and that the judge ruled that DOMA violated both the 10th and 14th Amendments.

That's all .
 
NigelTufnel said:
I didn't really have a point. I made an observation in response to your post. Specifically, you mentioned that the 10th Amendment is a weak foundation to build a case against gay marriage. In response, I noted that there were two lawsuits concerning DOMA in which opinions issued today, one brought by the state based on a 10th Amendment argument and one brought by same-sex couples based on a equal protection argument and that the judge ruled that DOMA violated both the 10th and 14th Amendments.

That's all .
Click to expand...

thank you cap'n obvious
 
NigelTufnel said:
But I don't think this is what the States' Righters had in mind:

BOSTON -- A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.

The Justice Department argued the federal government has the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits - including requiring that those benefits only go to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/08/AR2010070804632.html
Click to expand...

A note to Southern Man: This is just one example why the idea of civil unions is unacceptable. Even though same sex unions have been legal in Massachusetts since 2004 discrimination was still evident by the Federal Government specifying "those benefits go only to couples in marriages between a man and a woman."

There is never equality in anything that's "equal but different". One can not give the same rights to gay couples unless their union is termed exactly the same.
 
Yurt said:
this misses the greater issue....it is not just the judeo christian pov that is against gay marriage...it is most religions and there are those who are not religious that are against gay marriage...

first amendment is a weak cornerstone....imho...the 14th, using loving v. virginia....is the greatest tool to end the unequal treatment of marriage. if we use your first amendment train of thought, then we must of course get government out of marriage and i just do not see that happening....
Click to expand...
I think it is the best way to go. Get the government out of marriage, their foray into limiting other religions' free exercise (the original laws were passed to limit the LDS Church) needs to come to an end. We've spent far too long promoting certain religious definitions above others.
 
apple0154 said:
A note to Southern Man: This is just one example why the idea of civil unions is unacceptable. Even though same sex unions have been legal in Massachusetts since 2004 discrimination was still evident by the Federal Government specifying "those benefits go only to couples in marriages between a man and a woman."

There is never equality in anything that's "equal but different". One can not give the same rights to gay couples unless their union is termed exactly the same.
Click to expand...
Note to Apple: Medicaid itself is unconstitutional. The federal government should not be in position of giving cash to its citizens. See Federalist 41.

Secondly, I'm not in favor of Civil Unions. The Feds should treat everyone as individuals, not couples, regardless of the nature of their relationship.

Third, if Massachusetts or Vermont wants to define marriage as between two queers, two goats, or three chickens and a frog, then so be it. Just don't expect North Carolina, Texas or Utah to have to recognize this.
 
apple0154 said:
A note to Southern Man: This is just one example why the idea of civil unions is unacceptable. Even though same sex unions have been legal in Massachusetts since 2004 discrimination was still evident by the Federal Government specifying "those benefits go only to couples in marriages between a man and a woman."

There is never equality in anything that's "equal but different". One can not give the same rights to gay couples unless their union is termed exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Unless SM changed his mind, he is against civil unions for gays. In fact, he has argued vehemently against them.

If you want to make the point, address it to Dixie. But I personally think civil unions should have all the gov't benefits and marriage be a strictly religious institution that is neither recognized nor interfered with by the gov't.
 
Southern Man said:
Third, if Massachusetts or Vermont wants to define marriage as between two queers, two goats, or three chickens and a frog, then so be it. Just don't expect North Carolina, Texas or Utah to have to recognize this.
Click to expand...

But didn't you also say that NC would never have an atheist in public office?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top