Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View What's Next In The Battle Over DOMA
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2011 - 4:17PM #1
dblad
Posts: 1,595

The Justice Department's decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court has sent anti-gay marriage groups into a fundraising frenzy and forced House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) into the uncomfortable position of either defending a law that many agree will be found unconstitutional or put a social issue front-and-center (after he vowed to focus on fiscal issues).




 tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/...

I think DOMA will be found unconstitutional and many Christians will have a snot fit. It will be Loving v. Virginia all over again and the DOMA camp will lose.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2011 - 6:04PM #2
TPaine
Posts: 9,044

Mar 1, 2011 -- 4:17PM, dblad wrote:


The Justice Department's decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court has sent anti-gay marriage groups into a fundraising frenzy and forced House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) into the uncomfortable position of either defending a law that many agree will be found unconstitutional or put a social issue front-and-center (after he vowed to focus on fiscal issues).




 tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/...

I think DOMA will be found unconstitutional and many Christians will have a snot fit. It will be Loving v. Virginia all over again and the DOMA camp will lose.



I see DOMA ruled unconstitutional in a 5-4 SCOTUS decision with Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kennedy voting to overturn the law and Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas voting to retain it. I'll also guess that Justice Kennedy will write the majority decision as he did the majority decision in Lawrence v. Texas.

"When it shall be said in any country in the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am a friend of its happiness: When these things can be said, then may the country boast its constitution and its government." -- Thomas Paine: The Rights Of Man (1791)
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2011 - 7:38PM #3
Do_unto_others
Posts: 7,807

I can only hope you are right.


I would sincerely like to see Scalia follow his prescient words re Lawrence v. Texas. Not gonna happen, I know.


I would also like to see Thomas recuse himself (also not gonna happen), but we should be vigilant in reminding him that his (inter-racial) marriage would also have been illegal not so very long ago in America.


Curious that dblad chose to put this on the Church and State board, seeing as there's plenty of DOMA threads floating around.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 02, 2011 - 10:12AM #4
dblad
Posts: 1,595

Mar 1, 2011 -- 7:38PM, Do_unto_others wrote:


Curious that dblad chose to put this on the Church and State board, seeing as there's plenty of DOMA threads floating around.




See Homosexuality and Faith > Christianity and Homosexuality > Is The Bible Silent on Gay Marriage? for your answer.


dblad




Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 02, 2011 - 10:58AM #5
TPaine
Posts: 9,044

Mar 1, 2011 -- 7:38PM, Do_unto_others wrote:


I can only hope you are right.


I would sincerely like to see Scalia follow his prescient words re Lawrence v. Texas. Not gonna happen, I know.


I would also like to see Thomas recuse himself (also not gonna happen), but we should be vigilant in reminding him that his (inter-racial) marriage would also have been illegal not so very long ago in America.


Curious that dblad chose to put this on the Church and State board, seeing as there's plenty of DOMA threads floating around.



Read the thread below this. Davelaw, one of the hosts, is saying that Bnet is thinking about removing inactive forums. As I said in that thread there are many topics we can discuss that would properly belong here. I guess since this was the first forum I posted in as a Bnet member, I would hate to see it removed. As I recall, dblad and you used to join me here to debate Friend! when he was still around.

"When it shall be said in any country in the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am a friend of its happiness: When these things can be said, then may the country boast its constitution and its government." -- Thomas Paine: The Rights Of Man (1791)
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 02, 2011 - 10:58AM #6
davelaw40
Posts: 19,669

we need a thread on this subject here


 


one jexample: defender's of DOMA claim they upholding marriage as a sacred institution of religion


but Congress shall make NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof


 


IF marriage is part of the free exercise of religion Congress must remain nuetral

Non Quis, Sed Quid
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2011 - 1:45PM #7
F1fan
Posts: 10,697

Mar 2, 2011 -- 10:58AM, davelaw40 wrote:


we need a thread on this subject here


 


one jexample: defender's of DOMA claim they upholding marriage as a sacred institution of religion


but Congress shall make NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof


 


IF marriage is part of the free exercise of religion Congress must remain nuetral




Indeed.  Those in favor of same sex marriage could claim their union is sacred, thus DOMA unconstitutional.  I suppose the issue woud become: who gets to decide what is sacred?  Since law is secular the definition of sacred would have to be left to institutions and individuals.  That being the case one religious group cannot define sacred for another, or any individual who rejects that group's authority.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 07, 2011 - 9:32AM #8
Do_unto_others
Posts: 7,807

Mar 5, 2011 -- 1:45PM, F1fan wrote:


Indeed.  Those in favor of same sex marriage could claim their union is sacred, thus DOMA unconstitutional.  I suppose the issue woud become: who gets to decide what is sacred?  Since law is secular the definition of sacred would have to be left to institutions and individuals.  That being the case one religious group cannot define sacred for another, or any individual who rejects that group's authority.





No, the issue won't (or at least SHOULDN'T) "become: who gets to decide what is sacred?"


People already get to 'decide' that for themselves. Obviously, the opponents of same-gender marriage already believe they're a 'blasphemy' of some sort. Meanwhile, thousands of same-gender couples have married in their churches and synagogues. I and my husband are among them.


It's called freedom of religion, something that used to be 'promised' to ALL citizens. Now, the fundatalibangelicals seem to want to deny it to God's gay and lesbian children.


"That being the case one religious group cannot define sacred for another"


I'm hoping, trusting, praying that the SCOTUS will uphold this just sentiment.

Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook