Promise kept

Thank you to all who worked to make this happen.

Could DOMA be next? Political Blogger Alliance

19 thoughts on “Promise kept

  1. DOMA’s fate is sealed… a majority of Americans now support gay marriage. The question is how long until the politicians have the balls to do something, which I think may be another decade.

    1. not so sure “a majority of Americans now support gay marriage”.

      I am pretty liberal, but I don’t. I do support equal rights, a civil agreement, but FOR ME the marriage word connotes a “religious” ceremony. Yeah, I know they are performed at City Halls everyday, but..

      How do those pesky Europeans handle it? In many countries, I understand, there are separate civil and religious ceremonies, are the civil ceremonies weddings, with the results called marriages?

      I realize this is not about “reason” and “reasonability”.

      By the way, I don’t agree with DOMA either. I think this should be a state issue.

      1. What you get when the government issues a marriage license is a civil union. The terminology is wrong – the state shouldn’t be in the “marriage” business at all. Let the religious groups handle marriage.

        I actually have known straight people here in Hampton Roads who have gotten “married” in the church but never got the license, for a variety of reasons. From a legal standpoint, they are not “married” so they are not entitled to the benefits or burdens of such.

        Separate the two – call a civil union what it is and a marriage what it is – and a lot of this stuff goes by the wayside.

        After all, it is the rights and benefits accorded to those who are joined with a government-issued license that matters.

  2. DK- I’m kind of with you on this. Marriage is something a church does. The state recognizes that by making certain benefits available to married people. It should, and eventually by law will be forced to, grant those same benefits to same sex couples.
    Since I didn’t get married in a church (the wife is Catholic, I’m divorced. In fact, former Del. Mitch Van Yahres performed our ceremony) I suppose we have a Civil Agreement. I don’t have a problem with that. It feels the same as being married.

  3. I think DOMA-or what ends up being left of it-will stand.

    Assuming the federal definition of marriage in DOMA is ultimately struck down, what’s left is the part that says that states don’t have to recognize marriages from other states as valid if the marriage would be illegal in theirs. That seems to fall within Congress’ duty to define which acts of the individual states receive recognition in others (a distinction that’s made by federal law).

    Not to mention that I don’t think overturning DOMA would invalidate VA’s constitutional amendment, as that’s a 10th Amendment issue (which is why I think any federal involvement/constitutional amendment to define marriage is a bad idea).

    1. But what about the Loving v Virginia case? Is that completely invalidated if DOMA is struck down? And, if so, does it not mean that the states could go back to denying interracial marriage?

      1. No. And here’s why. The state’s interest in regulating marriage can’t override the civil rights of individual citizens. We’ve been through that states’ rights argument once and the states’ rights side lost.

        1. The concept of Natural Rights that each of us has simply because we exist, is a beautiful thing. Steve is spot on with that one.
          I have an appreciation for states rights, but that doesn’t mean the states should be able to remove individual rights that our country was founded on, found to be “self-evident”, and protected in our founding documents.

  4. A strict reading of Loving would limit it to only race-based marriage discrimination, as (I don’t think) homosexual marriage could have been reasonably seen as possible when the case was decided.

    That’s what I’d argue (though I’m a few years from law school, much less the degree).

  5. Since boot camp showers are communal, will straight men be forced to shower with homosexual men? If so, is there any reason not to force the women to shower with the men, too?

      1. Frank didn’t answer the question. (No surprise — his M.O. is to ask a diverting question of his own.) The question is, why should females not be required to shower with the males?

  6. MB,

    “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

    That’d be the ENTIRE clause, not just the part you need to make your point.

    Merry Christmas!

      1. Don’t discourage him; it’s like getting a free day of law school if he can goad MB into unloading some appellate opinions on him.

Comments are closed.