Fed. Court Rules that Defense of Marriage Act is Unconstitutional

[bobbyw24]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:9QGu7qn1eruJoM:http://www.sidfaiwu.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/human-rights-campaign.gif

The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law that the Obama administration has argued for repealing. The rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications if they're upheld on appeal.

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 in order to be eligible for federal funding in federal-state partnerships.

The act "plainly encroaches" upon the right of the state to determine marriage, Tauro said in his ruling on a lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley. In a ruling in a separate case filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled the act violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification the Constitution clearly will not permit," Tauro wrote.

Nancy Gill, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit brought by GLAD, said she is "thrilled" with the rulings.

"I'm so happy I can't even put it into words," she said.


http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/US-Gay-Marriage-Benefits/2010/07/08/id/364144

[TonySutton]

Good, we need to find more ways to clean the books of stupid laws.

[specsaregood]

Good, we need to find more ways to clean the books of stupid laws.

No way is this ruling going to hold up. The reasons are right there in the article.


The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston.


The federal governmet certainly has the right to determine who is eligible for federal benefits.

[TonySutton]

The federal governmet certainly has the right to determine who is eligible for federal benefits.

You mean like the way governments used to determine who could sit in the front of the bus?

[ChaosControl]

You mean like the way governments used to determine who could sit in the front of the bus?

No, unless those buses are federally ran and funded. Then it might be comparable.

I don't really see how this law being struck down is really pro-states' rights. Unless I misunderstand the law. I thought it just prevented one state from being forced to recognize a marriage from another state. The law itself seemed pro states' rights.

[specsaregood]

You mean like the way governments used to determine who could sit in the front of the bus?

Not really. Unless that was somehow about receiving federal benefits? Maybe that was part of it, but I don't recall it.

[sailingaway]

You mean like the way governments used to determine who could sit in the front of the bus?

That wasn't a subsidy. The subsidy for control is the entire basis of a huge line of cases.

I think it is just not the best rationale, however, the fact is, under the 10th amendment, it is simply none of the federal government's business. I would argue that it being historically a sacrament, it is none of ANY government's business under the 1st as well, and the govt should use some neutral term to define sufficiently stable unions for whatever purposes. But subsidies aren't a right. They are how the government gets control, across the board.

[specsaregood]

But subsidies aren't a right. They are how the government gets control, across the board.

Indeed. If the state of MA wants to recognize a marriage and give benefits to their citizens they do that from their own accounts. But they can't dictate to the federal government who the feds give benefits too.

[erowe1]

The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because ...blah blah blah

The way people toss around the word "ban" so carelessly any time gay marriage comes up makes no sense. It's a major pet peeve of mine.

DOMA doesn't ban gay marriage or anything else.

For that matter, neither do any of the state laws that get called "gay marriage bans."

[TonySutton]

Everyone here knows that DOMA was written specifically because Hawaii was considering same sex marriage. If that does not fail the smell test for you then I would certainly hope allowing government to regulate a religious act would. When it falls in your comfort zone today you feel happy and warm but allow the precedent to stand and tomorrow the government will certainly reach a little further. Next time it may be your back yard.

We should be fighting to keep government out of everyone's yards, especially the federal government.

[specsaregood]

Everyone here knows that DOMA was written specifically because Hawaii was considering same sex marriage. If that does not fail the smell test for you then I would certainly hope allowing government to regulate a religious act would. When it falls in your comfort zone today you feel happy and warm but allow the precedent to stand and tomorrow the government will certainly reach a little further. Next time it may be your back yard.

We should be fighting to keep government out of everyone's yards, especially the federal government.

So you think the a single state should be able to specify how federal government money is handed out or which private contracts it recognizes? I didn't see anybody here argue that the state can't allow/recognize gay marriage? They just can't force the federal government to recognize it.

[TonySutton]

So you think the a single state should be able to specify how federal government money is handed out or which private contracts it recognizes? I didn't see anybody here argue that the state can't allow/recognize gay marriage? They just can't force the federal government to recognize it.

The judge's ruling is based in part on the equal protection clause. He said it is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate against the citizens of MA who are married in accordance with state law. You see a problem with that? If so, I do not think your specs are good.

[ChaosControl]

Everyone here knows that DOMA was written specifically because Hawaii was considering same sex marriage. If that does not fail the smell test for you then I would certainly hope allowing government to regulate a religious act would. When it falls in your comfort zone today you feel happy and warm but allow the precedent to stand and tomorrow the government will certainly reach a little further. Next time it may be your back yard.

We should be fighting to keep government out of everyone's yards, especially the federal government.

Well tell me exactly how it interferes with states' rights.
Government already regulated a religious act, this didn't change that.

[ChaosControl]

The judge's ruling is based in part on the equal protection clause. He said it is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate against the citizens of MA who are married in accordance with state law. You see a problem with that? If so, I do not think your specs are good.

Then it has absolutely nothing to do with the 10th at all.

[TonySutton]

Well tell me exactly how it interferes with states' rights.


Did I say that?

[jmdrake]

The way people toss around the word "ban" so carelessly any time gay marriage comes up makes no sense. It's a major pet peeve of mine.

DOMA doesn't ban gay marriage or anything else.

For that matter, neither do any of the state laws that get called "gay marriage bans."

Thank you for pointing that out! If anyone wants to see a "marriage ban" in action they should talk to polygamists who can still be arrested for even having "pretend" marriage ceremonies.

Anyway I suspect this ruling will be overturned. But whether it is or not I hope in prompts some to consider decoupling federal benefits from marriage at all and reducing the overall size of government. That's the answer to the whole argument. I doubt that will happen though. :mad:

[specsaregood]

The judge's ruling is based in part on the equal protection clause. He said it is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate against the citizens of MA who are married in accordance with state law. You see a problem with that? If so, I do not think your specs are good.

For reference sake, in what other areas does the federal government use a state's definitions to determine qualification for federal benefits?

[1000-points-of-fright]

I read in another article yesterday that the judge ruled it unconstitutional because it violates states rights and the 10th amendment. That's why this ruling won't stand. Can't be setting a legal precident like that.

But just you watch... all of a sudden the left will be all about states rights and the 10 amendment. Now it'll be our turn to call them neo-confederates.

[TonySutton]

For reference sake, in what other areas does the federal government use a state's definitions to determine qualification for federal benefits?

There probably isn't. It must not be often where the Christian majority make it an issue to codify their religious beliefs into law.

[ChaosControl]

Did I say that?

The judge issuing the ruling did.

[TonySutton]

The judge issuing the ruling did.

Then ask the judge to defend that portion of his ruling.

[specsaregood]

There probably isn't. It must not be often where the Christian majority make it an issue to codify their religious beliefs into law.

As far as the equal protection clause is concerned, if this stands it sounds like gays in other states where marriage is not allowed will not be equally protected. Using the logic that a single state can determine the rules at the federal level sounds to me like it would have to be allowed in all states.

[TonySutton]

As far as the equal protection clause is concerned, if this stands it sounds like gays in other states where marriage is not allowed will not be equally protected. Using the logic that a single state can determine the rules at the federal level sounds to me like it would have to be allowed in all states.

No, it would only apply in those states which allow same sex marriage.

[Krugerrand]

For reference sake, in what other areas does the federal government use a state's definitions to determine qualification for federal benefits?

I need a state driver's license to drive on a federal highway.

The state can designate a minimum age of marriage ... the federal government accepts the state's definition.

It's crazy that you can get married and have a kid before you're considered 'of age' to buy a pack of cigarettes.

[erowe1]

If that does not fail the smell test for you then I would certainly hope allowing government to regulate a religious act would.

How does any aspect of this case involve the government regulating a religious act?

[TonySutton]

How does any aspect of this case involve the government regulating a religious act?

Marriage! The hysteria which spawned DOMA was the defense of marriage. To keep it as God intended with one man and one woman. I understand that people will say marriage is a civil act but we all know the purpose of DOMA was to protect the sanctity of the religious ceremony we call marriage. To say anything else would not be truthful.

[specsaregood]

I need a state driver's license to drive on a federal highway.

The state can designate a minimum age of marriage ... the federal government accepts the state's definition.

Good examples.

[specsaregood]

Marriage! The hysteria which spawned DOMA was the defense of marriage. To keep it as God intended with one man and one woman. I understand that people will say marriage is a civil act but we all know the purpose of DOMA was to protect the sanctity of the religious ceremony we call marriage. To say anything else would not be truthful.

But this case was not about the ability to "get married" at the state level. It is all about federal benefits and how the govt determines who is eligible.

[TonySutton]

But this case was not about the ability to "get married" at the state level. It is all about federal benefits and how the govt determines who is eligible.

I was just answering the question posed to me.

[specsaregood]

I was just answering the question posed to me.

Fair enough. Personally i think going at it under the freedom of religion angle would have been a better tactic. Argue that the law violates ones religious freedom. But that is just me. I don't care who marries who, I'd just prefer to end all special federal benefits.

[ChaosControl]

Marriage! The hysteria which spawned DOMA was the defense of marriage. To keep it as God intended with one man and one woman. I understand that people will say marriage is a civil act but we all know the purpose of DOMA was to protect the sanctity of the religious ceremony we call marriage. To say anything else would not be truthful.

It was which is kind of funny considering the existence of no fault divorce... what sanctity of marriage?

[erowe1]

Marriage! The hysteria which spawned DOMA was the defense of marriage. To keep it as God intended with one man and one woman. I understand that people will say marriage is a civil act but we all know the purpose of DOMA was to protect the sanctity of the religious ceremony we call marriage. To say anything else would not be truthful.

Sorry. I still don't get it. Exactly what religious thing is being regulated? Just saying "marriage" doesn't really clarify it.

Are people's religious beliefs about marriage being regulated?
No. They can still believe in gay marriage all they want without consequence, and preach that belief from the pulpit or anywhere else.

Are gay marriage ceremonies performed by churches and other religious entities being regulated?
No. Gay weddings happen in every state without consequence, regardless of whether or not those states give out their own pieces of paper recognizing gay marriages as marriages according to their own nonreligious definition.

Are the things gay people who consider themselves "married" do that they think entails marriage being regulated, such as their physical consummation of it, or their living together, or their taking on of certain responsibilities toward one another?
No. They can and do live their lives together in whatever way they gay "marriage" is without the government doing anything to prevent them or punish them.

So what religious thing is being regulated?

[The Patriot]

Good, it is unconstitutional. It violates the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV of the Constitution.

"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."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/

[erowe1]

Good, it is unconstitutional. It violates the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV of the Constitution.

"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."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/

It doesn't violate that. The very words you pasted here include, "Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.", which is exactly what Congress did in passing DOMA.

[The Patriot]

It doesn't violate that. The very words you pasted here include, "Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.", which is exactly what Congress did in passing DOMA.

It doesn't say that the Congress or State Governments can nullify records. What are you talking about? Can you read?

[The Patriot]

To keep it as God intended with one man and one woman.

Marriage(including Homosexual Marriage) existed, in civil form, before the supposed savior Jesus Christ of Nazareth was even born. The existed in Ancient Greece; they also existed in Rome until 342 A.D when Christianity became the State Religion.

[TonySutton]

I would think some people here would welcome the decision put forth by the Judge Tauro regarding states rights.


Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that because marriage was "the firmly entrenched province of the state," the government could not regulate it without violating the 10th amendment.

If this stands a similar argument could be made regarding Health Care Reform.

[TonySutton]

Marriage(including Homosexual Marriage) existed, in civil form, before the supposed savior Jesus Christ of Nazareth was even born. The existed in Ancient Greece; they also existed in Rome until 342 A.D when Christianity became the State Religion.

Please do not attribute that quote to me.

[specsaregood]

Marriage! The hysteria which spawned DOMA was the defense of marriage. To keep it as God intended with one man and one woman. I understand that people will say marriage is a civil act but we all know the purpose of DOMA was to protect the sanctity of the religious ceremony we call marriage. To say anything else would not be truthful.

Hrm, after listening to more about it, it seems that somethink DOMA was passed to protect the states from being forced to recognize gay marriages in other states/towns. Without DOMA a lone city could allow gay marriages, people could go there, get married and when they returned home their state/city would be forced to recognize it.


I would think some people here would welcome the decision put forth by the Judge Tauro regarding states rights.

If what I said above is true, then repealing DOMA, would let states violate other states rights. ie: allowing gay marriage would force other states to allow it.

[TonySutton]

Hrm, after listening to more about it, it seems that somethink DOMA was passed to protect the states from being forced to recognize gay marriages in other states/towns. Without DOMA a lone city could allow gay marriages, people could go there, get married and when they returned home their state/city would be forced to recognize it.


If what I said above is true, then repealing DOMA, would let states violate other states rights. ie: allowing gay marriage would force other states to allow it.

There is no precedent for that, actually the opposite occurred. Prior to Loving v. Virginia, interracial marriages were legal in some states but not legal in others. States which did not allow interracial marriages were never required to recognize marriages of interracial couples who were married in states which allowed them.

[erowe1]

It doesn't say that the Congress or State Governments can nullify records. What are you talking about? Can you read?

Yes, I'm not as smart as you I'm sure, but I can read. Who said anything about Congress nullifying any records?

And how exactly does the full faith and credit clause require all states to recognize the marriages of other states that define marriage differently than they do? If some states define marriage in such a way that can only be one man and one woman, and other states define it in ways that include gay couples, or polygamists, or college roommates, or a man and his dog, or whatever, then why does the full faith and credit clause require the former states to change their definition of marriage to that of the latter states, rather than vice versa?

What the full faith and credit clause does is authorize Congress to decide that, which is what it did in DOMA.

[erowe1]

Marriage(including Homosexual Marriage) existed, in civil form, before the supposed savior Jesus Christ of Nazareth was even born. The existed in Ancient Greece; they also existed in Rome until 342 A.D when Christianity became the State Religion.

Really? Got any evidence for that?

[erowe1]

I would think some people here would welcome the decision put forth by the Judge Tauro regarding states rights.



If this stands a similar argument could be made regarding Health Care Reform.

DOMA protects states rights. Requiring my state to recognize the gay marriages of another state is what violates the 10th amendment. That judge just twisted it around to suit his agenda.

[The Patriot]

Really? Got any evidence for that?

Yes, I do.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient


And I don't see what business it is of your's to deny people the right to marry because they have to have the same genitals. You can believe in your "god", and wishfully think he exists and your purpose is to do his will, but don't impose your philosophy through government. That is what Separation of church and state is all about. You have the right to believe whatever asinine theology you want, but when you try to impose it through government fiat, and treat people unequally under the law, you will have a problem with me.

[The Patriot]

Yes, I'm not as smart as you I'm sure, but I can read. Who said anything about Congress nullifying any records?

And how exactly does the full faith and credit clause require all states to recognize the marriages of other states that define marriage differently than they do? If some states define marriage in such a way that can only be one man and one woman, and other states define it in ways that include gay couples, or polygamists, or college roommates, or a man and his dog, or whatever, then why does the full faith and credit clause require the former states to change their definition of marriage to that of the latter states, rather than vice versa?

What the full faith and credit clause does is authorize Congress to decide that, which is what it did in DOMA.
No, you aren't as smart as me, but that is ok. What DOMA does is allow states to nullify homosexual marriage contracts when moving from state to state, that is illegal under the full faith and credit clause. I would argue the prohibiting same sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment. Though, I would say, even if you weren't to accept that premise, states can set laws in regards to marriage, but they cannot prohibit official documents from other states from being recognized in their state. And no one is even requiring them to change their definition in this case, they can set whatever laws they want, they just cannot refuse to recognize legal documents of other states. So, for example, Texas can prohibit gay marriage, but it would be unconstitutional of them to nullify the marriage license of a homosexual couple that moved from Massachusetts unde the full faith and credit clause

[erowe1]

And I don't see what business it is of your's to deny people the right to marry.

Nobody has said anything here about anyone denying anyone else a right to marry.

[erowe1]

What DOMA does is allow states to nullify homosexual marriage contracts when moving from state to state

No it doesn't. Under DOMA those contracts still mean the same thing to the three parties that are included in the contract, those three parties being the married couple and the state they got married in. The full faith and credit clause doesn't require my state to become a party in a contract just because your state is a party in it.

Nor does it require my state to use the same definition of "marriage" that your state does. If it did, then it would be self-contradictory, since it would simultaneously require your state to use the same definition my state does.

And it certainly doesn't require any of those things to happen without any act of Congress legislating them. In fact, it explicitly puts the burden on Congress, and Congress only, not the federal courts, to enact that legislation.

[erowe1]

I asked for evidence of your claim:

Marriage(including Homosexual Marriage) existed, in civil form, before the supposed savior Jesus Christ of Nazareth was even born. The existed in Ancient Greece; they also existed in Rome until 342 A.D when Christianity became the State Religion.
I'm particularly interested in evidence for civil gay marriages from ancient Greece or Rome.

You provide these links.

Yes, I do.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient


But they don't give any evidence either. The first one makes no mention of that part, and the second one just makes the same assertion, only with express uncertainty about it, and again without citing any ancient sources on which the claim is based, and nothing at all about the civil aspect of the alleged marriages.

[erowe1]

I would argue the prohibiting same sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment.

Of course you would.

But again, none of these so-called gay marriage bans actually prohibit anything. Gay people in all the states that have them continue to go on having weddings and doing everything together that they think marriage entails without any of it being prohibited.

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment, like the full faith and credit clause, places the burden of legislating appropriate laws to enact its provisions on Congress and Congress only. The final clause of the 14th Amendment is, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Courts have no business, nor authority, to tell the states what the 14th amendment must entail for them in practice until such laws have actually been passed by Congress.

[The Patriot]

Nobody has said anything here about anyone denying anyone else a right to marry.

So you support gay marriage then? Then why do you defend DOMA, which allows states to nullify marriage contracts illegally under the full faith and credit clause?

[heavenlyboy34]

Everyone here knows that DOMA was written specifically because Hawaii was considering same sex marriage. If that does not fail the smell test for you then I would certainly hope allowing government to regulate a religious act would. When it falls in your comfort zone today you feel happy and warm but allow the precedent to stand and tomorrow the government will certainly reach a little further. Next time it may be your back yard.

We should be fighting to keep government out of everyone's yards, especially the federal government.

so very true! :cool::D

[heavenlyboy34]

Really? Got any evidence for that?

If you consider the Old Testament "proof", you'll find marriages there that took place before Christ.

[The Patriot]

Of course you would.

But again, none of these so-called gay marriage bans actually prohibit anything. Gay people in all the states that have them continue to go on having weddings and doing everything together that they think marriage entails without any of it being prohibited.

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment, like the full faith and credit clause, places the burden of legislating appropriate laws to enact its provisions on Congress and Congress only. The final clause of the 14th Amendment is, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Courts have no business, nor authority, to tell the states what the 14th amendment must entail for them in practice until such laws have actually been passed by Congress.

No, they are prohibited form attaining a marriage license, you know this, so stop being dishonest about it.

The 14th amendment no where prohibits the courts, federal or Supreme, bringing action against states violating the 14th Amendment. But you are right, congress absolutely has the authority to prohibit states through legislation from nullifying homosexual marriage contracts, and the courts have the power to deem unconstitutional laws that prohibit homosexuals from getting married in various states.

And no where in the full faith and credit clause does it give congress the ability to draw up legislation to allow states to deny full faith and credit to legal records.

[charrob]

-haven't read thru the whole thread but for the life of me i can't understand why anybody would care what another person does in his/her personal life. I don't think any governments (federal or state) should have anything to say about any marriage. Marriage is a religious thing should be stay separate from any governmental action.

Now when it comes to benefits from supposed "marriage" i would say that's wrong: no persons involved in a "marriage" should be entitled to any special government benefits that, say, a single person wouldn't get. If you want to have inheritance benefits, etc., for that: a "civil union" should be required. And _any_ two people should be able to get a "civil union": whether it be two marrieds, two gays, two elderly sisters whose husbands are deceased, or two friends. Where in the Constitution does it state that married people should get special benefits?

Marriage needs to stay separate from civil unions. And marriage should never amount to any special government "benefits".

[The Patriot]

I asked for evidence of your claim:

I'm particularly interested in evidence for civil gay marriages from ancient Greece or Rome.

You provide these links.


But they don't give any evidence either. The first one makes no mention of that part, and the second one just makes the same assertion, only with express uncertainty about it, and again without citing any ancient sources on which the claim is based, and nothing at all about the civil aspect of the alleged marriages.

Stop lying, your savior and supposed son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, looked down upon that. There are sources. Look, you can have your faith, just accept the fact that gay marriage is older than your faith, and continuing arguing that your faith gives you the right to treat people unequally under the law and deny their rights.

Another example of homosexual marriage predating Jesus took place in China, if you bother reading my links.

[specsaregood]

-haven't read thru the whole thread but for the life of me i can't understand why anybody would care what another person does in his/her personal life. I don't think any governments (federal or state) should have anything to say about any marriage. Marriage is a religious thing should be stay separate from any governmental action.

Now when it comes to benefits from supposed "marriage" i would say that's wrong: no persons involved in a "marriage" should be entitled to any special government benefits that, say, a single person wouldn't get. If you want to have inheritance benefits, etc., for that: a "civil union" should be required. And _any_ two people should be able to get a "civil union": whether it be two marrieds, two gays, two elderly sisters whose husbands are deceased, or two friends. Where in the Constitution does it state that married people should get special benefits?

Marriage needs to stay separate from civil unions. And marriage should never amount to any special government "benefits".

Charrob, your view is pretty much standard around these parts and I haven't seen anybody in the thread say anything other than that position. The thread has mainly been discussing the legality of the issue/ruling. Take the government out of marriage and 99% of this thread would never have taken place. :)

[charrob]

Charrob, your view is pretty much standard around these parts and I haven't seen anybody in the thread say anything other than that position. The thread has mainly been discussing the legality of the issue/ruling. Take the government out of marriage and 99% of this thread would never have taken place. :)


thanks specsaregood! :)

[specsaregood]

thanks specsaregood! :)

The good part about legislation/rulings like this is that hopefully it makes it easier to sell limited government/libertarian ideals to social conservatives. ie: if you give the power to the government to push your side of the social conservative issue, don't be surprised when the party in power changes and the government starts pushing the social issues you are opposed to.

[erowe1]

If you consider the Old Testament "proof", you'll find marriages there that took place before Christ.

Not gay ones. Nor civil ones.

[erowe1]

There are sources.

I'm not saying there aren't. I just don't know of them. Could you provide them please?

[erowe1]

Another example of homosexual marriage predating Jesus took place in China, if you bother reading my links.

I was asking about civil gay marriages in ancient Greece and Rome.

[erowe1]

So you support gay marriage then?

No, I don't. But what does my support or lack of support for gay marriage have to do with anything?

[erowe1]

just accept the fact that gay marriage is older than your faith

I never denied that. Adultery, murder, rape, and the state, also all existed before the time of Christ. So what? What does that have to do with the propriety of any of those things?

[specsaregood]

No, I don't. But what does my support or lack of support for gay marriage have to do with anything?

It has nothing to do with anything. We were having a nice little discussion about the legality and constitutionality of it all and it seems someone let their emotions get the better of them.

[The Patriot]

I never denied that. Adultery, murder, rape, and the state, also all existed before the time of Christ. So what? What does that have to do with the propriety of any of those things?

That marriage existed before your religion, and homosexual marriage existed before your religion, thus, your religion doesn't have a monopoly on the term through government fiat.

[The Patriot]

I just find it ironic that you claim to support the ideas of liberty, yet you believe that the state should deny certain privileges to certain groups of people.

[The Patriot]

I was asking about civil gay marriages in ancient Greece and Rome.

I provided the links and the sources are provided in the links.

[erowe1]

That marriage existed before your religion, and homosexual marriage existed before your religion, thus, your religion doesn't have a monopoly on the term through government fiat.

Who said anything about my religion having a monopoly on that term or any other through government fiat?

Everyone of every religion is free to use that word however they want. And DOMA doesn't prevent them from doing that. It just prevents them from requiring me or my state to accept your definition.

State marriage licenses shouldn't even exist. If a state wanted to abolish them, it should be allowed to. Federal courts shouldn't be empowered to force a state that takes that route to license marriages just because some other state does. Nor does the full faith and credit clause require them to.

[erowe1]

I provided the links and the sources are provided in the links.

Only one of those links has anything about gay marriages in ancient Greece or Rome It includes the admission that it's not certain. It says nothing about them being civil marriages. And it provides no information at all about what the ancient evidence is for whether they existed. It only links to modern works, one of which is a law review.

Since you're so knowledgeable about this, could you just point me to those sources, so I can check them and see if they really support your claim? Or is it perhaps the case that you don't really know that much about it afte all, and you just based your claim on that wikipedia article and ratcheted up the level of certainty just for rhetorical effect?

[erowe1]

I just find it ironic that you claim to support the ideas of liberty, yet you believe that the state should deny certain privileges to certain groups of people.

I don't think the state should be granting any privileges to any people at all. So yeah, I'm all for it denying privileges. The fewer people who get state privileges the better. The ideal is zero people getting state-based privileges (i.e. the state denying privileges to 100% of the people).

Rights, as opposed to privileges, are of course a different matter. The state has no business interfering with our rights. But getting a piece of paper from the state telling you that the state officially approves of some aspect of how you live your life is not a right. And neither DOMA nor any of the so-called marriage bans passed by any of the states actually prohibits anyone from doing anything, nor violates any of their rights, nor limits their freedom in any way.

[The Patriot]

Who said anything about my religion having a monopoly on that term or any other through government fiat?

Everyone of every religion is free to use that word however they want. And DOMA doesn't prevent them from doing that. It just prevents them from requiring me or my state to accept your definition.

State marriage licenses shouldn't even exist. If a state wanted to abolish them, it should be allowed to. Federal courts shouldn't be empowered to force a state that takes that route to license marriages just because some other state does. Nor does the full faith and credit clause require them to.

Yes you have said that, as per your religious beliefs, you believe the state should deny people the right to a marriage license based on their gender, violating the 14th Amendment and denying them equal protection under the law. You are preventing them from getting married. And you are denying homosexuals rights. You are allowing state governments to violate each citizens guarantee to equal protection under the law and their guarantee to full faith and credit of their documents.

I disagree, I think they should exist, but if you are against them, then campaign against licenses, don't stand against offering licenses to all, and just supporting them for some. It is either all or none. If the state governments are going to be in anyway involved in marriage licenses, they have no authority to violate people's constitutional rights and just offer licenses to privileged or desired clients.

[The Patriot]

Only one of those links has anything about gay marriages in ancient Greece or Rome It includes the admission that it's not certain. It says nothing about them being civil marriages. And it provides no information at all about what the ancient evidence is for whether they existed. It only links to modern works, one of which is a law review.

Since you're so knowledgeable about this, could you just point me to those sources, so I can check them and see if they really support your claim? Or is it perhaps the case that you don't really know that much about it afte all, and you just based your claim on that wikipedia article and ratcheted up the level of certainty just for rhetorical effect?
John Boswell, "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe." (New York: Random House, 1995). Pages 80-85.

Kuefler, Mathew (2007). "The Marriage Revolution in Late Antiquity: The Theodosian Code and Later Roman Marriage Law". Journal of Family History 32: 343–370. doi:10.1177/0363199007304424.

[erowe1]

Yes you have said that, as per your religious beliefs, you believe the state should deny people the right to a marriage license based on their gender, violating the 14th Amendment and denying them equal protection under the law.
No, I didn't. I said that marriage licenses shouldn't exist at all. They should be denied to all people. And the fewer people who do get them, the better.


You are preventing them from getting married.
Hogwash. People got married before states arrogated to themselves the right to license it, and they'll keep getting married when it stops. And today, while states do use licenses, couples both gay and straight still get married without them all the time, and nobody stops them from doing it.


And you are denying homosexuals rights.
No, I'm not. A marriage license is not a right.

[The Patriot]

The fewer people who get state privileges the better.

I find it interesting you say this. rather than first saying, the fewer state privileges there are the better. But unfortunately, you cloak your religious bigotry and irrationality in the supposed name of liberty.

[erowe1]

John Boswell, "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe." (New York: Random House, 1995). Pages 80-85.

Kuefler, Mathew (2007). "The Marriage Revolution in Late Antiquity: The Theodosian Code and Later Roman Marriage Law". Journal of Family History 32: 343–370. doi:10.1177/0363199007304424.

Those are just the exact same modern (as in not ancient) sources in that wikipedia article. I'm beginning to think you don't know anything about the subject and you're just repeating what you read there only taking out the qualifications made there about how it's not certain and adding in your own made up detail about them being civil marriages.

[erowe1]

I find it interesting you say this. rather than first saying, the fewer state privileges there are the better.

But I did say that in post #70.

[specsaregood]

./

[The Patriot]

No, I didn't. I said that marriage licenses shouldn't exist at all. They should be denied to all people. And the fewer people who do get them, the better.


Hogwash. People got married before states arrogated to themselves the right to license it, and they'll keep getting married when it stops. And today, while states do use licenses, couples both gay and straight still get married without them all the time, and nobody stops them from doing it.


No, I'm not. A marriage license is not a right.

No you didn't, you said you support DOMA, which allows states to violate the full faith and credit clause and the 14th Amendment, by nullifying homosexual marriage licenses and denying couples equal protection under the law because of their gender. And once again, it is interesting how you don't say something to the affect, that if there were no licenses it would be better, but in your case, it is better if it is more restrictive. Mainline Christian Protestantism and Mormonism were also against miscegeny. Since your logic is, the less people the better, would you support states denying marriage licenses to interracial couples?

No, homosexuals cannot get civil marriages, and are denied marriage licenses by state governments. I would say you and your churches have the right to deny homosexuals religious ceremonies, as they are private. But keep your religion out of the civil and secular realm(civil marriages) and stop denying homosexual equal protection under the law

No, but equal protection under the law and full faith of credit of documents for all citizens are rights.

[The Patriot]

Those are just the exact same modern (as in not ancient) sources in that wikipedia article. I'm beginning to think you don't know anything about the subject and you're just repeating what you read there only taking out the qualifications made there about how it's not certain and adding in your own made up detail about them being civil marriages.

So they are lying? Can you provide sources debunking these claims?

[erowe1]

No you didn't, you said you support DOMA, which allows states to violate the full faith and credit clause and the 14th Amendment, by nullifying homosexual marriage licenses and denying couples equal protection under the law because of their gender.
I actually don't think I ever said I support DOMA. I guess I probably do though. I certainly don't support courts having the right to declare my state a party to a contract it never entered into just because your state entered into it. So to the extent that DOMA does that, I support it.

I explicitly argued that such a law does not violate either the full faith and credit clause or the 14th amendment. So it wouldn't follow from my support of such a law that I also support violating those parts of the Constitution anyway.

I also have never said anything in support of nullifying marriage licenses in other states. Your state is a sovereign state with respect to my state and with respect to the federal government. So I don't support either my state or the federal government having the right to stop your state from entering marriage contracts with gay couples, which would essentially entail treating your state as a conquered province, just as I wouldn't support invading China to take it over and repeal its bad laws. The corollary to that is that I also don't support your state or the federal government forcing my state to enter into that contract contrary to the laws of my state for the same reason. This doesn't in any way nullify the marriage licenses of your state.



And once again, it is interesting how you don't say something to the affect, that if there were no licenses it would be better
But I have said exactly that several times already.

[erowe1]

So they are lying? Can you provide sources debunking these claims?

Who's lying? Debunking exactly what claims?

I just want to see what evidence you have from ancient Greek and Latin sources for your claim that they had civil gay marriages (which is not a claim that wikipedia article even makes). I never said you were wrong. I just want to know what the evidence is.

Do you have any? Since you made that assertion (and made it much more dogmatically than it is made in that wikipedia entry), and insisted that you knew what you were talking about. I thought you might. But if you don't, I really don't care enough to go researching it on my own. I'll just be content in my skepticism.

[The Patriot]

Who's lying? Debunking exactly what claims?

I just want to see what evidence you have from ancient Greek and Latin sources for your claim that they had civil gay marriages (which is not a claim that wikipedia article even makes). I never said you were wrong. I just want to know what the evidence is.

Do you have any? Since you made that assertion (and made it much more dogmatically than it is made in that wikipedia entry), and insisted that you knew what you were talking about. I thought you might. But if you don't, I really don't care enough to go researching it on my own. I'll just be content in my skepticism.

I provided you the literature, so if you wish to be content in ignorance, that is fine with me. However, don't act as though, I haven't provided you sources.

But, if you wish to continue with this debate, and claim that the sources are false or inaccurate, than provide evidence to the contrary and lets engage in a debate on how gay marriage is older than Christianity.

[erowe1]

I provided you the literature, so if you wish to be content in ignorance, that is fine with me. However, don't act as though, I haven't provided you sources.

You haven't.

It's perfectly obvious now that you based that claim entirely on what you read in that wikipedia article, which itself doesn't even say what you said. You don't have the slightest idea about the accuracy of of your assertion. If that weren't the case, you wouldn't keep falling back on that. This is obvious enough to me that I think it would be a waste of my time to bother proving it.

[The Patriot]

I actually don't think I ever said I support DOMA. I guess I probably do though. I certainly don't support courts having the right to declare my state a party to a contract it never entered into just because your state entered into it. So to the extent that DOMA does that, I support it.

I explicitly argued that such a law does not violate either the full faith and credit clause or the 14th amendment. So it wouldn't follow from my support of such a law that I also support violating those parts of the Constitution anyway.

I also have never said anything in support of nullifying marriage licenses in other states. Your state is a sovereign state with respect to my state and with respect to the federal government. So I don't support either my state or the federal government having the right to stop your state from entering marriage contracts with gay couples, which would essentially entail treating your state as a conquered province, just as I wouldn't support invading China to take it over and repeal its bad laws. The corollary to that is that I also don't support your state or the federal government forcing my state to enter into that contract contrary to the laws of my state for the same reason. This doesn't in any way nullify the marriage licenses of your state.



But I have said exactly that several times already.

No one is even saying in this argument at least(I would support forcing your state under the 14th amendment through the federal courts to offer licenses to homosexuals, but that is neither here no there) that your state should be forced by. But in this particular argument, no one is talking about that, before DOMA, states weren't forcing other states to do gay marriages and nor was the federal government forcing states to do gay marriages. What DOMA did was allow states to nullify already existing marriage licenses when couples moved to a different state, thus violating the full faith and credit clause. Marriage licenses in one state must be recognized by law in all states.

[The Patriot]

You haven't.

It's perfectly obvious now that you based that claim entirely on what you read in that wikipedia article, which itself doesn't even say what you said. You don't have the slightest idea about the accuracy of of your assertion. If that weren't the case, you wouldn't keep falling back on that. This is obvious enough to me that I think it would be a waste of my time to bother proving it.

Yes I have, and you are clearly a compulsive liar. I will leave it up to the fair minded viewers of this thread to see for themselves if I did in fact provided full literary citations.

[angelatc]

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/07/be-careful-what-you-wish-for-department.html

[erowe1]

Marriage(including Homosexual Marriage) existed, in civil form, before the supposed savior Jesus Christ of Nazareth was even born. The existed in Ancient Greece; they also existed in Rome until 342 A.D when Christianity became the State Religion.

Emphasis mine.


Really? Got any evidence for that?


Yes, I do.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient



I asked for evidence of your claim:

I'm particularly interested in evidence for civil gay marriages from ancient Greece or Rome.

You provide these links.


But they don't give any evidence either. The first one makes no mention of that part, and the second one just makes the same assertion, only with express uncertainty about it, and again without citing any ancient sources on which the claim is based, and nothing at all about the civil aspect of the alleged marriages.


I was asking about civil gay marriages in ancient Greece and Rome.


Only one of those links has anything about gay marriages in ancient Greece or Rome It includes the admission that it's not certain. It says nothing about them being civil marriages. And it provides no information at all about what the ancient evidence is for whether they existed. It only links to modern works, one of which is a law review.

Since you're so knowledgeable about this, could you just point me to those sources, so I can check them and see if they really support your claim? Or is it perhaps the case that you don't really know that much about it afte all, and you just based your claim on that wikipedia article and ratcheted up the level of certainty just for rhetorical effect?


John Boswell, "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe." (New York: Random House, 1995). Pages 80-85.

Kuefler, Mathew (2007). "The Marriage Revolution in Late Antiquity: The Theodosian Code and Later Roman Marriage Law". Journal of Family History 32: 343–370. doi:10.1177/0363199007304424.


Those are just the exact same modern (as in not ancient) sources in that wikipedia article. I'm beginning to think you don't know anything about the subject and you're just repeating what you read there only taking out the qualifications made there about how it's not certain and adding in your own made up detail about them being civil marriages.


So they are lying? Can you provide sources debunking these claims?


Who's lying? Debunking exactly what claims?

I just want to see what evidence you have from ancient Greek and Latin sources for your claim that they had civil gay marriages (which is not a claim that wikipedia article even makes). I never said you were wrong. I just want to know what the evidence is.

Do you have any? Since you made that assertion (and made it much more dogmatically than it is made in that wikipedia entry), and insisted that you knew what you were talking about. I thought you might. But if you don't, I really don't care enough to go researching it on my own. I'll just be content in my skepticism.


Yes I have, and you are clearly a compulsive liar. I will leave it up to the fair minded viewers of this thread to see for themselves if I did in fact provided full literary citations.

Unless I missed something, those fair minded viewers will have no choice but to conclude that you have no basis for claim other than that wikipedia article, which neither makes that same claim nor cites any ancient sources for the claims that it does make.

If you do ever get around to researching that question and come across any references to civil gay marriages in ancient Greece or Rome in any classical sources, please do share them. I have to admit, I have enough doubts that there are any that I don't think it would be worth my time hunting for something that I don't think is there to be found.

[erowe1]

No one is even saying in this argument at least(I would support forcing your state under the 14th amendment through the federal courts to offer licenses to homosexuals, but that is neither here no there) that your state should be forced by. But in this particular argument, no one is talking about that, before DOMA, states weren't forcing other states to do gay marriages and nor was the federal government forcing states to do gay marriages. What DOMA did was allow states to nullify already existing marriage licenses when couples moved to a different state, thus violating the full faith and credit clause. Marriage licenses in one state must be recognized by law in all states.

So you're saying that under DOMA my state, Indiana, can nullify marriage licenses of gay couples in Massachusetts, so that even Massachusetts cannot recognize its own gay marriage licenses any more? Because if that's not what you mean, then it's not the case that my state can nullify those licenses.

[specsaregood]

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/07/be-careful-what-you-wish-for-department.html



Finally, Judge Tauro's attempt to limit federal power through the Tenth Amendment so that it does not interfere with state prerogatives might delight members of the contemporary Tea Party movement (at least if it wasn't aimed at DOMA), but it should give most Americans pause. The modern state depends heavily on the federal government's taxing and spending powers for many of the benefits that citizens hold dear, including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the newly passed provisions of the Affordable Care Act. These programs have regulatory effects on state family policies just as much as DOMA does. If DOMA's direct interference with state prerogatives is beyond federal power, then perhaps any or all of these programs are vulnerable-- and unconstitutional-- to the extent they interfere with state policies regarding family formation as well. Put differently, Judge Tauro has offered a road map to attack a wide range of federal welfare programs, including health care reform. No matter how much they might like the result in this particular case, this is not a road that liberals want to travel.

I was thinking that initially and why I said this ruling will never stand. I love it.

[senatorpjt]

So, does this mean I can say my Florida ccw is valid in MA? :)

[The Patriot]

Emphasis mine.





















Unless I missed something, those fair minded viewers will have no choice but to conclude that you have no basis for claim other than that wikipedia article, which neither makes that same claim nor cites any ancient sources for the claims that it does make.

If you do ever get around to researching that question and come across any references to civil gay marriages in ancient Greece or Rome in any classical sources, please do share them. I have to admit, I have enough doubts that there are any that I don't think it would be worth my time hunting for something that I don't think is there to be found.

I don't think many people are as delusional as you are. But, at this point, you have to options. Either read the two books I gave you, and from that point, find sources to the contrary, or shut up, and stop saying I didn't provide sources. I will again, provide the two works, so the viewers can know the sources I am referencing from, and can find for themselves that I speak only the truth, and that you are either deranged or to intellectually lazy to try and debunk my sources, thus you claim I didn't provide them.

John Boswell, "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe." (New York: Random House, 1995). Pages 80-85.

Kuefler, Mathew (2007). "The Marriage Revolution in Late Antiquity: The Theodosian Code and Later Roman Marriage Law". Journal of Family History 32: 343–370. doi:10.1177/0363199007304424.

[The Patriot]

So you're saying that under DOMA my state, Indiana, can nullify marriage licenses of gay couples in Massachusetts, so that even Massachusetts cannot recognize its own gay marriage licenses any more? Because if that's not what you mean, then it's not the case that my state can nullify those licenses.

You are truly deranged, I never said such a thing, once again, you are making straw men to cover for your bigoted and unconstitutional position. What I said, is that if that Massachusetts couple moved to your state, that they would unfortunately not be recognized as a married couple and would not receive the same benefits as a heterosexual married couple. But as you said before, you either want to get rid of all marriage civil/secular marriage licenses, but while they exist, you believe they should be restricted according to your religious beliefs.