Skip to comments.Obama urges Supreme Court to strike down federal Defense of Marriage Act
Posted on 02/23/2013 8:11:22 PM PST by RoosterRedux
The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to strike down the federal law defining marriage as a union between only a man and a woman.
The request regarding the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act was made Friday in a brief by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli that argues the law is unconstitutional because it violates "the fundamental guarantee of equal protection."
The high court is set to hear two cases next month on the issue: the constitutional challenge on Proposition 8, the 2008 California that allowed same-sex marriages in the state that two years later was overturned, and United States v. Windsor, which challenges DOMA.
Edith Windsor, a California resident, was married to her female partner in Canada in 2007 but was required to pay roughly $360,000 in federal estate taxes because the marriage is not recognized under DOMA.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Where is that photo from?
I heard this on the radio yesterday. So depressing.
When was that? I've been here 15 years in a couple of months, and I don't remember it.
I agree with that too. It's a moral issue and the federal government should not have any business in making laws on moral issues. It should be left entirely to the states.
If we allow states to refuse to recognize marriages from other states, I’m fine with waving goodbye to DOMA. No coerced reciprocity. If Vermont, say, wants to allow homosexual marriage, let them but don’t force South Carolina to recognize the work product.
instead of resorting to ad hominims to challenge the constitutionally substantiated points that I have made concerning federal marriage laws, I ask if you would please volunteer any clause in the Constitution to substantiate your seeming stance that the states have indeed delegated to Congress the specific power to regulate marriage. (Or do you possibly not understand why the Constitution was made in the first place?)
Otherwise, I have poined out the black and white fact that, since the term "marriage" cannot be found in the Constituton, there is no way that any of the clauses in Section 8 of Article I, or clauses in any other part of the Constitution, can be reasonably construed as an express delegation of power to Congress by the states to address marriage issues, including to define marriage as a one man, one woman union.
In other words, Congress cannot make laws to protect one man, one woman marriage any more than it can make laws regulating our 1st Amendment protections.
And given that the 10th Amendment clarifies that powers not reasonably delegated to Congress are reserved uniquely to the states or the people (paraphrased), it's sad that many of the states, evidently inexcusably unaware that Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate marriage, have foolishly put their faith in the constitutionally indefensible federal DOMA Act, as opposed to making their own 10th Amendment protected laws to protect one-man, one-woman marriage.
Finally, there's been nothing to stop the states from using their unique, Article V power to ratify proposed amendments to the Constitution to do so to make traditional one man, one woman unions a constitutonally protected right. But the fact that Constitution-ignorant patriots applauded Congress for making constitutionally indefensible federal DOMA without a proper amendment to the Constitution to enable Congress to make such legislation means that the Constitution is essentially dead because patriots themselves don't know the Constitution. (Constitutonally ignorant "patriots" arguably deserve corrupt Congress and corrupt presidents.)
Corruption promotes CORRUPTION !
The things you see and hear when you dont have a rope
“instead of resorting to ad hominims to challenge the constitutionally substantiated points that I have made”
You started with the ad hominems with your sarcastic comment to another poster about “having not read...the Constitution”. Because others disagree with you, you resort to the snark and thus opened up that can of worms.
“In other words, Congress cannot make laws to protect one man, one woman marriage any more than it can make laws regulating our 1st Amendment protections.”
Sure they can. And they do. Some are unconstitutional and others are not.
“Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate marriage, have foolishly put their faith in the constitutionally indefensible federal DOMA Act, as opposed to making their own 10th Amendment protected laws to protect one-man, one-woman marriage.”
So, the states have the right to redefine a word that has been culturally accepted for hundreds of years in this country and thousands of years worldwide?
The common sense error that you make is that some states will right foolish laws, even unconstitutional in some cases, yet affirmed by Blue state State Supreme Courts.
The legal and constitutional song you are singing, has long since sailed through the night. You are absolutely incorrect and the Supremacy clause and Necessary and Proper Clauses in the same Constitution you cite have been ruled consistently to defeat your position.
So, we conservatives can do what you are doing. We can pretend we live in a fantasy land and not play in the arena.
The other option is to play by the rules of the game that have been set. Socialist politicians are going to play fool court press and we can either play defense and lose by time and attrition, or we can play by the same set of rules and attempt to win, as they do.
rbmillerjr: "Sure they can. And they do. Some are unconstitutional and others are not."
You're really stepping into it. I'll continue commenting when I stop laughing. Too difficult to type now.
rbmillerjr: "So, the states have the right to redefine a word that has been culturally accepted for hundreds of years in this country and thousands of years worldwide?"
You may have a point. The Supreme Court previously defended traditional marriage with common law, I believe, when they decided against polygamy in Reynolds v. United States in 1878. The problem is that Reynolds did test not the limits of 10th Amendment protected state powers since Utah was still a US Territory, not a state, when the Court decided Reynolds. And I don't know how common law, referenced in the 7th Amendment, relates to the Constitution well enough to know if common law would reasonably trump 10th Amendment protected state powers or not.
But what I do know is the following.
As a consequence of the states long forgetting that they uniquely control what the Constitution says as evidenced by Article V, they have failed to protect traditional marriage from the corrupt federal government with an appropriate amendment. And since the Supreme Court is now arguably controlled by gay-tolerant activist justices, the Court can easily strike down federal DOMA based on the state sovereignty information that I have noted, imo, common law or no common law.
rbmillerjr: "You are absolutely incorrect and the Supremacy clause and Necessary and Proper Clauses in the same Constitution you cite have been ruled consistently to defeat your position."
I rarely reference the Supremacy and Necessary and Proper Clauses. So off hand I don't know what posts you might be talking about. But when I do mention the Supremacy Clause, for example, a clause often cited by Constitution-ignoring liberals, I am usually careful to note that the clause applies only to powers which the states have expressly delegated to Congress via the Constitution. And regulating marriage isn't one of those powers.
Regarding the overall gist of your replies to my previous post, I will again state the following. Although patriots are now blaming Obama and Congress for unconstitutionally big federal government, many patriots have only themselves to blame for evidently not knowing enough about the Constitution, particularly the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers, to have regularly exercised their voting muscle to keep the corrupt federal government from escaping its constitutionally limited-power cage, as is the situation now.
Well minded individuals should just let the states decide and if the states decide for gay marriage, then be appalled, try and change minds, or find comfort in the end of days line, whatever helps you sleep well at night, but don’t pretend you know the constitution better than anyone else, and no I’m not talking directly at you, more so the post I picked to rail against the people that think they know more than they do.
Logic is not something you can count on in this argument. or consistency.
“I rarely reference the Supremacy and Necessary and Proper Clauses.”
That’s because that knowledge goes beyond your bubble gum machine Law Degree. lol
Very convenient ignorance, since the consistent history of of these Constitutional Clauses disprove your interpretation of the Constitution.
Turning your head to the Constitution doesn’t assist mastery of the Constitution that you selectively cite.
Do some additional study on the basics and we can constructively debate. Note that it is not what supports our ideology that matters, but the reality of what is in the Constitution.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
rbmillerjr: "Thats because that knowledge goes beyond your bubble gum machine Law Degree. lol"
Allow me to clarify my previous statement. I am very familiar with the clauses in question, including how both clauses have been twisted to allow the power-hungry federal government to overstep its constitutionally limited powers.
So regarding my previous statement, perhaps I should have said that I rarely reference them in posts that I make in FR.
Hell, they might just rule the government has no business in the marriage licensing business, that is a religion issue and the government should not be involved.
Then rule for tax purposes ‘civil unions’ are acceptable, in all states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.