DOMA is an abuse of federalism (George Will tastes the rainbow)

The Washington Post ^ | March 20, 2013 | George F. Will

[2ndDivisionVet]

“[U]nder the Constitution, the regulation and control of marital and family relationships are reserved to the States.”

— U.S. Supreme Court,

Sherrer v. Sherrer (1948)

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is an exception to the rule that a law’s title is as uninformative about the law’s purpose as the titles of Marx Brothers movies (“Duck Soup,” “Horse Feathers,” “Animal Crackers”) are about those movies’ contents. DOMA’s purpose is precisely what its title says. Which is why many conservatives and liberals should be uneasy Wednesday when the Supreme Court hears arguments about its constitutionality.

Conservatives who supported DOMA should, after 17years’ reflection, want the act overturned because its purpose is constitutionally improper. Liberals who want the act struck down should be discomfited by the reason the court should give when doing this.

DOMA, which in 1996 passed the House 342 to 67 and the Senate 85 to 14, defines marriage for the purpose of federal law as a legal union between one man and one woman. Because approximately 1,100 federal laws pertain to marriage, DOMA’s defenders argue that Congress merely exercised its power to define a term used in many statutes. But before 1996, federal statutes functioned without this definition......

[Soul of the South]

“It would be a lawyer’s dream come true, that’s for sure.”

But at the state level where “social” law belongs. The activist organizations will have to spend time and resources to fight their agenda in 50 separate states instead of going for one knockout win at the federal level as they succeeded in doing with abortions and are trying to do with firearms. It is much tougher to win 50 battles than to win one.

[BobL]

“Never trust a man who wears a bow tie.”

Good point. I was trying to figure out which side of the plate the president of JC Penny bats on, but Wikipedia had NOTHING on him. He’s 54 years old - he’s obviously chosen a side...and given his use of Ellen, I think my question is answered.

[BfloGuy]

Why do you think getting government out of marriage would be an improvement?

Oh, for Pete's sake, you've got the question backwards.

Why do you think getting the government involved in marriage would be an improvement. Do we really need governmet to regulate our private lives?

[dfwgator]

Since I, as the vast majority of the population do, believe that marriage and family is the cornerstone of a well-functioning society, I believe that it is one of the legitimate areas for some kind of government regulation.

There is nothing to stop people from having whatever kind of living arrangements they want.....just don’t have the government sanction it as being on equal terms with a marriage between a man and a woman.

[supercat]

Should that happen, I don't want them to force my state to recognize it.

If I were the Great High Lord Poo-Pah In Charge Of Everything (but still bound by the Constitution), I would have Congress write and pass a law like the following:

1. USC 4.1 requires that states shall give full faith and credit to public acts performed in other states, but allows Congress to legislate the means by which such acts shall be proven, and the effect thereof.
2. Accordingly, any state may be compel another state to recognize a marriage among two or more persons performed within it, if the Secretary of State of the state where the marriage was performed appears in person at the office of Secretary of State to be compelled and hands over a 12oz bar of 99.9% pure gold with the names of the married persons engraved thereon along.
3. A state which is thereby compelled to recognize a marriage performed in another shall be required to, if presented with a sheet of paper containing the names of the people in question, and upon payment of a fee determined by that state, not to exceed $500, affirm such recognition by marking the paper in ink with the word "whatever" and returning the paper to the presenter.
4. States are required to retain the record of another state's marriage for a minimum of 24 hours. At the end of that time, the gold bar that was presented to certify that marriage will be the property of the state that received it, to do with as it sees fit.
5. Nothing herein shall restrict the authority of states to accept other forms of proof of marriages performed in other states, nor to recognize them in other ways, should they see fit to do so.

Such a law would be a very clear exercise of a power which Congress is explicitly given in USC 4.1; I doubt that any state would ever bother proving a marriage performed therein using the procedure described in the legislation, but if a state chose to do so I wouldn't think it would pose any particular problem.

[supercat]

A contract is a contract. It wouldn’t matter what other people “saw”.

Many car rental companies as a matter of policy will allow a renter's spouse to drive a rented car without having to pay an "additional driver" fee. If there isn't a standard definition of "marriage", how should the company determine whether or not two people who wish to rent a car should have to pay the extra fee? The question "Are these people married" should be a simple one, but if every "marriage" contract is different how should the company determine whether two people are actually married or just drew up a sham contract to save a few dollars on their car rental?

[mrsmith]

You have things exactly backwards.

DOMA is the only thing preventing your state from being forced to recognize those marriages,

The courts would make your state recognize those ‘marriages’ just as now it forces it to honor child custody and support agreements for those ‘marriages’.

[BfloGuy]

Since I, as the vast majority of the population do, believe that marriage and family is the cornerstone of a well-functioning society, I believe that it is one of the legitimate areas for some kind of government regulation.

That has nothing to do with the Constitution at all. The Constitution does not carve out favors for majorities. The fact that you and your "vast majority of the population" favor something, means nothing.

BTW, I also believe that marriage and family are the cornerstones of a well-functioning society. But that doesn't change a thing about what I wrote.

You do understand that point, don't you? What we want is not necessarily "constitutional". It's important to acknowledge that.

[x]

George F. Will: Closet Confederate?

[fwdude]

All three sections of DOMA are necessary; well thought out by a then saner Congress than we've had in several election cycles. Each one preserves states' rights to define natural marriage as the only reality in their jurisdiction.

Without the passage of DOMA, we would likely have had nationwide recognition of same-sex "marriage" force on every state 6 years ago.

The federal recognition clause is essential because it prevents fake "marriage" from being exportable to every other state.

The only thing lacking was a clause to preclude any marriage-like combination as well. Wise state governments foresaw this threat and did the right thing by also preventing "marriage-lite."

[Secret Agent Man]

if doma is, so is roe v. wade.

[Secret Agent Man]

same as driver licenses. fedgov doesn’t set standards. may ask for certain things but states determine state id information.

[Lurker]

Dude, it’s a contract. Read it before you sign it. If you don’t like it or don’t understand it, don’t sign it. It’s really not that complicated.

[Elsie]

If I were the Great High Lord Poo-Pah In Charge Of Everything...

Well...

---

Genesis 13:13

Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.

Genesis 18:20-21
20. Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
21. that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

Genesis 19:4-7
4. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.
5. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7. and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.

Psalms 12:8 The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men.

Isaiah 3:9 The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.

2 Peter 2:13b Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.

Ezekiel 16:49-50
49. "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
50. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

---

---

2 Peter 2

1. But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
3. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
5. if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;
6. if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
7. and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men
8. (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)--
9. if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.
10. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings;
11. yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.
12. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
13. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.

---

---

But there IS hope!!!

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

9. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10. nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

---

If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape...
 

 

 

 

 

[wastedyears]

Agreed and seconded. The government getting involved with it only gives it more power, and makes it larger.

[uncommonsense]

"While now DOMA says that marriage is between a man and a woman it only takes a bad election or two before Congress might decide a marriage is also between a man and a man or a woman and a woman."

Oh how I wish people would understand that statism is a two edged sword and it's more likely to cut in the wrong direction if it's at the federal level!

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

[massmike]

If Massachusetts wants to recognize same-sex marriage then let them.

We DON'T want it here! We were NEVER allowed to vote on it!

[nickcarraway]

You are wrong. Can I marry a woman in California and then marry a woman in Georgia? No, I would be committing a crime. All 50 states recognize marriage from other states with regard to bigamy. I can only be married to one person at a time in the U.S. It’s not a state issue.

[uncommonsense]

"If there isn't a standard definition of "marriage", how should the company determine whether or not two people who wish to rent a car should have to pay the extra fee? "

There isn't a current standard between the states. Some recognize SSM, some have laws against.

Usually contracts stipulate the state who's laws apply (usually the state of incorporation or primary headquarters).