DOMA Being Challenged By Massachusetts

YoungGunConservative.com ^

[gmp31555]

The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 was signed into law by then President William Jefferson Clinton (from here after referred to as Billy Bob Bubba). Now I don’t think that the gay ’special rights’ activists of Massachusetts really want to oppose their beloved former President, BUT – they are.

DOMA basically says that marriage is a union between a man and a woman; and same sex marriages performed in states where the definition is otherwise do not have to be recognized in states which have a differing definition of marriage. This has the libtards of the Prissy State up in arms.

[tlb]

I was wondering when the endgame would begin. As best I can see it, this Massachusetts lawsuit must prevail.

DOMA is congressional legislation. As such it cannot supersede Constitutional provisions, most pertinently the Full Faith and Credit clause.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause—Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”

Therefore what is a legal marriage in Mass. must be a legal marriage in any other state, and DOMA preventing such recognition is legally untenable. Only a Constitutional amendment on topic could prevent this. And that clearly isn’t going to happen.

A state can place whatever limitations in its own boundaries on who can get married, but nobody can stop the parties from crossing the border to a venue that will permit the marriage, and then returning back to their original state with a valid marriage.

There is all similar to the situation in the 1950s regarding Reno divorces.

[fwdude]

Why does nearly everyone purposely (willfully?) omit the other critical part of this clause:

"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." [emphasis added]

That said, I DO agree that a Federal Marriage Amendment is needed, not because the above clause does not sufficiently mean what it says, but that activist judges know no rules or rational basis when it comes to ramming through their own political agendas. An amendment would make this much harder to do.