Massachusetts Court rules state cannot ban gay marraige

[Berzerker]

Imran - You say spending a night in a hotel is interstate commerce if the traveller comes from out of state. So why can the state you're visiting charge you a sales tax when the same state cannot charge you a sales tax on goods you order from your home state? If I go to Maine and spend time in a hotel, I'm subject to Maine's sales taxes. If I stay here and order goods from LL Bean, the states of Maine and Kansas cannot charge me with any sales taxes. Why? Because the former is not interstate commerce and the latter is...

Hell, even with all the perversions of the Interstate Commerce Clause, Congress and the courts recognise the difference you fail to see. According to your argument, no state could ever charge a sales tax without congressional permission because some people live in other states.

Ramo -

Certainly not in the US. That's why gay people can't get married. That's why polygamists can't marry multiple people.

The concept of marriage preceded government, and the term for that concept preceded government.

The Nazi's didn't steal, nor murder (except when they weren't in power) since stealing is an illegal seizure and murder is an illegal killing. While in power, they certainly did seize and kill, and that in no way "negates" the Holocaust.

Stealing and murder are also concepts that preceded government as did the terms for these actions. Only in these debates do we hear people claiming the Nazis didn't steal and murder people...quite telling...

And why exactly are you making that point? Let's go over this again. The state can define what a marriage is. Thus it can change the definition of what a marriage is.

And that is what the states have done. Marriage doesn't include same sex unions even according to how government defines marriage, but I reject this notion that one group of people - government - can walk in and start re-defining words. That's why I don't have to put forth the argument that the Nazis didn't steal or murder people, they did and you won't find survivors of their crimes agreeing with you that they didn't.

Beccause heterosexual is not a word that's defined by the law, while marriage is.

Concepts and words precede laws. Obviously "heterosexual" is defined by law wrt what constitutes a marriage. Besides, government could define heterosexual as a legal term, true?

[Imran Siddiqui]

US v. Lopez. The most current law on the subject.

Please quote where Lopez says 'substantially'. It says nothing of the sort. It says the activity must be commerce, and carrying guns doesn't qualify.

Btw, US v. Morrison is actually the most current law.

According to your argument, no state could ever charge a sales tax without congressional permission because some people live in other states.

Actually, they could. Simply because they can regulate what happens in their own borders... as long as it doesn't unfairly discriminate against out of staters who are in the state.

[David Floyd]

Ramo,

I'm not gonna get into the minors issue, so let's keep this to contracts between consenting adults.

Imran, DD, etc.,

I think you guys can all agree that the Constitution doesn't actually MEAN the ICC can be used as a blanket grant of power to the federal government. It can be INTERPRETED that way, but lawyers can interpret anything anyone says any way they want. That's like if I say, in public, "I'd kill for a hamburger", and then somebody knocks over a McDonald's and kills everyone working there, they come arrest me on the justification that, hey, I said I'd kill for a burger.

That's why you have to look at the intent. Now I'll grant you that "original intent" is an impossible standard to use all the time, however, when it is clear what the intent is, I don't see why it shouldn't be used.

[Rogan Josh]

As a matter of interest, is it discrimination that a brother and sister aren't allowed to marry? After all, they are not being treated in the same way by the law as a non-related couple.

If ''marriage'' between same sex couples is guaranteed by the constitution, why is ''marriage'' between siblings not?

[MrFun]

And slippery slope arguments never fail to lose their popularity . . . . .

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by MrFun
And slippery slope arguments never fail to lose their popularity . . . . .

This wasn't a slippery slope argument. I happen to believe that if siblings want to make a sincere comitment to one another, gaining the tax breaks and legal status of ''partners'', they should be allowed to. Why is the state insisting that we have sex with the person we are married to? It's none of their damn business.

[David Floyd]

As a matter of interest, is it discrimination that a brother and sister aren't allowed to marry? After all, they are not being treated in the same way by the law as a non-related couple.

If ''marriage'' between same sex couples is guaranteed by the constitution, why is ''marriage'' between siblings not?

I agree. Let consenting adults do as they please.

[MrFun]

It's slippery slope when you make fallicious claims that if we allow this, then we HAVE to allow everything else, from legalizing marriage between men and dogs, and women and cats.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's why you have to look at the intent. Now I'll grant you that "original intent" is an impossible standard to use all the time, however, when it is clear what the intent is, I don't see why it shouldn't be used.

The problem with 'original intent' is that it is just as easily manipulated as the text. Why? Because you can always find some statement made by someone in Congress that justifies your POV. Furthermore, our records of the Continental Congress and the first Congress on debating the Bill of Rights is incredibly spotty. All we have on the debate over the 1st Amendment is like 10 pages in TOTAL! This happens when a hard-of-hearing, drunkard is the clerk.

Modern original intent is even harder, because Congressional staffers write the 'committee reports' and later are stunned when parts of those reports are used as 'intent'.

Intent is just as flexible as text. Lawyers can interpret anything anyone says (such as in Congress) any way they want.

The 'text' is the actual law, so following that would be the best course of action. Read some of Scalia's works for better insight into this.

[Ned]

MrFun, the slippery slope argument is valid if the argument for extension of marriage to gays would work in other contexts as well.

[Ned]

Charles B Hoff, the Defense of Marriage Act is already law. It was not strictly a Republican bill. It had bi-partisan support and was supported by Democrat president Bill Clinton.

"In the summer of 1996, Congress considered and passed the Defense of Marriage act (DOMA) with bipartisan support . Proposed by Republicans, it was endorsed by the Democratic President and a majority of Senators and Representatives of both parties votes for the Act. Yet DOMA is widely misunderstood, reflecting some inaccurate meadia coverage.

DOMA simply establishes that if any state chooses to legalize same-sex marriage, it may not force that radical redefinition of marriage upon other states or upon the federal government over their objection. DOMA simply preserves the right of the other states and of Congress to decide for themselves whether to legalize or recognize same-sex marrige.

Thus, the Defense of Marriage Act might well be called the protection of Federalism in Family Law Act. The main principles underlying DOMA are respect for federalism and for respect for the right of each state to settle the same-sex marriage definition questions for itself.

DOMA contains two operative sections. Section 2 provides that federal full faith and credit rules neither prohibit nor compel any state to recognize same-sex marriage laws, records or judgments from another state. Nothing in Section 2 bars any state from legalizing same-sex marriage or from recognizing same-sex marriages or decrees from another state. Each state is still free to give effect to another state's same-sex mariages if it chooses to do so.Section 2 simply clarifies that the federal full faith and credit rules do not force states to recognize same-sex marriages legalized in another state.

Thus, DOMA adopts a "neutral" position, that federal full faith and credit neither prohibits nor requires any state to recognize same-sex marriage acts, records and judgments from other states. It simply removes the potential federal compulsion (one way or the other) and leaves it up to each state to decide for itself what effect to give to same-sex marriage. The right of each state to decide whether to recognize marriages from other states that violate the public policy of each state is long-established. Both the first and second Restatement of Law, Conflict of Laws explicitly acknowledge that a state is not obligated to recognize marriages from other jurisdictions that violate its strong public policy.

Congress clearly has the power to enact legislation defining the full faith and credit effect of states' laws, records and judgments. The very language of the Full Faith and credit Clause of the Constitution (Article IV, §1) explicitly provides that "Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged Congress' constitutional authority to establish full faith and credit rules.

Section 3 of DOMA provides that for purpose of interpreting federal law, "the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife..." This defines what the term "marriage" means when used in federal law (such as federal income tax law and federal social security laws) only. The definition of such terms is a routine function of any legal system..

The definition of marriage in section 3 is not imposed upon any state law. DOMA says only that if a state chooses to legalize same-sex marriage within its own jurisdiction, that will not force the federal government to use that radical redefinition of marriage in federal programs and federal laws. Section 3 does not interfere with the ability of the states to define and regulate marriage for themselves. Nor does it deprive Congress of the ability to define marriage some other way if it were to decide that for some particular program that same-sex unions should be treated as marriages. However, DOMA accurately clarifies the fact that Congress has never intended to include homosexual unions when extending federal benefits to "marriages."

http://www.nla.org/library/fall96/doma.html

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
As a matter of interest, is it discrimination that a brother and sister aren't allowed to marry? After all, they are not being treated in the same way by the law as a non-related couple.

If ''marriage'' between same sex couples is guaranteed by the constitution, why is ''marriage'' between siblings not?

It happen in Mass by mistake once. Than bother and sister where sent to different orphance run by the Roman Church and where make part of different families. Met fall in love that marraige in the Roman Church nobody notice that they where brother and sister an somehow the record got lost( paper record). They have no kids, when they where in they 60"s the Church notice they make than mistake, the Church and State government decide to take no action because they where happy marraige to each other. Some time later than cheap Funt Christian decide to use this issue in a election than if backfire on him big time. First when running against the gonvor the gonvor said the reason the State didnot force
them to unmarry thenself was they didnot have kids and they where deeply in love with each other and the Church and State decide not to tell them that they where brother and sister. Than by him bring it up he cause them pain and suffering shame on you Mr Fundi Christian.

[MrFun]

Thanks for the info, Ned.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Ned
Charles B Hoff, the Defense of Marriage Act is already law. It was not strictly a Republican bill. It had bi-partisan support and was supported by Democrat president Bill Clinton.

"In the summer of 1996, Congress considered and passed the Defense of Marriage act (DOMA) with bipartisan support . Proposed by Republicans, it was endorsed by the Democratic President and a majority of Senators and Representatives of both parties votes for the Act. Yet DOMA is widely misunderstood, reflecting some inaccurate meadia coverage.

DOMA simply establishes that if any state chooses to legalize same-sex marriage, it may not force that radical redefinition of marriage upon other states or upon the federal government over their objection. DOMA simply preserves the right of the other states and of Congress to decide for themselves whether to legalize or recognize same-sex marrige.

Thus, the Defense of Marriage Act might well be called the protection of Federalism in Family Law Act. The main principles underlying DOMA are respect for federalism and for respect for the right of each state to settle the same-sex marriage definition questions for itself.

DOMA contains two operative sections. Section 2 provides that federal full faith and credit rules neither prohibit nor compel any state to recognize same-sex marriage laws, records or judgments from another state. Nothing in Section 2 bars any state from legalizing same-sex marriage or from recognizing same-sex marriages or decrees from another state. Each state is still free to give effect to another state's same-sex mariages if it chooses to do so.Section 2 simply clarifies that the federal full faith and credit rules do not force states to recognize same-sex marriages legalized in another state.

Thus, DOMA adopts a "neutral" position, that federal full faith and credit neither prohibits nor requires any state to recognize same-sex marriage acts, records and judgments from other states. It simply removes the potential federal compulsion (one way or the other) and leaves it up to each state to decide for itself what effect to give to same-sex marriage. The right of each state to decide whether to recognize marriages from other states that violate the public policy of each state is long-established. Both the first and second Restatement of Law, Conflict of Laws explicitly acknowledge that a state is not obligated to recognize marriages from other jurisdictions that violate its strong public policy.

Congress clearly has the power to enact legislation defining the full faith and credit effect of states' laws, records and judgments. The very language of the Full Faith and credit Clause of the Constitution (Article IV, §1) explicitly provides that "Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged Congress' constitutional authority to establish full faith and credit rules.

Section 3 of DOMA provides that for purpose of interpreting federal law, "the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife..." This defines what the term "marriage" means when used in federal law (such as federal income tax law and federal social security laws) only. The definition of such terms is a routine function of any legal system..

The definition of marriage in section 3 is not imposed upon any state law. DOMA says only that if a state chooses to legalize same-sex marriage within its own jurisdiction, that will not force the federal government to use that radical redefinition of marriage in federal programs and federal laws. Section 3 does not interfere with the ability of the states to define and regulate marriage for themselves. Nor does it deprive Congress of the ability to define marriage some other way if it were to decide that for some particular program that same-sex unions should be treated as marriages. However, DOMA accurately clarifies the fact that Congress has never intended to include homosexual unions when extending federal benefits to "marriages."

http://www.nla.org/library/fall96/doma.html

It is undermined Full Faith and Credit clause. It you are going to have that type of clause it must be apply 100 % of the time or not at all. Some states are not going to allow other state to decide that they marriage arenot vaid in their state do you want than other Cival War.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun
Thanks for the info, Ned.

You are welcome.

So what are the clear lines of demarcation then?

Why can't three very close gay people get married?