DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act) is UNCONSTITUTIONAL !

BettyJean Downing

First Amendment prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing a religious and therefore official marriage!

Today the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that eliminated same-sex couples’ right to marry, violates the U.S. constitution. In a 2-1 ruling, the court said the proposition “serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.”

There is no Constitutional discussion regarding marriage rights in the United States. Without legal standing to deny anyone the benefit thereof marriages between loving, committed couples must be legally recognized.

Many are working for passage of the Respect for Marriage Act that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, depriving lesbian and gay couples of protections that heterosexual couples enjoy.

It seems pretty clear to me that there is no need for either act as there is nothing in the Constitution that deprives any citizen of their natural rights. Marriage between same sex couples or the prohibition thereof is strictly a religious debate and The Constitution has CLEARY stated the government shall make no laws regarding an official religion. That means the government has made laws regarding marriage as an official religious issue and even when it occurs in a civil ceremony where it is also obviously treated as an official religious marriage as well
!

The legal philosophy known as Declarationism seeks to incorporate the natural rights philosophy of the United States Declaration of Independence into the body of American case law on a level with the United States Constitution.

What we should have is a separation of marriages. In religious marriages, ceremonies and rules apply according to their own rules and rites. In civil ceremonies marriages are recognized by the civil society. BUT in the eyes of our government both must be treated the same to be in harmony with the Constitution and all citizens are entitled to the same benefits regardless of their religion, or ceremony as per the Constitutional and Human rights .

The establishment clause is “[t]he First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another.” Therefore since the marriage argument we are currently experiencing is a purely a religious one it falls under the same protections. In the opinion of any sober individual then, DOMA is illegal under The First Amendment.

How does the following stand up under the Constitution as fair? Where in the Constitution does it guarantee the financial benefits of Marriage to one man and one woman that two men or two women are not entitled to?

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law whereby the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Under the law, no U.S. state (or other political subdivision) may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President
Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

The law, specifically Section 3, codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, which include family insurance benefits for employees of the government, survivors’ benefits from Social Security, and joint tax filings. This section has been found unconstitutional in two Massachusetts court cases and a California bankruptcy court case; however, the court rulings are under appeal. President Barack Obama‘s administration called parts of the law unconstitutional and announced in 2011 that although it will enforce DOMA, it will not defend it in court.[1] Shortly thereafter, the House of Representatives announced it would defend the law on behalf of the federal government in place of the Department of Justice.

Advertisements

4 Responses

  1. The more I hear the phase “civil union”, the more I think it is a more elegant and classier phrase than the word “marriage”. Where’s the pioneering spirit out there?

    Why not make the phrase “civil union” be equally and perhaps over time more respected than the word marriage? Once civil union is in the vernacular, then it becomes easier or those in a civil union to fight for all the rights that married people apparently enjoy.

    Why fight to get into a league where around 40-50% don’t want gays admitted. Why not just create a new league, a “civil union” league, and then over time, and not that much time either, have it mean the same thing as marriage, even in the eyes of the naysayers.

  2. I so agree!
    I honestly think the marriage thing should be for religious ceremonies and civil unions for all other unions.
    BUT the government should view all unions Marriage or Civil as deserving the same respect as far as benefits!

  3. DITTO!!
    BJ,
    Maybe your state which is posed to be the next to vote, will listen to reason.
    I agree, Civil Unions for ALL, send “marriage” back to house of worship where it belongs. If it is a sacrement (which as a practicing catholic I believe it is), then have people go & get it preformed…like Baptism.
    Everyone has a birth certificate , then Christians go to have their child get baptisted, separate..ugh!!
    Personally, I believe words matter. I sometimes call my husband my “life partner” it feels great to say. So equal…
    Just a thought
    BTW:
    BJ I am off of school on the 24th…so count me in!!

  4. Ditto T,
    I swear they need crap to argue about. I think the two sides stay up nights looking for things to fight about! I am sick to death of it and of them.
    This is just too simple. Have marriage be religious and civil ceremonies be civil and have the government treat both the same – why the hell should the government show deference or allow the churches to ask for deference. It’s like asking the government to treat atheists differently – say they are not allowed to have benefits that believers get. That wouldn’t fly — so live and let live!
    And this new fight about who pays for BC and abortions – same shit.
    Cut taxes and let all the rich liberals pay for what they believe in BC and abortions and let all the rich conservatives pay for what they believe in, wars.
    But NO – instead they want to take all our money pool it together and force both sides to pay for what each side doesn’t want to pay for just to keep the two sides at each other’s throats and constantly fighting.
    How stupid is that?
    Let us keep our money and spend it on what we believe in except for the stuff we all agree on like roads and schools. Can we agree of that? Surely there are some things we can all agree on paying for – at least I hope so!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: