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.