DOMA should be ruled unconstitutional at the SCOTUS level. Hopefully the Supreme Court judges will rule with the law and not their own bias, 5 to 4 striking down DOMA will be good enough for me though.
As has been stated already, DOMA discriminates based on gender. The only criteria restricted by DOMA for marriage is gender and number of participants. I'll get back to number of participants. DOMA restricts people from marrying based on gender, not sexuality. It states that a man can only marry a woman and a woman can only marry a many, not that only heterosexuals can get married. In fact, it is completely legal for a homosexual to marry a heterosexual or even another homosexual or a bisexual, as long as the other person is the opposite gender.
Gender, unlike race and sexuality, is protected under equal protection using an intermediate scrutiny. This means first, the classification drawn must serve important governmental objectives, and second, the discriminatory means must directly and substantially relate to the accomplishment of a legitimate end. So the government must explain why it is in the state's interest to restrict marriage to opposite genders. This should have to be proven in court. Essentially is there a reason why it is important for the government to prevent a person from marrying someone of the same gender?
Also, taking this to the argument of polygamy. A restriction on the number of people allowed to be involved in the contract would only have to meet the rational basis test. This means that the law is constitutional so long as it is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest. Now, if DOMA is deemed unconstitutional, as it should be, then this restriction would be taken down with it, but the laws of the other states would not be affected. And those laws would need to be challenged directly for them to even have to be tried under the rational basis test. Generally speaking, the SCOTUS will not rule on a distantly related law that might get challenged later. Although polygamy could be mentioned, I highly doubt that the SCOTUS would include it as part of their final decision, especially if they rule DOMA unconstitutional.
"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt
Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.
Woot, someone addressing my point! Thanks.
For gender discrimination it requires "important government interest", the government has deemed only men should be in combat roles, as an important government interest (National Defense). Selective Service is a system in which to track males incase of a draft where individuals are needed for call up into primarily combat rolls. Even then, one could still argue its an instance of gender discrimination that frankly hasn't had the political and societal will to push for the over turning of yet. That does not necessarily mean it would be any less of a discriminatory act.I'm not aware of any laws that require people of a certain race to register with the government and keep apprised of address changes - although they legally "discriminate based on gender" by requiring men to do this under selective service.
And here's where you are wrong. Sex does not fall under "Rational Basis review but falls under Middle-Tier Immediete Scrutiny. In that the government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.If you look into equal protection law, you'll see differences in how it's applied to race as opposed to gender. See for example rational basis review vs. strict scrutiny.
Gender discrimination is allowable if it serves a "legitimate interest" - racial discrimination must show "compelling government interest," be "narrowly tailored" and be the "least restrictive means" of achieving said interest.
Gender discrimination is not allowable under "legitimate interest", but under important, not as high as racial but higher than legitimate and the lowest standard of EPC. It needs to shot that the law "substantially relates" to that important interest. It also states that those defending the laws carry a burden of "exceedingly persuasive jurstification".
The only justification given in regards to this gender discrimination is the note that government has an interest in, one, creating a stable family unit and, two, that male/female relations ships are what provide this
With regards to one it is questionable in regards to being exceedingly persuasive since male/female couples unable to have children are allowed to be married and there's no further investigation into traits that could make someone a "stable family unit" outside of sex,
With regadrs to two it is again hardly a "exceedingly persuasive" argument since there's extremely conflicting evidence regarding the family abilities of same sex couplings.
Thanks for the comments.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
Women (Nasty or otherwise) are going to be the reason that Donald Trump is NEVER President!
Isn't it the responsibility of the citizenry to regulate themselves for posterity? I ask in all seriousness. Right or wrong, this accountability is the correct path; and this responsibility to our future is ordained upon the society. Some might argue that the "society" was against affording blacks equal rights, and that this was wrong. On the surface I might tend to agree with that proposition, however, the general tone, and the framing of this debate from the pro gay-marriage side, is one that requires intense scrutiny, and the parameters are worth exploring. One, blacks are black, Asians are Asian, and girls are girls, and boys are boys. These are all innate, and immutable conditions of the human experiment. One might argue, that, with the above premise taken as true - that the citizenry is responsible, if not entirely accountable for their posterity; isn't it reasonable to conclude that denying the "right", or more formally, dismissing the recognition, and institutionalization of gay marriage is actually a beneficial thing; if, one decides that homosexuality, fundamentally, falls far short of the reasonable measure comparing the innate, and immutable characteristics of one's gender, or skin color?
One might even argue that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, why should I care? Great question. Well, I can, and have argued successfully that gay marriage inandofitself IS harmful to society, and it's posterity. The problem with gay marriage, like all other major social changes, is that for the short-sighted (Read obtuse liberal mind) gay marriage has no ill effects, other than a few loud ignorant homophobes (right?), they will get used to it. I argue that they said the same things about no fault divorce, abortion, sex-ed, desegregation, affirmative action, employment equality, public schools - the list is immense. Ask yourself where all those social changes are today? The law of unintended consequences is always at play. One must look deep and far into the future, and realize all the possible outcomes before embarking on a major social change, forced or unforced. My God it takes ten years to approve a runway extension in this country, with all the impact studies that must be done to ensure that the extension has no ill effects, yet, because of loud mouth ideologues we now have our kindergartners reading about Ted, and Steve in classroom reading circles?
Put it all in perspective people.. WE, are the people, and right or wrong, we have the right, and the responsibility to decide our own destiny. There is no moral authority, other than the one we decide. If we decide that gay marriage is a good thing, then that is the moral of the story, if in the reverse, then that too is the authority, and it is by definition, moral!
Then, I notice, a distinct lack of explaining what that harm is. You are arguing: "Gay marriage causes harm because you can't predict the harm it will cause."
That's not a "successful" argument. That's not even an argument. Also, your "very conservative" tag isn't sufficient. We need a tag for "Would prefer to reinstate segregation."
Last edited by Deuce; 07-13-10 at 04:11 PM.
One of you will end up here next!
Well I was hoping someone as clearly intellectual as yourself might put it all together. I did indicate the gist of my argument, you just missed it. Perhaps it was my intent to promote further discussion on the issue, maybe even a challenge or two; it is, after all my nature to argue.
That said, here it is:
1. Homosexuality is not innate, nor is it immutable, it, by all definitions manifest itself as no more than a fetish, and although not necessarily terrible, nothing certainly worthy of regulation, or legislation. Certainly nothing that should be institutionalized, or forced upon an otherwise ill equipped mind.
2. To my next point - By regulating, and legislating homosexual marriage, the State invariably endorses the behavior, and, by direct consequence, proponents of said behavior force it upon the society by way of the schools, and the workplace.
3. The beef I have is in the schools aspect of it all. Consenting adults are free to make up their own minds, and if it stopped at the adult level, say a restriction on teaching the morality of homosexuality to kids, then I would be i favor of it. but we both know that will not happen. Much like a ban on the commercialization, or marketing of the product, like with alcohol, and tobacco to children, then by all means, have at er.
4. Children, in fact up until the age of roughly 20 have an immature pre frontal cortex. It means that they do not have the ability to reason the way adults do. It is why the military like em young, it is why sex with children, even consenting ones is prohibited. It is why most kids right up until they join the adult population, are generally liberal in their thinking. Adult liberals are simply immature conservatives.
5. Homosexuality is demonstrably harmful to the homosexual, both females and males. They have a much higher incidence of many negative behaviors, and circumstances. The list is extensive, but I suspect you might already know what they are, so can we please stipulate on this point? Given this to be demonstrably true, why would anyone want to promote homosexuality? Promotion of homosexuality will be the norm, through the public schools, if it is deemed gay marriage legal. You can count on it.
6. What's the upside of legalizing gay marriage? if you say it's the right thing to do, then I refer you to my authority of morality argument.
Go ahead, convince me that gay marriage is the right thing to do. I'm all ears.
Oh, this part - Also, your "very conservative" tag isn't sufficient. We need a tag for "Would prefer to reinstitute segregation." comment. Interesting, could you elaborate more on this?
Last edited by Hicup; 07-13-10 at 04:34 PM.
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run
Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.