Should Section 2 of DOMA Also be Ruled Unconstitutional?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Should Section 2 of DOMA Also be Ruled Unconstitutional?

    Despite the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor on Wednesday morning, granted full marriage benefits to same-sex married couples, the controversial Section 2 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act still stands.

    Section 2, which was not considered by the Supreme Court in the Windsor case, declares that states and territories of the United States have the right to deny recognition of same-sex marriages that originated in other states or territories.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Should Section 2 of DOMA Also be Ruled Unconstitutional?

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

    In response to andiejen's comment:

     

     

     

    Despite the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor on Wednesday morning, granted full marriage benefits to same-sex married couples, the controversial Section 2 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act still stands.

    Section 2, which was not considered by the Supreme Court in the Windsor case, declares that states and territories of the United States have the right to deny recognition of same-sex marriages that originated in other states or territories.

     

     




    Interesting question.  Perhaps restated, do states have the right to define marriage?  If yes, then no.  Say NH does not wish to recognize same sex marriages.  What's to stop anyone from getting married in Mass and saying, "here's our joint tax return"?

     

     

    I need to think about this one.  For eg., Martha Coakley took the fed to court over there failure to recognize Mass marriages.  What's to stop her from taking NH to court?  Can states sue other states?  That whole sovereignty thingy.

     



    Gregin,

     

    One way to respond is to show you the House bill that has been introduced that would effectively, by legislation, address Section 2 of DOMA. It is called the "Respect for Marriage Act". 

    Then we can see if we agree if this bill warrants passage since SCOTUS ducked Section 2. In effect they ignored the "full faith and credit " act basic our constitution. So, for eg., my heterosexual marriage by law must be recognized in all 50 states as well as the territories of the US although I got married in but one state...little Rhody (RI).

    We can  and did move to MA. We file joint income tax returns. We can pick up and move anywhere in the US and do the same. We have had this right since we have been married since we have a heterosexual marriage. This act would afford the same to same-sex marriages.

     

    Washington, DC – Congressman Joe Kennedy today announced that he is an original co-sponsor of legislation to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Kennedy joins 160 members of the House and 41 members of the Senate in re-introducing the Respect for Marriage Act that would eliminate the law entirely. While the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of DOMA yesterday, other sections of the law remain in place.

     

    “For over fifteen years the Defense of Marriage Act has codified discrimination and excused inequality,” said Congressman Kennedy. “While the Supreme Court’s ruling on Section 3 yesterday was an enormous victory, continuing to keep this law on our books in any form does not befit a country built on justice for all.”

     

    In particular, Section 2 of DOMA remains untouched by yesterday’s ruling.  Section 2 gives states the ability to disregard marriages performed in other states, setting aside the “full faith and credit” clause of the constitution and creating a patchwork of inequality for rights that should be consistent across our nation.

     

    Congressman Kennedy is a member of the House Equality Caucus.  He is a co-sponsor of the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, and the Uniting American Families Act,  which would allow same-sex couples to sponsor their partners for the purposes of immigration visas.

     

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Should Section 2 of DOMA Also be Ruled Unconstitutional?


     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Should Section 2 of DOMA Also be Ruled Unconstitutional?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:




    strange, just strange.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jedwardnicky. Show jedwardnicky's posts

    Re: Should Section 2 of DOMA Also be Ruled Unconstitutional?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


     



    strange, just strange.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It's wonderfully clever, apt, and well rendered. What is so strange that you don't understand? Need I explain it to you? Lady Liberty and Lady Justice embracing with a kiss.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Should Section 2 of DOMA Also be Ruled Unconstitutional?

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     


     

     



    strange, just strange.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    It's wonderfully clever, apt, and well rendered. What is so strange that you don't understand? Need I explain it to you? Lady Liberty and Lady Justice embracing with a kiss.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    skeeter isn't a very deep thinker .......

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Should Section 2 of DOMA Also be Ruled Unconstitutional?


     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jedwardnicky. Show jedwardnicky's posts

    Re: Should Section 2 of DOMA Also be Ruled Unconstitutional?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

     


     

     

     



    strange, just strange.

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     

    It's wonderfully clever, apt, and well rendered. What is so strange that you don't understand? Need I explain it to you? Lady Liberty and Lady Justice embracing with a kiss.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    skeeter isn't a very deep thinker .......

     

    [/QUOTE]

    He treads water in the shallow end of the pool. He's not a strong swimmer.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Should Section 2 of DOMA Also be Ruled Unconstitutional?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:




    Sister,

    This is beautiful, lovely graphic. Even the the colors chosen...the beautiful blues used...which I am sure were no accident. 

    Thanks for posting it.

     

Share