Total Pageviews

Saturday, March 30, 2013

Rebuttal to a comment

Looking at something too close you can't see what it is
The Defense of Marriage Act has nothing to do with the marriage laws in other countries. It has to do with whether the Federal Government recognizes the marriages of same sex couples that were legally performed in the nine states and the District of Columbia that allow gay marriage. The question is if the Federal government can deny federal benefits (Social Security, Veteran's Benefits, tax benefits, etc) to the legally married same sex couples. It is discriminatory to do so and, therefore, against the U.S. Constitution.  
 
It looks different from far away


That is what someone said in a reply to what I wrote yesterday. I guess they don't know what the case is about in the Supreme Court this week. That was my whole reason for writing the blog I wrote, some people want to read things into Supreme Court cases that aren't there. The case is not about same-sex marriages unless you want it to be. If you look at the article I'm looking at it says, " the two were eventually married in Canada in 2007...". The last I checked Canada wasn't one of  "the nine states and the District of Columbia that allow gay marriage". If the question is if the federal government should recognize a marriage done by a state in this country than the case should be about a marriage in this country.
Horse or mule?
If the question is whether states can issue marriage licenses to anyone they want to then the question goes to if they can let people marry their dog, or can they prevent interracial marriages, or can they allow people marry people in another country they met on the internet and never met face to face. Isn't that way the federal government passed the Defense of Marriage Act, so we have a definition of what marriage means versus domestic partnership? One problem the United States of America has always had is States rights versus federal rights. We had a Civil War over that question. 

Tour of Gold Country
 The response further said, "It is discriminatory to do so and, therefore, against the U.S. Constitution.  " There are many discriminating things in this country that are legal. We don't allow felons to vote, that is discriminatory, we don't allow people from other countries to come into our country without a visa, we don't allow men to go to play on women's sports teams an we allow women to be on men's sports teams. Just because something is discriminatory doesn't mean it is against the U.S. Constitution. I don't know any Articles that says, "Thou Shalt not Discriminate"! 
California Golden Poppies

 I don't often argue with people that disagree with me. When I was young I would always do it and enjoy it. I knew I would never change their mind, and they would never change my mind, but it helped me think about things better to explain how I really felt. Now I don't want disharmony. I don't see a reason to argue about things because all it does is make people dislike each other. I am not on the Supreme Court so what I think doesn't matter. I'm not going to change anyone's mind.
All homesteads have to have a wind vane
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. AndrewMarch 30, 2013 at 9:58 PM

    Hey Scott,

    Although I didn't write the original response, I feel compelled to respond now because this is something I know a little about.

    The issue in the DOMA case is: Does the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines the term “marriage” under federal law as a “legal union between one man and one woman” deprive same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law?

    DOMA prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages at all, whether those marriages are conducted in another country or in one of the states that allows them. The couple in the article you mention was married in Canada, but if they had been married in one of the states which allow same-sex marriages, the result would be the same. The US recognizes opposite-sex marriages from Canada, but not same-sex marriages, just like it recognizes opposite-sex marriages in the US, but not same-sex ones.

    "If the question is whether states can issue marriage licenses to anyone they want to then the question goes to if they can let people marry their dog, or can they prevent interracial marriages..."

    A marriage requires two consenting people. Since dogs aren't capable of giving legal consent, and are not people, they will never be allowed to marry. On the other hand, interracial couples can marry now because the Supreme Court struck down a law prohibiting it under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

    "There are many discriminating things in this country that are legal."

    That is true, but certain rights (fundamental rights) are given more protection that others, meaning that in order for the government to deny those rights, they have to have a really good reason. The right to marry is a fundamental right, so the side arguing for DOMA had to show that the government had a very good reason for denying the right to marry. It will be up the the 9 Justices to determine whether the reasons given by the DOMA supported are good enough.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)