1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That’s the 14th Amendment as you know. But if you read it closely, you’ll see that it is about States making laws that abridge our rights. DOMA is a federal law, so the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply.
I’m not defending DOMA, just pointing out that the 14th Amendment doesn’t provide a remedy here.
what doma does is say that states don’t have to recognize marriages performed in other states. So yes, it is a federal law, but a federal law that is attempting to allow states to violate another states rights.
the full faith and credit clause is exactly where the remedy will come from.
The government should practice separation of Church and State and get out of the marriage definition business. Leave it up to the religious institutions to which the individual subscribes. Repeal any laws beneficial to married people, stop collecting marriage license fees, do away with family court, repeal family law and any legal rights parents have in raising their children. In fact institutionalize children at birth to protect them from their parents. Since this is the direction we seem to be headed we may as well get it over with.
Civil marriage has little similarity to the religious sacrament as it is. Churches can (and do) deny marriage ceremonies to interfaith couples, couples of no faith or of non-Christian faiths, couples who have been previously married and divorced and couples who are currently living together. The State makes no such inquiries.
Further, if the sole purpose of marriage was to produce children, why does *anyone* seek to get married if they have no intent of having children at all (or if they cannot due to age or medical condition)?
The fact is that gays exist. They aren’t going to marry someone of the opposite gender. The State is out nothing by granting them a civil marriage license. To the contrary: studies show that being married contributes to one’s health, happiness and longevity, which in turn benefits society.
Does Group Health Insurance optionally cover spouses? Would Group Health Insurance coverage possibly cover pre-existing conditions…of spouses? Are there any pre-existing conditions found predominantly in the homo-sexual community?
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Good luck!
That’s the 14th Amendment as you know. But if you read it closely, you’ll see that it is about States making laws that abridge our rights. DOMA is a federal law, so the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply.
I’m not defending DOMA, just pointing out that the 14th Amendment doesn’t provide a remedy here.
what doma does is say that states don’t have to recognize marriages performed in other states. So yes, it is a federal law, but a federal law that is attempting to allow states to violate another states rights.
the full faith and credit clause is exactly where the remedy will come from.
The government should practice separation of Church and State and get out of the marriage definition business. Leave it up to the religious institutions to which the individual subscribes. Repeal any laws beneficial to married people, stop collecting marriage license fees, do away with family court, repeal family law and any legal rights parents have in raising their children. In fact institutionalize children at birth to protect them from their parents. Since this is the direction we seem to be headed we may as well get it over with.
Civil marriage has little similarity to the religious sacrament as it is. Churches can (and do) deny marriage ceremonies to interfaith couples, couples of no faith or of non-Christian faiths, couples who have been previously married and divorced and couples who are currently living together. The State makes no such inquiries.
Further, if the sole purpose of marriage was to produce children, why does *anyone* seek to get married if they have no intent of having children at all (or if they cannot due to age or medical condition)?
The fact is that gays exist. They aren’t going to marry someone of the opposite gender. The State is out nothing by granting them a civil marriage license. To the contrary: studies show that being married contributes to one’s health, happiness and longevity, which in turn benefits society.
And this has what to do with insurance?
Does Group Health Insurance optionally cover spouses? Would Group Health Insurance coverage possibly cover pre-existing conditions…of spouses? Are there any pre-existing conditions found predominantly in the homo-sexual community?