• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

No one dares to mention DOMA ruling?

W

windcatcher

New Member
Last edited by a moderator:
StefanM

StefanM

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I have thought that the DOMA was constitutionally suspect for a long time.

Unless a federal amendment is adopted, gay marriage will eventually be in every state. The chances of the amendment passing are slim, so we should probably get prepared for the reality of universal gay marriage.
 
NaasPreacher (C4K)

NaasPreacher (C4K)

Well-Known Member
StefanM said:
I have thought that the DOMA was constitutionally suspect for a long time.

Unless a federal amendment is adopted, gay marriage will eventually be in every state. The chances of the amendment passing are slim, so we should probably get prepared for the reality of universal gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Tragic but true. Can anyone give constitutional reason why the federal government has the right to control state marriage laws?
 
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
C4K said:
Tragic but true. Can anyone give constitutional reason why the federal government has the right to control state marriage laws?
Click to expand...

Typically one wouldn't except that the Homosexu*l agenda has been working to establish it nationally so that states do not have the right to reject it.
 
NaasPreacher (C4K)

NaasPreacher (C4K)

Well-Known Member
The days when the church can expect the state to support it and back it up are numbered. I think that is a good thing for the church. It will force us to refocus our thoughts on the only One we can really depend on.

The times they are achangin'.

Here in Ireland recent legislation has declared that anyone who preforms a marriage is an agent of the state. This includes religious ministers. As such they may not, under penalty of fine and/or imprisonment refuse to administer a civil partnership to any couple. I hate it, but it makes sense. If a minister functions on behalf of the state they have the right to dictate his policies.

Fortunately, I never signed up to the list of marriage registrars. When we have couples get married they go to the registry office (our equivalent to the justice of the peace) just before the church wedding ceremony.

It works well for us and frees me from being under the control of the state.
 
B

billwald

New Member
The link was the first one that came up when I googled doma. The facts seemed to agree with my local newspaper.
 
D

Don

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Unfortunately, it falls down to economic status. Because of successful lobbying to ensure that benefits extend from the primary wage-earner to legally-recognized "blood relatives," there has to be a way to recognize spouses in order for them to be eligible for said benefits.

Until this recognition is accomplished in some other fashion, you're going to continue to see homosexuals fighting for the same benefits as already-recognized legal familial ties.
 
NaasPreacher (C4K)

NaasPreacher (C4K)

Well-Known Member
Salty said:
OK, but what do two (different gender) atheists do?
Click to expand...

Once they are legally contracted they can find whoever they want to sanction their union.

Let the state take care of the legal stuff then leave it the church, or whoever, to put their sanction on it if the couple so desires.
 
P

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
There is (as often is the case) a bit of ignorance on display here.

DOMA did two primary things:

1. It protected the right of a state to define marriage for itself by refusing to bind State A to the definition of marriage in State B.
2. It defined marriage as a man and a woman only for federal purposes, not state purposes.

So a state can still recognize same-s3x marriage for that state. But other states are protected by DOMA from having to recognize that marriage.

So please get your facts straight on the matter.

This ruling was silly in a number of respects. It was not based on the facts of the law as stated above.

Right now there is a case pending in CA about the constitutionality of Prop 8. This ruling affirms the constitutionality of Prop 8, something that will not set will with activists.
 
B

billwald

New Member
>1. It protected the right of a state to define marriage for itself by refusing to bind State A to the definition of marriage in State B.

A clear violation of the interstate commerce clause.

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment.)
 
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
billwald said:
>1. It protected the right of a state to define marriage for itself by refusing to bind State A to the definition of marriage in State B.

A clear violation of the interstate commerce clause.

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment.)
Click to expand...

The authority of the federal government may not be pushed to such an extreme as to destroy the distinction, which the commerce clause itself establishes, between commerce "among the several States" and the internal concerns of a State. That distinction between what is national and what is local in the activities of commerce is vital to the maintenance of our federal system.

N.L.R.B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 30 (1937).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top