Clear

[Jaric55]

DOMA for example, does NOT, as O'Connor stated must be the case, 'preserve the traditional institution of marriage.' It does not have any effect on it in fact. They ONLY purpose it serves is to exclude same-sex couples from these rights. So, even O'Connor might find a different conclusion were she to be reviewing a law like DOMA.

[nnjhansen]

DOMA merely defines marriage for federal purposes and limits the full faith and credit clause. If the individual states have a legitimate interest in "preserving the traditional institution of marriage," surely the federal government does as well.

The Congress' authority to limit the full faith and credit clause is indisputable.

[York22]

It seems only in the United States we allow the people to vote on other's civil rights. In no other country has there been vote on banning or legalizing same sex marriage.

[nnjhansen]

Heaven forbid the people have a say in how they are governed. Are you actually opposed to self-governance in principle or just when the people disagree with you?

[York22]

If Harvey Milk was still around Prop 8 would not have passed in California and neither would have Question 1 in Maine.

[ProNorden]

Just because the 'sexually confused community' wants to force others via 'judicial tyranny' to publicly approve of their 'relationships' doesn't give them the right to.

Two or more homosexuals calling themselves a 'marriage' doesn't make it so, any more than if a bowling team or golfing foursome were to proclaim themselves to be a marriage or a poached egg.

[Jaric55]

Problem is, the definition of marriage doesn't come from any one religion or book (such as the bible). The GOVERNMENT decides that, becuase it's the entity giving out the MARRIAGE licenses.

[CommonSenseJoe]

And WE are the government. We tell it what to do, not the other way around.

[Jaric55]

and YOU are bound by the Constitution. You cannot "vote" away the rights of same-sex couples under the 14th amendment. The day before a law is declared unconstitutional by a court, is it constitutional? NO. So, no matter outcome of Q1, Maine, and all states WILL evetually allow marriage equality per our Constitution.

[CommonSenseJoe]

Nothing in the Constitution says you can redefine marriage according to your own sexual preference.

[Jaric55]

Therein lies the fallacy you want to believe in. Nothing is being "REdefined." Marriage was never "defined," except in the legal code. According to your definition (yes, I saw your other comment, but you still have no logical reason for making this distinction), marriage was "redefined" in Loving v. Virginia (1967). BOTH race and gender do not play into any difference SO FAR AS THE STATE IS CONCERNED. Child-bearing (or rearing for that matter) is NOT a requirement for marriage.

[CommonSenseJoe]

The restrictions have been changed but never the actual definition. The reason that it was never specifically defined in law was EVERYONE knew what it meant. The fact you have to qualify it with the word "gay" or "same-sex" proves my point.

I never said child-bearing was required. It has the potential for child-bearing which grows out of the commitment between them.

[Jaric55]

ONLY marriage between couples of the same sex are being discussed when we talk about things like Question 1, hence 'Gay marriage". If we had a referendum ONLY on hetero couples' right to marry, it's be a "straight marriage referendum"..not a "marriage" referendum. Well again, marriage bans targeting same-sex couples violate the 14th. Take Loving v. Virginia, substitute the word "race" with "sexual orientation" and you have a Supreme Court ruling striking down all marriage bans that target gays.

[CommonSenseJoe]

Race and sexual preference are not the same. There is no scientific proof that sexual "orientation" even exists. There is no genetic or physiological difference between gays and straights.

No, it is only in the context of "gay" marriage are the qualifiers used. Everyone understand that marriage is between a man and a woman. No one thinks "same-sex", always opposite sex.

[Jaric55]

I can tell you haven't done your research here either. Brain structures of gay individuals and their straight counter parts actually ARE different, so you're incorrect. Marriage in Massachussetts, Iowa, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Vermont is NOT 'between a man and a woman,' but generally is a 'union between two consenting adults.'

Again, we haven't needed a qualifier for straight marriages becuase they haven't been put to a vote or been needed for any other purpose.

[CommonSenseJoe]

Nope, there are straight men with the same structures as gay men. The comparison is between gay men and straight women. It is subjective at best.

[Jaric55]

What does that mean: "It is subjective at best." The difference in brain structures (and other statistics, such as performance on spacial testing) are not subjective but very real. Yes, not all gay men are the same, and they differ from each other and straight men just as straight men differ with each other...but gay brains are more similar to each other than they are to straight brains..the same finding were found in lesbian as well, though granted to a lesser extent.

[nnjhansen]

Have you ever actually read Loving? Are you at all familiar with the reasons the Court gave for overturning VA's law?

The US Supreme Court has already summarily dismissed as meritless a claim that refusal to grant a marriage to a same sex couple violated the 14th Amendment.

[Jaric55]

Not the entire majority opinion, but the most relevant parts. I'm quite familiar, and the fact that you're trying to pretend that I don't shows me that YOU are the one unfamiliar with the case. Loving ruled that there is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to marry, and no rational basis existed for denying that fundamental right on account of race. It has NOT "summarily dismissed as meritless" any 14th amendment claim, or any other relating to marriage equality. GO BACK and look up Baker.

[nnjhansen]

Then you may want to read the entire opinion.

Neither of the rationales the Court used in Loving have applicability with regard to the present issue.

The Court in Loving was citing its opinion in Skinner with regard to the fundamental nature of marriage. The actual citation from Skinner reads; "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." Still think it applies here?

What do you think dismissing "for want of a substantial federal question" means?

[Jaric55]

It means it was NOTon the merits. IF the Courthad ruled as you say it did, all other courts would have been bound by Baker, which they were not.

Marriage and procreation are not one and the same like you wish. We find procreation is NOT a requirement of the fundamental right to marriage (Turner v. Safley). Neither is required for the other. So, no that does not apply here, becuase we're not talking about 'existence' or 'survival.' Recognizing this right does NOT INFRINGE upon those.

[nnjhansen]

Baker WAS dismissed on the merits and it IS binding precedent.

No one has claimed procreation is a requirement of marriage. It is however the principal purpose of the institution.

[Jaric55]

Lol okay even though the merit of the question at hand (which is what we mean when we say "on the merits") was not ruled on for 'want of a substantial federal question', I'll humor you, becuase that's really irrelevant. You know as I do that an issue can come before the court more than once, such as we saw in Bowers and later in Lawrence. No one except the authors of DOMA and same-sex marriage bans; the only thing keeping marriage equality from being recognized.

[nnjhansen]

I better get with West because here is what the book on my shelf says re: Baker v Nelson 409 U.S. 810 (1972);

"Appeal from the Supreme Court of Minnesota. The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question."

But you are right, the only thing standing in the way of a change in the law is the law.

[Jaric55]

That book is correct. I don't know who "West" is, but that whole Baker point is moot, don't you think? It doesn't impact whether Loving has relevance here. In addition, scientific research has been conducted, and societal attitudes have changed since Baker that would support plaintiffs claims of a 14th Amendment violation. Loving's relevance to the case is still alive and well. When you combine this, with Romer, Turner, and Lawrence, you have all the legal precedence you need to overturn DOMA.

[Jaric55]

I understand what you were saying on Baker, and I just misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that the court ruled against the plaintiffs, and that that opinion was what was binding on lower courts. So, I think we agree on Baker, which itself is binding as you pointed out.

[nnjhansen]

First Baker, Baker is binding precedent as to whether a state's refusal to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple violates the 14th or 9th Amendments to the US Constitution.

Second Loving, what makes you think the Court did not consider Loving in Baker? Loving was key to the appellants argument. The Court dismissed that argument as without merit. What science is relevant to a question of due process? Societal attitudes? The people in 31 of 31 states have rejected same sex marriage.

[Jaric55]

....yes, but only for 'want of a substantial federal question.' Not on the merits of the claim. That's why it was a 'dismissal.' It' still irrelevant though.

They did not dismiss the arguments! They dismissed the case..which means they did not consider the case, but dismissed it without considering internal arguments of the case. It's like failing to persuade a grand jury. It doesn't mean the crime didn't occur. Loving is still key, as are other rulings which further bolster their claims.

[nnjhansen]

You are simply factually wrong on the precedent value of a case dismissed on the merits. This was not a question of the Court denying cert but dismissing it for want of a substantial federal question. It is binding precedent on the issues presented to the court. The issue presented was whether or not a refusal to issue a marriage license offended the 9th or 14th Amendments. Their dismissal is a binding opinion that this is not the case.

[Jaric55]

Yes I know it wasn't a denial of cert. I already said that Baker itself is binding. Their dismissal is a binding opinion that this question is not substantial, NOT that 'this is not the case.'

[nnjhansen]

If a state's refusal to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple does not present a substantial federal question then it is not, by definition, a violation of the constitutional provision claimed by the petitioner.

[Jaric55]

Allright you can believe this all you want, becuase I don't care to argue against it becuase it's IRRELEVANT! You admit this at least, right? We have new claims in lawsuits such as Perry v. Schwarzeneggar, and in light of rulings such as Romer and Lawrence that ocurred after Baker, the case is likely to come before the court.

[nnjhansen]

Romer stressed the the unique sweeping deniall of legal protection to a narrowly defined class of persons, that is not the case with marriage.

Justice O'Connor acknowledged in Lawrence the state had a legitimate interest in "preserving the traditional institution of marriage" and "other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group."

[Jaric55]

It IS the case with the laws that deny marriage to same-sex couples (though not just these laws), such as DOMA.

[Jaric55]

She said these laws would pass a rational basis level of scrutiny, which is not what we'd be applying here. At the very least we'd be applying intermediate if not strict scrutiny. O'Connor was in the majority of Bowers, and her rationale was rather different than the rest of the majority in Lawrence, with which I agree.

[Jaric55]

Countless studies that show that sexual orientation is not a choice, but is predetermined are relevant. YES! Now may I direct your attention to Romer.

[nnjhansen]

How is the question of whether sexual orientation is a choice relevant to a question of due process?

[Jaric55]

Allright, I'll answer that if need be, but let's get back to the topic at hand. You alleged that Loving has nothing to do with this question of challenging DOMA or state same-sex marriage bans, when it in fact does. It establishes a fundamental right to marry, first of all that, if denied on 'so unsupportable a basis' of race, amounted to a violation of due process. Both sex and sexual orientation clearly fall into the same category, becuase they do not constitute even a rational basis.

[nnjhansen]

First, the Court in Loving acknowledged that marriage was "subject to the State's police power." It merely said the application of that state power must be equally applied and reasonably related to a legitimate state interest. The state's interest in the VA anti-miscegenation law was the purity of the white race. Such an interest was offensive "to the clear and central purpose of the 14th Amendment... to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States."

[Jaric55]

...and guess what? The application of that state power does NOT serve a legitimate state interest in banning same-sex marriage either! The only difference here is the ability to procreate, which we saw already in Turner, is not a legitimate state interest.

[nnjhansen]

Now you are misreading Turner. Let me guess, you are a first year law student or less?

[Jaric55]

I"m not misreading Turner. They ruled in Turner that you cannot deny someone the right to marry if the physical possiblity of procreation does not exist (such as the case was with prisoners). The court recognized (not just in Turner) that marriage is much more than a stool for procreation.

[nnjhansen]

Have you actually read Turner or is this a case, like Loving, where you have read someone's opinion of the opinion?

The Court in Turner found that the marriage regulation did not serve the state's penological interests in either security or rehabilitation. The Court went out of its way to note that "most inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they ultimately will be fully consummated."

[Jaric55]

It's getting annoying that you keep trying to discredit me by asking if I've 'actually read the opinion.' The opinion remains the same whether I've read it or not. If you think I've missed something in it, then feel free to mention it, as you've been doing already evidently. Now, we know that this applies to all prisoners, including those on death row, so they need not be ultimately able to procreate. Why are you ignoring the fact that marriage does not serve only this procreative purpose?

[nnjhansen]

No one is arguing that procreation is the only purpose of marriage. It is sufficient that it is A purpose. As the Indiana Court of Appeals put it in Morrison v Sadler, "The key question in our view is whether the recognition of same-sex marriage would promote all of the same state interests that opposite-sex marriage does, including the interest in marital procreation. If it would not, then limiting the institution of marriage to opposite-sex couples is rational and acceptable.."

[Jaric55]

That is NOT the 'key question.' The key question is whether permitting same-sex couples to marry would interfere with these purposes. It would not.

[nnjhansen]

Is this opinion based on your years of legal experience?

[Jaric55]

Why are you asking that? Does it matter? A point is a point. The constitution is the constitution no matter who reads it. I'm not questioning your experience or anything like that, so I don't know why you continue to question mine. If your 'key question' were correct, we'd also have to "defend marriage" from infertile, heterosexual couples, becuase allowing them to marry does not 'promote all the same state interests,'... including 'marital procreation.'

[nnjhansen]

Now you are confusing a purpose or interest with the requirements attached to them. The state has a legitimate interest in marital procreation. To further that interest the state has limited the institution with requirements and conditions that are reasonably related to it. Restricting marriage to a man and a woman is clearly a reasonable way to further that legitimate state interest. The fact that the restrictions could be more stringent is really not relevant.

[Jaric55]

It is relevant, as is the fact that they could be less stringent. You're still ignoring the fact that procreation, the courts have recognized, is not all there is to marriage. You're saying there is a rational basis for denying these benefits and responsibilites to same-sex couples, but not from couples who meet the same level of 'procreativity' that differ only by sex. What is that rational basis?

[nnjhansen]

Are you honestly going to argue that because a requirement could be either more or less stringent, the requirement itself is improper? Surely the state bar exam could be more or less difficult. The minimum passing grade could be higher or lower. Are you saying that because of this reality there should be no requirement to pass the bar exam to receive a law license?

All licensing schemes involve balancing the state's interest with the cost (in $, intrusiveness, etc) of the requirements.

[Jaric55]

No you know very well that's not what I'm arguing. I said that becuase the level of stringency of the requirement does not match your purported purpose as I just pointed out. Now answer the question. What is that rational basis?

[nnjhansen]

The minimum requirement for human procreation is one man and one woman. That means restricting marriage to one man and one woman is rationally related to that purpose.

Making that requirement much more stringent would be expensive, intrusive, constitutionally suspect, and often inaccurate.

[Jaric55]

Actually the minimum requirement is one spermatazoa and one egg. Procreation is not all there is to marriage. The court has recognized this several times, and so does the general public. Therefore procreation is not the only purpose of marriage. Because one couple cannot fulfill every single purpose, or utilize every function of marriage does not mean they should be denied all others. So, THIS is the question. No rational basis exists for denying all benefits due to non-utilization of one.

[nnjhansen]

The requirement for one human spermatozoa is one human male and the requirement for one human egg is one human female.

Whether procreation is the single purpose of marriage is not relevant. As long as it is a legitimate purpose, a requirement reasonably related to it is rational and acceptable.

[Jaric55]

You don't need to be involved in a marriage to procreate, and you don't need to procreate to be involved in a marriage. You also don't need to be involved with (or married to) that human male to get the spermatazoa, or involved with (or married to) the female to get the egg. Sperm banks and egg donors solve that problem. This is still, all irrelevant. Now, for your more relevant second paragraph....

[nnjhansen]

Still having trouble distinguishing a requirement from a purpose?

[Jaric55]

No.

[Jaric55]

How would other purposes not be relevant? You're attempting to use one of those purposes (just one) to deny ONLY same-sex couples the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to marry...while allowing those who ALSO do not meet the same 'requirements', to marry...which means they aren't requirements in the first place. We let those who don't meet those so-called requirements (too old, infertile, not willing) to participate becuase marriage is not just about procreation. The same will go for same-sex couples.

[nnjhansen]

First, couples do not have rights. Individuals do.

Second, every couple that receives a marriage license meets ALL the requirements. There is no age requirement. There is no proof of fertility requirement. The requirement is one man and one woman. An elderly man and an elderly woman satisfy that requirement. An infertile man and an infertile woman satisfy that requirement. Two men or two women do not.

Requirements are related to, not equal to the purpose.

[Jaric55]

The first sentence was irrelevant.

That requirement is abritrary when considering the vast majority of benefits and purposes of marriage that are conferred without regard to the sex of the individuals involved.. There is no rational basis for this requirement in light of the fact that the FUNDAMENTAL right to marry (Loving) is being denied to those who want to marry someone of the same sex, and that the vast majority of benefits.

[nnjhansen]

The requirement is, by definition, not arbitrary if it is reasonably related to a legitimate purpose.

Again, the Court acknowledged in Loving that marriage (which they only contemplated as the union of man and woman) was an institution subject to sate regulation. That regulation has to be equally applied and reasonably related to a legitimate interest. Unless you wish to argue that the state does not have a legitimate interest in the creation of future generations, your argument fails.

[Jaric55]

First, the requirement is not reasonably related to the ENTIRE INSTITUTION, to which it is attatched. You are saying that, if ONE purpose of welfare, for example, is to help alcoholics get treatment, then non-alcoholics are not entitled to it becuase they don't meet the requirement that is only relevant to ONE purpose of welfare.

That's not my argument, so it's clear you're just grasping.

[nnjhansen]

No, a requirement for a license does not have to be related to the entire institution or even be reasonably related to the primary purpose of the license. There is a requirement to uncover your face for a drivers license photo. That requirement has nothing to do with the operating a motor vehicle on the public roads.

Welfare is a means tested public assistance program, not a licensing scheme. It is also not intended to help alcoholics, although that may be an effect of it.

[Jaric55]

Don't give me that 'it's a means tested' crap. I KNOW WHAT IT IS. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. The point is IF, I said IF, a program LIKE welfare had multiple purposes not related to drinking, with ONE being to help alcoholics, then a restriction limiting it to ONLY alcoholics, (when there is no other such program..only one welfare, and this is it, AND welfare has been declared a fundamental right) would be fine with you. Deny all non-alcoholics becuase they can't benefit from ONE part of the program.

[nnjhansen]

Marriage is not a benefits program, it is a licensing scheme.

[Jaric55]

Do you admit now that this restriction is not narrowly tailored enough so that it does not infringe upon rights unnecessarily? Even if you refuse to admit it, the laws themselves that place these restrictions, like DOMA and amendments like Proposition 8 in California, have other problems with them that put their constitutionality in question.

[nnjhansen]

Not at all, I think the current restriction strikes a proper balance between purpose and cost. If the requirement were anymore stringent it would be needlessly burdensome in terms of cost and intrusiveness. Were it to be any less stringent, it would lose any reasonable attachment to the purpose.

What constitutional defects do you believe exist in DOMA or Prop 8?

[Jaric55]

Well that's just an opinion about it 'losing any reasonable attatchment to the purpose.' What you're saying is that the other parts of marriage that have nothing to do with child birth (ONLY, since same-sex couples raise children as well) are not significant, something which our high court would disagree with. Let's start with DOMA...I'll write it's problems in my next comment.

[nnjhansen]

That you believe it is the proper role of the courts to determine the relative value society places or should place on the various purposes of marriage is telling.

This is not a question of equal protection but a political question of what the people value. The only proper solution to this issue, as you have framed it, is by the people or their elected representatives.

[Jaric55]

I'M NOT DONE YET.

[Jaric55]

Congress had four stated purposes for DOMA. Only the first is relevant, becuase the other three hinge on the first. I'll list the other three if I must, or you can look it up yourself. The first was "defending and nurturing the traditional, heterosexual institution of marriage." The legislative history's elaboration of this rationale reveals that what Congress was referring to was heterosexual procreation and child rearing. The history narrowly conceptualizes the institution Congress intended...

[Jaric55]

to defend: "Simply defined, marriage is a relationship in which the community socially approves and encourages sexual intercourse and the birth of children." Congress maintained that this procreative and child-rearing interest is sufficient to satisy Romer. Here's where they're wrong. First, Congress overly simplified marriage in such as way that degrades many heterosexual marriages and is inconsistent with the broad view of marriage espoused by the Supreme Court in a number of decisions. 2nd,..

[Jaric55]

the repeated notion that heterosexual marriage is the 'bedrock' of society is false, given that states that have legalized equal marriage rights have the lowest divorce rates (among other relevant statistics that promoters of this notion also mention), when compared with those that haven't. (MA has the lowest rate in the nation). Insofar as the actual claim is that homosexuality itself is the threat is unsupported by history, and the court, which noted in Lawrence that...

[Jaric55]

"far from posessing 'ancient roots,' American laws targeting same-sex couples did not develop until the last third of the 20th century." A third problem is that DOMA does not do what it states it does. As the VT Supreme Court noted when invalidating their same-sex marriage ban, "furthering the link between procreation and child rearing" is substantially underinclusive. First, many OPPOSITE-sex couples marry for reasons unrelated to procreation (some unable, some unwilling), yet they are still...

[Jaric55]

given marriage benefits. DOMA does not even make an attempt to address some reasons why heterosexual marriages fail. Congress purports to defend marriage through a law that recognizes only the prospect of same-sex unions as a threat, a law that singles out gays as not 'suitable for marriage.' This targeting "imposes a disability" - the burden of being publicly and legally branded as the singular cause of the demise of the institution of marriage - "upon those persons alone."(Qtd. from Romer.)...

[Jaric55]

accordingly, DOMA "seems inexplicable by anything but animus towards the class it affects." FINALLY, and probably most importantly, that marriage has been historically (in the US) a heterosexual union, is not reason enough to maintain it as such. In 1954, the court noted when faced with segregated schools, "In approaching this problem, we cannot turn back the clock to 1868 when the [14th] amendment was adopted...we must consider public education in the light of it's full development and it's....

[Jaric55]

present place in American life throughout the nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools denies these plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws." 49 years later, the court approached sodomy laws in much the same way, observing that the framers of the 5th and 14th amendments "knew times can blind us certain truths and laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress." The argument that same-sex marriage must be prohibited becuase it....

[Jaric55]

would change the 'traditional' institution of marriage is blatantly lacking the "and this is inherently bad becuase" part of the argument that is necessary to give any persuasive, and more importanly constitutional, force. The court rejected analagous reasoning in United States v. Virginia, dismissing as "notably circular argument" Virginia's asserted interest in excluding women from the historically all-male Virginia Military Institutue in order to maintain VMI's traditionally single-sex ed...

[Jaric55]

DOMA's "preserving traditional marriage" rationale similarly fails to demonstrate any constitutionally cognizable impact on the institution of marriage that might justify the continued exclusion of same-sex couples. DOMA's text and legislative history demonstrate that the Act was motivated primarily by animus toward gays as a class. Section 3 of DOMA, which purports to be a "definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'" offers neither a definition of what marriage is (it's certainly not simply....

[Jaric55]

a union that same-sex couples cannot enter), nor a complete definition of what marriage is not (it fails to address incestous or polygamous relationships, for example), saying merely that "'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." DOMA 'defines' marriage only so far as to say it is something that same-sex couples cannot have. The singling out function of this exclusionary definition is markedly similar to CO's Amndmt 2, which....

[Jaric55]

"impose[d] a special disability on [gays] alone." In Romer, the disability was different, being the "withdraw[al] from homosexuals, but no others, [of] specific legal protection from the injuries caused by discrimination." But in effect, Amndmt 2 is similar to DOMA, in that it denies rights to homosexuals those that are readily available to heterosexuals. Another parallel is that DOMA, like Amdnmt 2, was passed in response to local developments that the legislature deemed threatening....

[Jaric55]

, which specifically was the passage of anti-discrimination ordinances by some CO cities. The effects of the act are similarly sweeping as well, becuase it amended (or repealed) a whole array of statutes. Even more revealing than the text of DOMA is the record of statements made during floor debate on both house floors. Legislators characterized gay's natural behavior as "immoral," "aberrant behavior," "based on perversion,...[and] lust," "depraved," "unnatural," "an attack upon.....

[Jaric55]

..God's principles," and "inherently wrong, and harmful to individuals, families, and societies" among other things. One congressman Largent stated that, "no culture that has ever embraced homosexuality has ever survived." Rep. (now Sen.) Coburn claimed that "there are studies that say that over 43% of people who profess homosexuality have greater than 500 partners." Rep. Hyde stated that just the idea of "two men loving each other ...lowers the concept of marriage." Marriage was viewed to....

[Jaric55]

have been "under direct assault by the homosexual extremists all across this country." One member of Congress accused gays of lying about their goals, saying "Homosexuals have been saying they only want tolerance, now it is clear they have been less than honest. They already have tolerance but are now aiming for government and coroprate....acceptance." Yet another lawmaker claimed that same-sex marriage would be something that would "demean and trivialize heterosexual marriage[s]." Rep. Barr....

[Jaric55]

(R-GA) said something so absurd, it's hard not to laugh at it..he said same-sex marriage "would throw open the doors of the U.S Treasury to be raided by the homosexual movement." Another congressman said same-sex couples marrying might "be the final blow to the American family." The House record states that the legislation was "inspired by the implications that [the Hawaii Supreme Court decision in 93] threatens to have on other states and Federal law." By this time however,...

[Jaric55]

Hawaii had amended it's constitution to nullify the possible effects of the ruling. Congress was told SEVERAL times that the public policy exception to the Full Faith and Credit clause (which you so cheerfully tout), would allow them to ingore HI's (or any state's) marriage licenses of same-sex couples. Redundant restrictions on the rights of historically unpopular groups are strongly suggestive of illicit motives (City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Cntr, Inc.)....

[Jaric55]

The fact that DOMA seems to have been unnecessary to achieve it's intended results further bolsters the likelihood that it was politically motivated - that Congress was seizing an opportunity to pander to popular animosity toward homosexuality and to deepen the stigma associated with same-sex relationships. There are further arguments to be made on why DOMA is unconstitutional, but I'll stop here for now.

[Jaric55]

Okay let me continue. Based on earlier comments you made, you rely heavily on the purported link between the denial of same-sex couples to marriage rights to child birth or rearing. So let me elaborate more on that and how it relates to DOMA, and it's unconstitutionality.

[Jaric55]

DOMA can be viewed as, rather than a single isolated act, a functional amendment to thousands of statutes and regulations (In 1996 when DOMA was passed, 'marriage' appeared in over 800 sections of federal statutes and regulations, and 'spouse' appeared over 3,100 times.), the practical effect of which is to deny to gays all types of benefits and priviliges readily available to heterosexuals. Insofar as the government has a hand in marriage, it is marriage as a CIVIL institution, distinct from...

[Jaric55]

any potential religious counterpart. Governmental marriage benefits serve practical purposes, such as providing for loved ones within a household, that are completely unrelated to either sex or sexual oritentation. Accordingly, no rational basis exists to deny these benefits on either of those grounds, and to do so suggests that the classification is impermissibly "drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law" (Qtd. from Romer, and O'Connor's concurrence in Lawrence)...

[Jaric55]

Congress's asserted justification for denying gay couples marital benefits is, in part, it's (Constitutionally inadequate) interest in conserving government resources. In Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, the court found that the government's asserted interest in preventing food stamp fraud (a legitimate interest you might say, like 'encouraging procreation') was INSUFFICIENT to overcome the animosity toward "hippie communes" that pervaded the eligibility restrictions. The court found that....

[Jaric55]

although such households did not look like traditional families, they possessed the same functional characteristics of families that would benefits from food stamps, and this could NOT be excluded from the program. In the City of Cleburne case I cited earlier, the court held that negative attitudes and fears toward the mentally retarded could not justify treating a home for such individuals differently for zoning purposes (another legitimate state interest). In U.S v. Virginia, the VMI case....

[Jaric55]

I mentioned earlier as well, the unique and valuable benefits of a VMI education formed the basis for the court's decision that the school could not exclude women. In a series of cases relating to 'illegitimate children" (born out of wedlock), the court found NO RATIONAL BASIS for denying benefits such as wrongful death recovery, and child custody, on the basis of illegitimacy, EVEN though the 'rational basis' given by the state was to 'promote child rearing' within wedlock. Likewise, denying...

[Jaric55]

(oh yeah, see Stanley v. Illinois for one of the 'illegitimate children' opinions)denying marriage benefits to committed, cohabitating gay couples "explicitly disdains present realities in deference to past formalities," and bears no rational relationship to any nondiscriminatory state interest. There's still more to address, but I'll leave it here for the time being until I get more time to continue.

[nnjhansen]

Your case against DOMA is based on Romer. The problem is that the Court's rationale in Romer is based on "(s)weeping and comprehensive is the change in legal status effected by this law." There is nothing sweeping or comprehensive about DOMA. It applies only to a single legal institution.

The Court also ruled that Amed 2 acted "not to further a proper legislative end." J O'Connor in Lawrence acknowledged that "preserving the traditional institution of marriage" is a proper legislative end.

[Jaric55]

You also need to stop speaking in generalizations, becuase I was alleging that Loving had a relevance to a new lawsuit, either targeting DOMA or bans like Prop. 8, which are very relevant as you know.

[nnjhansen]

Until such a case reaches the Court it is impossible to speak in specifics so generalizations is the best we can hope for.

[Jaric55]

No we can speak more specifically then we have been. I'll do so in another comment.

[Jaric55]

Due Process grounds.

[Jaric55]

The constitutional grounds are there...the ruling is simply waiting to happen.

[CommonSenseJoe]

If it ever happens, and I doubt, then we would amend the constitution to forbid it.

[Jaric55]

You obviously aren't familiar with how that process works. They tried that already in 04 and 06, and BOTH time, it failed to even make it out of Congress. The passage of one of those amendments grows from not likely to impossible with every passing day. You can doubt all you want, but the constitutional and legal scholars would disagree with you. Look it up. The case that will probably lead to the Supreme Court is currently in CA, where Fed. Judge Vaughn Walker will take it, then the 9th Circuit

[leojboby]

dude... or dudess... our quotations are misleading lol.

wo or more homosexuals calling themselves a 'marriage' doesn't make it so.

nope.. thats why you need a license.

Bowling team, poached egg? I thought marriages were essentially about love, commitment and responsibility. An egg cannot even sign a contract... srsly, get over your retarded self. A bowling team.. well, you'd have to legalize polygamy first. Good luck my mormon brother/sister.

[Baitsao]

I'm not sexually confused. I'm very sure about myself being gay. I voted no on 1, and I have faith that people in their right heads will see that this is not about religion, this is about civil rights.

[York22]

Maine Please vote No on 1! Imagine how you would feel if someone voted to take away your right to marry. Imagine if you were a same sex couple and how hurt and upset you'd be that people voted to treat you different because of who you are. It is immoral to vote on someone else's civil rights. Please vote No!

[CommonSenseJoe]

Lots of people get treated different under marriage law. I cannot marriage two women, or one man and one woman. That's because marriage only exists between a man and a woman. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

[DillonX]

I love how the Mormons pour millions into stopping gay marriage because they say they believe a marriage must be between ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

And yet they still adore their religious leaders Joseph Smith who had 35 wives and Brigham Young who had 54 wives.

[CommonSenseJoe]

No one is perfect...still marriage was between a man and a woman.

[ryukage99]

Has to Break to Marriage is allways been redefine over ages, If you want Traditional Marriage, How about requiring a dowry,or making all marriages as arrangement between families?

[CommonSenseJoe]

Changing the qualification for marriage is different than redefining it.

[ryukage99]

It's been redefined for ages. Haven't you forgetting before 1967?

[CommonSenseJoe]

You confusing restrictions with the definition.

[StoogeWatcher]

And how much are California groups pouring into Maine's efforts?

[StoogeWatcher]

Isn't that what "hate crime" laws are doing right now, giving certain people special protections?

[22149SF]

StoogeWatcher, everyone is being protected from hate crimes. If you are a (insert race), (insert national origin), (insert creed), (insert gender), (insert sexual orientation), etc., citizen of America, and someone assaults another person of the same (insert demographic trait) as you because of that person's (insert trait), and you share that same (insert trait) as the assaulted person, then you may think you're not safe because you are (insert trait). That's why we have hate crime laws.

[HellsBelle86]

Actually thats not entirely true. sexual orientation is only protected under hate crime laws in some states. Personally I believe that everyone should be protected from hate crimes, but because some people still believe that homosexuality is a choice, they feel that it doesn't need to be protected by such laws. It would be no different if you were assulted by someone for lets say wearing a red shirt, you made the choice to put on a red shirt, so therefore it is just a crime, not a hate crime.

[22149SF]

HellsBelle86, President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law last Wednesday, so sexual orientation and gender identity are now protected in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

If you ask me, those people who believe that homosexuality is a choice either do not know what it is like to be programmed within their bodies to be a certain sexual orientation or are deliberately ignorant and hateful towards gay people.

[CommonSenseJoe]

No, we simply do not accept the excuse "I was born this way" when it comes to sexual behavior. A pedophile can claim that children are his "sexual orientation" as well. You are what you do.

[totakikay]

CommonSenseJoe, sexual orientation is defined as a psychological/sexual attraction to a biological sex/gender (American Psychological Assocation, American Anthropological Association). Their is NOTHING criminal about private, consenting, safe sexual activities between two adults, regardless of their biological sex/gender.

[CommonSenseJoe]

Does not exist in the sense that a person is born that way.

[leojboby]

yup.. heterosexuality is innate because men have weewee and women have meoww. what does sexuality in heterosexuality even mean? is heterosexuality just another excuse or an invented term to confuse ppl from their only orientation/reality(whatever you deem that to be)?

Even so... even if we werent born this way... quoting totatikay "Their is NOTHING criminal about private, consenting, safe sexual activities between two adults, regardless of their biological sex/gender."

[CommonSenseJoe]

We should not be prosecuting people for motive, just for their actions.

[Hersheysd]

So CSJ, you believe there shouldn't be degrees of murder, ie., Murder in the First Degree, Murder in the Second, Murder in the Third, assault, aggravated assault, etc.?

[CommonSenseJoe]

No, if you kill someone, they are no less dead because you were angry or cold and calculating.

"Hate" crimes is nothing more than a backdoor means of criminalizing what a person thinks.

[totakikay]

Hersheysd is correct in his argument support hate crime laws. I am not a lawyer or legal attorney, just a college student, mind you! In a logical, ethical, and legal sense; a murder can be rated in different 'degrees' based on the criminal's motive. A hate crime penalty is added to the investigation/prosecution of a criminal when their is evidence of bias on the basis of the victim's immutable characteristics.

[DillonX]

Glenn Beck's Mormons will be pouring millions into Maine, as they did in California, to stop gay marriage.

[22149SF]

DillonX, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has made over $1M plus in donations to the Yes on 1 campaign, but they are not disclosing where their money is coming from. Speculation may show that some/most of that money may be coming from the Mormon religion. Campaign laws decree that all donations must be made public to ensure that money laundering isn't taking place, and NOM believes that law is unconstitutional. Does NOM have something to hide?

[CommonSenseJoe]

No, the law is unconstitutional.

[ryukage99]

What's wrong with just asking where is the money comes form, If your side is not breaking any laws then they should be able show where the money is coming from.

[CommonSenseJoe]

It is no one's business.

[ryukage99]

Well,You would want to know where the money is coming from as far as No on 1 side would you? What other business or organizations if they're not violating any tax laws, Or you want to government to do that?

[CommonSenseJoe]

Money is not the issue. Silencing opposing opinions in the issue.

[ryukage99]

That's what your side is doing. But The harsh reality is gays will never be silenced. Your will eventually be as well be put in place of history with all others to ridicule and scorn.

[CommonSenseJoe]

The "harsh reality" is that no matter what happens, it will not change the way society views homosexuals. It will also not change the way homosexuals feels about themselves and their behaviors.

[ryukage99]

You're the one to talk, I bet you want get on the bandwagon but you can't.

[CommonSenseJoe]

I am not sure what "bandwagon" you mean.

[ryukage99]

Also that's beacuse people like you, Who equate something or Someone is different from you is bad.

[BCLikesVideos]

the homosexuals feel about themselves??? i actually quite like myself. i have a great life. i'm not sure how my self esteem has much to do with the law.

[davidfsd]

Best ad to date. I'm in South Dakota and hoping/praying No on 1 wins. C'mon Maine it's time to show the world that we need to stop using the "good book" to make anyone inferior to another.

[metta8888]

Good ad. Come on Maine! Please do the right thing and vote No on 1. At what point will society stop punishing us for being who we are? Basic human rights should not be limited or even voted on.

[remix262]

Perfect final ad! :-)

[david888wood]

If you think this won't affect you because you're straight, watch out. If the Catholics & Mormons win this, as they did in with all their money in California, what's next? They are already collecting signatures to ban divorce here in California. WAKE UP!

[adidas9694]

This is one of the better No on 1 ads. I'm impressed.

[scheis123]

Here in California, I'm praying that you guys win and beat the radical anti-gay activists trying to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else!

[ChinoBlanco]

One of my favorites.  Bravo!

[totakikay]

I'm from California and I support Maine's civil human rights, NO on 1!

[alvox]

Excellent ad. Very positive and relatable.

[atdnext]

No on 1! Please, please, give all Maine families the dignity and respect they deserve!

[StarStruckedSam]

come on Maine!! you can do this! we all believe in you! lets stand the right right side of history! make the change you want to see!

[azelmaroark]

Preach it, PME!! You have fought an awesome fight. C'mon, everyone go and vote! NO ON 1!! =D

"But when I feel like giving up and there's nowhere left to go

That's the time I dig down deep, the only thing I know --

Do something."

[SeanChapin1]

Excellent Ad!

I'm rooting for Protect Maine Equality to preserve marriage equality come Election Day!

[pageboythehumanist]

Way to help people see what this campaign is really about.