Defense of Marriage Act

[nclib]

I was curious as to the forum's opinion of DOMA since it is much less restrictive than FMA.

Of course, I vote Nay/Nay.

[afleitch]

Nay/Nay

[AkSaber]

Nay/Nay

[nini2287]

Nay/Nay; marriage isn't an issue the federal government should deal with and there's no point to restricting/banning gay marriages anyway.

[© tweed]

Nay and Nay

Really, I don't understand why Clinton is hated by the right so much.  Most of his most recognizible achievments in the last 6 years of his presidency can best be classified as either 'conservative' or libertarian; Welfare reform, defense of marraige, NAFTA, and so on.

[CheeseWhiz]

Nay/Nay; marriage isn't an issue the federal government should deal with and there's no point to restricting/banning gay marriages anyway.

[Alcon]

Nay/Nay; marriage isn't an issue the federal government should deal with and there's no point to restricting/banning gay marriages anyway.

[MasterJedi]

Aye/Nay

[dazzleman]

Nay and Nay

Really, I don't understand why Clinton is hated by the right so much.  Most of his most recognizible achievments in the last 6 years of his presidency can best be classified as either 'conservative' or libertarian; Welfare reform, defense of marraige, NAFTA, and so on.

Interesting point.  He's the mirror image of Nixon in that sense.  Nixon's achievements were mainly liberal -- detente with the Soviet Union, pullout from Vietnam, expansion of social security and welfare programs.  Other than rhetoric, there was little conservative about Nixon's policies.  Yet liberals hated him, and there's a similar mirror effect with Clinton.

[The Dowager Mod]

#4

[Ebowed]

Nay/Nay

[Joe Republic]

Nay/Nay; marriage isn't an issue the federal government should deal with and there's no point to restricting/banning gay marriages anyway.

[A18]

Nay/Nay; marriage isn't an issue the federal government should deal with and there's no point to restricting/banning gay marriages anyway.

These posts make no sense. What DOMA did is let states decide whether or not to recognize gay marriages. Not that it was necessary, since the Constitution allows as much.

[Emsworth]

No/No

DOMA was unnecessary and meaningless posturing; the Federal Marriage Amendment is discriminatory.

[DanielX]

Nay/Nay; marriage isn't an issue the federal government should deal with and there's no point to restricting/banning gay marriages anyway.

[A18]

Nay/Nay; marriage isn't an issue the federal government should deal with and there's no point to restricting/banning gay marriages anyway.

What the hell? That makes absolutely no sense.

DOMA merely allows states to decide for themselves whether or not to recognize gay marriages. It does not 'deal' with the issue, unless the Tenth Amendment amounts to the federal government 'dealing' with everything.

[nini2287]

Nay/Nay; marriage isn't an issue the federal government should deal with and there's no point to restricting/banning gay marriages anyway.

What the hell? That makes absolutely no sense.

DOMA merely allows states to decide for themselves whether or not to recognize gay marriages. It does not 'deal' with the issue, unless the Tenth Amendment amounts to the federal government 'dealing' with everything.

DOMA is fairly contradictory.  You are correct with respect to the first, that state's don't have to recogonize other states' marriage laws (especially with respect to same-sex marriage) but the second part restricts marriage to a union between man and a woman, which I believe is wrong and setting policy for the states.

[A18]

It does so for federal tax purposes, yes. It does not prohibit a state from having gay marriage, though.

[nini2287]

It does so for federal tax purposes, yes. It does not prohibit a state from having gay marriage, though.

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'

I don't see how Massachusetts (or any other state for the matter) that recognizes gay marriage wouldn't be in violation of the law.

[A18]

Then you can't read very well. That merely says that when federal law speaks of 'marriage,' it means the union of a man and a woman.

It does not restrict state law in any way.

[nini2287]

Then you can't read very well. That merely says that when federal law speaks of 'marriage,' it means the union of a man and a woman.

It does not restrict state law in any way.

I see your point, though it seems sort of strange to have marriage defined in two different ways.

[David S]

Nay/Nay; marriage isn't an issue the federal government should deal with and there's no point to restricting/banning gay marriages anyway.

^^^^^^^^

[Tory]

Nay/Nay

[A18]

Nay/Nay; marriage isn't an issue the federal government should deal with and there's no point to restricting/banning gay marriages anyway.

^^^^^^^^

Can you read?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Aye/Nay