6/21/2013 5:12 PM
The mere fact that nobody has attempted to challenge any of the state laws allowing SSM under that premise shows you exactly how much confidence the anti-SSM community has in the ability of DOMA to stand up in court...
6/21/2013 5:57 PM
How about the 17 years that DOMA went unchallenged?  What does that say?
6/21/2013 5:58 PM
That **** moves slow.

Do you really think DOMA is constitutional?
6/21/2013 5:59 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2013 5:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2013 5:06:00 PM (view original):
As I understand it, SSM marriage is technically not legal anywhere in the U.S., even in the 11 (or so) states that have passed laws "legalizing" it.

Check out Cooper vs. Aaron.

States cannot pass laws that attempt to nullify federal law, and should be considered ineffective.

Since DOMA is technically the law of the land, any state laws passed subsequent to DOMA that attempt to contradict it are legally ineffective.
I don't think that applies. NAL, but I think DOMA only regulates marriage at the federal level (taxes, SS, and other benefits) it doesn't restrict state law. And anyway, DOMA is unconstitutional.
DOMA defines marriage.  It doesn't matter what it does it for.  It defines marriage.

It's not unconstitutional until it is deemed unconstitutional.  So at the present time, it is federal law, and the existing state laws that contradict it are legally ineffective according to Cooper vs. Aaron.
6/21/2013 5:59 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2013 5:58:00 PM (view original):
That **** moves slow.

Do you really think DOMA is constitutional?
Until it is deemed otherwise, yes.  It is the law of the land.
6/21/2013 6:02 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2013 5:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2013 5:58:00 PM (view original):
That **** moves slow.

Do you really think DOMA is constitutional?
Until it is deemed otherwise, yes.  It is the law of the land.
So, in your opinion, any law in force is automatically constitutional until overturned in court?
6/21/2013 6:04 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2013 5:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2013 5:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2013 5:06:00 PM (view original):
As I understand it, SSM marriage is technically not legal anywhere in the U.S., even in the 11 (or so) states that have passed laws "legalizing" it.

Check out Cooper vs. Aaron.

States cannot pass laws that attempt to nullify federal law, and should be considered ineffective.

Since DOMA is technically the law of the land, any state laws passed subsequent to DOMA that attempt to contradict it are legally ineffective.
I don't think that applies. NAL, but I think DOMA only regulates marriage at the federal level (taxes, SS, and other benefits) it doesn't restrict state law. And anyway, DOMA is unconstitutional.
DOMA defines marriage.  It doesn't matter what it does it for.  It defines marriage.

It's not unconstitutional until it is deemed unconstitutional.  So at the present time, it is federal law, and the existing state laws that contradict it are legally ineffective according to Cooper vs. Aaron.
Actually, it does matter. DOMA defines marriage with regard to federal benefits. None of the state laws grant federal benefits.

If you don't grasp the 10th amendment, you probably shouldn't be trying to cite case law.
6/21/2013 8:47 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2013 6:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2013 5:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2013 5:58:00 PM (view original):
That **** moves slow.

Do you really think DOMA is constitutional?
Until it is deemed otherwise, yes.  It is the law of the land.
So, in your opinion, any law in force is automatically constitutional until overturned in court?
Yes.
6/21/2013 8:52 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2013 6:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2013 5:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/21/2013 5:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2013 5:06:00 PM (view original):
As I understand it, SSM marriage is technically not legal anywhere in the U.S., even in the 11 (or so) states that have passed laws "legalizing" it.

Check out Cooper vs. Aaron.

States cannot pass laws that attempt to nullify federal law, and should be considered ineffective.

Since DOMA is technically the law of the land, any state laws passed subsequent to DOMA that attempt to contradict it are legally ineffective.
I don't think that applies. NAL, but I think DOMA only regulates marriage at the federal level (taxes, SS, and other benefits) it doesn't restrict state law. And anyway, DOMA is unconstitutional.
DOMA defines marriage.  It doesn't matter what it does it for.  It defines marriage.

It's not unconstitutional until it is deemed unconstitutional.  So at the present time, it is federal law, and the existing state laws that contradict it are legally ineffective according to Cooper vs. Aaron.
Actually, it does matter. DOMA defines marriage with regard to federal benefits. None of the state laws grant federal benefits.

If you don't grasp the 10th amendment, you probably shouldn't be trying to cite case law.
DOMA defines marriage with regard to federal benefits.

Perhaps you can show where, in DOMA, it makes reference to federal benefits.

If you're unable to read and comprehend federal laws, you probably shouldn't be trying to tell other people what they do.
6/21/2013 8:57 PM
Perhaps it is your own comprehension of the law that is the problem.  It says, specifically, "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."  It doesn't say anything about interpretation, regulation, or rulings of individual state governments.
6/21/2013 8:59 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 6/21/2013 8:57:00 PM (view original):
Perhaps it is your own comprehension of the law that is the problem.  It says, specifically, "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."  It doesn't say anything about interpretation, regulation, or rulings of individual state governments.
Cooper vs. Aaron.  State laws cannot contradict federal laws.
6/21/2013 9:03 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/21/2013 8:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 6/21/2013 8:57:00 PM (view original):
Perhaps it is your own comprehension of the law that is the problem.  It says, specifically, "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."  It doesn't say anything about interpretation, regulation, or rulings of individual state governments.
Cooper vs. Aaron.  State laws cannot contradict federal laws.
Yeah, you're dumb. DOMA applies to acts of congress and federal agencies only. State laws allowing gay marriage don't grant federal benefits and are not in conflict with DOMA.

And again, DOMA is unconstitutional, whether you want to believe it or not.
6/21/2013 9:22 PM
Holy ****!  Your level of stupidity attains new heights by the hour.

1)  Are you trying to say that marriage can be defined one way for federal benefits, and a different way for other things?  Does that make sense to you?

2)  DOMA is not unconstitutional unless and until it is declared so by SCOTUS.  As far as I know, you are not SCOTUS so you cannot declare laws unconstitutional.


6/21/2013 9:25 PM
1) absolutely yes, I don't see what you don't understand about this.  Federal marriage benefits don't apply to same-sex marriages.  That doesn't mean they can't be married by a state and receive state marriage benefits.  In what way does that NOT make sense?  The act very specifically states that federal laws regarding marriage will only acknowledge opposite-sex marriage.  It does not require that state laws follow that same standard.  The state recognizing SSM and applying state laws to legally married same-sex couples in no way contradicts DOMA.
6/21/2013 10:32 PM
How can a federal agency, let's take the IRS for example, function effectively if something that is a factor in determining income tax liability like marriage, is left to the states to decide?

Does it make sense that the IRS should be expected to have to work off of potentially 50 different definitions of marriage, based on whatever state a particular 1040 form was filed from?

It's appropriate for the federal government to define marriage at the federal level.  Which it has, with DOMA.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.