DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[rivalarrival]

In a 5/4 decision, the Supreme Court declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

This restores the principal that the states - not the federal government - define marriage.

http://www.scotusblog.com/

[havasu]

R/A, care to share your opinion on this?

I personally don't care but then why do we even vote in the first place?

[VaporLung]

Originally Posted by havasu

R/A, care to share your opinion on this?

I personally don't care but then why do we even vote in the first place?

This restores the principal that the states - not the federal government - define...

This right here says it all for me personally.

[rivalarrival]

Originally Posted by havasu

R/A, care to share your opinion on this?

I personally don't care but then why do we even vote in the first place?

Well, I have a military background. I knew several closeted homosexuals who served with distinction, and a few who separated involuntarily under DADT. DADT has since been repealed, but DOMA remained in effect.

The military offers numerous financial benefits to married personnel that are not made available to unmarried servicemen. These benefits are essential for the morale of married personnel. They are essential for retention and thus military readiness.

Most of these benefits are simply a matter of access. Military spouses are granted access to base housing. They are afforded commissary and BX/PX/NEX privileges. They are afforded access to Tricare, and military hospitals and clinics. They are afforded access to Morale, Welfare, and Recreation facilities and programs.

Under DOMA, even where their home state recognized a marriage, federal law prohibited these benefits to servicemen in same-sex marriages. This puts a huge burden on the married, same-sex serviceman compared to his heterosexual counterpart. Which would be fine, if there were a clear, compelling, secular purpose for creating that burden. But that purpose doesn't seem to exist.

[samfloor]

Even though the constitution clearly says that any right not specifically given to the federal government belongs to the states, congress has continually tried to overstep the constitution. No matter personal feelings, everyone should be concerned anytime congress oversteps it's authority.
Look at the "war between the states" (calling any war a "civil" war is just idiotic), it was not fought over slavery(after all slavery, while 100% wrong, it was legal) , it was fought over the federal government usurping the power that the states were guaranteed under the constitution. Lincoln did so many illegal acts, that under a fair legal system, he would have been impeached. Every day we watch our freedoms decline. Just like the federal government putting more restrictions on gun ownership. We can only hope that the courts will uphold the constitution on all questions that come before it.

[Eddie_T]

Originally Posted by samfloor

Even though the constitution clearly says that any right not specifically given to the federal government belongs to the states, congress has continually tried to overstep the constitution. No matter personal feelings, everyone should be concerned anytime congress oversteps it's authority.
Look at the "war between the states" (calling any war a "civil" war is just idiotic), it was not fought over slavery(after all slavery, while 100% wrong, it was legal) , it was fought over the federal government usurping the power that the states were guaranteed under the constitution. Lincoln did so many illegal acts, that under a fair legal system, he would have been impeached. Every day we watch our freedoms decline. Just like the federal government putting more restrictions on gun ownership. We can only hope that the courts will uphold the constitution on all questions that come before it.

Sam, we agree on this one.