Of course, DOMA is unconstitutional, since marriage is none of the federal government's business. Under the present system, it is a state issue. Of course, it is actually none of any government's business. Marriage--like every other contract--should be privatized, with people free to make the contracts they choose, so long as no one else's rights are violated. It was an ill day when government began to take marriage over in the 18th century. Marriage antedates government, and unlike government, is socially beneficial. The extension of federal payments to new classes is an unhappy development, but typical of the supremes. And note that the idea that nine lawyers can determine constitutionality is a usurpation and mentioned nowhere in the constitution. The constitution itself was a coup, marking a huge step-up in central government power. If we are to be saddled with a national government, let it be under the far-more libertarian articles of confederation. When something like marriage is made a matter of state, it's a license to stick your nose into other people's business. When it's private, you need not worry if some people want polygamy, or gay marriage, or Protestant marriage, or Catholic marriage, or Hindu marriage. Live and let live is possible. The state, on the other hand, always seeks to divide and rule. ---- I'm sure most posters are aware that marriage laws were created to stop miscegenation. Those white boys marryin' black girls was nuthin' but trouble!
DataLounge get your fix of gay gossip, news and pointless bitchery.
Talking to DataLounge servers.
Please wait a moment...