Questions about Gay marriage

[Solon]

As I understand it every DOMA law in the country is unconstitutional, hence the reason for * to push for a FEDERAL Constitutional Amendment. Basically he wants one constitutional amendment to retract part of another that already is in the Constitution with wording specific to one right or privilege: Marriage.

This is the Article in the Amendment in question that is to be retracted:
Amendment 14
(July 28, 1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It is also my understanding that the Federal Constitution supersedes any state constitution where human rights and privileges are concerned. So even when states pass STATE Amendments "Defending" Marriage, aren't they also unconstitutional? Could they be struck down by Federal Courts?

[MAlibdem]

1. One could argue that

Gay marraige is not a right or privilege. And thus the 14th has nothing to do with anything.

I don't concur, but if SCOTUS then that's that.

[Solon]

2. The problem with that arguement is then the broad definition

of marriage. If not either a right or privilege, then what would it be? Even saying it is just a contract runs into the same problem, for is the ability for individuals to enter into contracts a right or a privilege?

[northernsoul]

5. legally, it is considered a privilege

although the only real compelling government interest in providing marriage liscences at all right now is that it makes a number of tax, property (especially intestate succession), child custody / paternity, and medical decision-making laws and rules a lot easier for the government to administer. IMHO, the government shouldn't give two shakes about the cultural and religious components of marriage.

[Solon]

8. Yet Amendment 14 also covers that.

No group of people can be denied any privilege or immunity that is granted to another, according to the Forteenth Amendment.

[northernsoul]

9. exactly - DOMA doesn't pass consititutional muster

especially if you look at some of the dicta from Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws banning interracial marriage. Many of the same arguments there could be applied to the gay marriage issue.

My take is that the gov'r has little more business denying you a marriage liscence because you're gay than it does denying you a driver's liscence.

[hippiegranny]

3. off topic, but not really

i wonder how many references the bible makes regarding homosexuality, and how many references it makes regarding adultery. i have heard that the adultery theme far outweighs the homo theme, but i am not sure by what margin. i am not trying to draw a parallel between queers (actually, i are one!) and cheaters; rather, i would like to put forth this query: if *i* am to be denied marriage rights based on governance by bible, then shouldn't adulterers be denied the right to marry (more than once)?

[Solon]

4. Two dubious references to Male gay sex.

None on homosexuality as a general term, did not exist at the time that the Bible was written, inserted into the Bible at a MUCH Later time. Also adultery is mentioned over 100 times, don't know the exact number, sorry. However it does illistrate that God is much more focused on heterosexual behavior than on Homosexual behavior.

[hippiegranny]

6. that is very interesting

2 compared to more than 100. so, i am confused by the fundies who are so adamant about the bible claiming homosexuality to be sooooo wrong. very confused, because many of the same fundies are admitted adulterers. interesting...

[Solon]

7. Lesbians aren't condemned at all, except in later "Translations"

Homosexuality as a concept did not exist in Biblical times. Also the condemnations of Male on Male Sex are dubious. The devil is in details, the Bible in this case could be interepreted in only condemning "Pagan Ritual Gay Men Sex" or "All Gay Male Sex", it is a matter of interpretation of a 2000 year old document, and should have no bearing on current political thought.

[hippiegranny]

10. so there is absolutely no basis for

"one man, one woman" in the bible? so from where are they getting it? and if it doesn't exist, why isn't anyone calling them on it?