• I say yes, nothing to gain from keeping it.

    I don't think that the Supreme Court has anything to gain by keeping the Defense of Marriage Act intact after it having been law for 17 or so years. Bill Clinton, the president who signed the act into law, has gone on the record as saying that he wish he hadn't.

  • Rights are rights.

    Every person, whether they are black, white, straight or gay, should have the same rights. Just because someone believes something different, does not mean that they should be persecuted for those beliefs. That is why settlers came to the Americas in the first place. They came to get away from persecution, yet here we are now doing exactly what this country stands against.

  • Get the government out of marriage completely

    Neither the federal, or state government has any authority over who I, or anyone else decides to marry. It doesn't have any affect on anyone else's life if somebody wants to marry someone of the same gender. The constitution guarantees the right to Life, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and if marrying someone of the same gender is going to make you happy, then that is your right as an American to do that.

  • Yes, the suprem court should overturn DOMA

    Is is not right, it is unconstituional and it is a vagrant slap in the face of Americans. It should be our choice to marry whom we wish, and we should be able to claim it as a legal marriage on the IRS forms. It wasn't too long ago that people of "color" went through this as well. It is shameful!

  • Men and Women are not the same or interchangeable.

    If two women, and two men, are really the same as one man and one woman then why doesn't this concept apply to all federally funded facilities? And how willing would these same advocates be willing to test the the validity of this reasoning in our prisons, nursing homes, military barracks, and school locker rooms? I mean without an incentive that recognizes the unique relationship of one man and one woman,
    then what reason is there to discriminate by segregating people by gender? Especially when the whole concept of SSM is avoid discriminating against anyone because of their gender?

  • DOMA is Constitutional: Why President Obama And The Department of Justice Are Wrong

    It is funny how Presidents Obama and Clinton, and Hillary Clinton, and the Department of Justice are now changing their minds solely for the purpose of getting more votes for the Democratic Party. This is a prime example of why politics are so corrupt.
    Paul Linton, a long time constitutional attorney, has written an excellent letter going through point by point to refute the letter from the Department of Justice explaining why the Defense of Marriage Act is allegedly unconstitutional.
    "The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the legal arguments that the Constitution protects the right to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)."
    " Most courts have rejected the DOJ analysis that ”sexual orientation” is a suspect class like race under the Constitution - The DOJ letter relies heavily on its own conclusion that ”sexual orientation” is a protected classification under the Constitution, like race is. Most courts have rejected that conclusion."
    "The Department of Justice has vigorously defended DOMA in court recently – the DOJ letter ignores the fact that up until now, it has defended DOMA in court. The DOJ vigorously defended DOMA during President Bush’s administration. Here is a link to one of the DOJ briefs from the Bush days that strongly defends DOMA."
    The Supreme Court has upheld Congress’ requirement that some states outlaw polygamy and define marriage as one man and one woman.
    "Certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.
    Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 (1885)."

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.