23 votes

*D.O.M.A. Ruled Unconstitutional!*

No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


the last shred of political capital in the obomba bank.

Correct ruling. If a majority

Correct ruling. If a majority in a state voted to ban Christians from marrying each other it would still be classified as tyranny and Federal overreach. The main problem is that we still seek 'Government' authority to marry...

Southern Agrarian


The whole idea one needs government permission to enter into a private contract is absurd (which all marriage really is -- an exchange of contractual vows to be loving and faithful, in sickness and in health, etc.). This is equivalent to government granting itself the authority to limit persons you can contract with to mow your lawn. Would anyone here argue government should have the authority to regulate or intervene in a private contract with a neighbor to mow your lawn (absent some illegality such as fraud or duress)? It totally destroys freedom of contract and the US Constitution does not authorize such regulatory authority. Plain and simple.

Talk about hitting the nail on the head.

Not only did you do that but you put a giant bullseye on that sucker so as one could not miss. Excellent!!!!

It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense.


Yeah, it would be an overreach just like if DOMA banned any marriage. DOMA, however, didn't do that. It stated that for federal purposes marriage is defined as one man one woman. That is far different from banning marriage as an activity. If DOMA said "for federal purposes a marriage is defined as one certified by the courts and voided if also married in a church" I would say that is constitutional in terms of the 5th amendment.

The true DOMA and my made up example are both bad laws. It is about time we begin to understand what the constitution ACTUALLY says and not try to make it say what we want it to say.


in the United States Constitution does it authorize the federal government to regulate marriage? If someone can find that passage, please enlighten me.

We write alot on this forum about liberty. If people aren't violating the rights of another or there's no violation of property, what rule states that people can't marry the person of their choice?

The case under review was between a same sex couple, one of them died and the IRS sent her partner a bill for nearly $400,000 in estate taxes. Evidently, the IRS thinks people of the same sex are married.

Regulate itself

No where, but it does authorize them to regulate themselves. Naturally if congress has the power to X,Y, and Z they have the power to define what is in X,Y, and Z.

As an example, congress has the power to levy an income tax and as such they can define what income is, whose income applies, and who gets various deductions. Marriage is one of the criteria in determining an authorized activity by the government and as such the government has the power to define what marriage is for their purposes. This has been the case since the inception of the constitution.

As you mentioned, this case involved the IRS and estate taxes. How can a government not be allowed to define terms in their own statue?

Think about what you just said.

The federal government passed DOMA, marriage is between a man and a woman. The IRS decided that two women constitute a marriage. It's all a convoluted mess in order to rally the people, not around the pertinent issue, but around their religious and moral beliefs.

If the IRS, the income tax and the 16th amendment were abolished tomorrow, would we be having this discussion? Probably not...



Southern Agrarian

When are people

going to realize that "marriage" is just another way for the government to control the population? If we repealed the 16th amendment, did away with the income tax and the IRS, what difference would it make who marries.

They have some damn nerve

Using that word. "unconstitional". They haven't ruled in favor of the constitution in 100 years.

I'm glad they did this time, I just can't stand fallacy.



anybody get the feeling that SCOTUS is pulling some save face moves all the sudden ? I do...

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Samuel Adams


DOMA is a no-brainer.

Not really

to me, it seems like these are just people (albeit privileged people put on pedestals), who have opinions (just like us) that they want implemented through law and will find whatever laws or legal precedents to implement their beliefs. I seriously doubt SCOTUS is trying to "save face".

Besides they are appointed to life terms specifically so that they don't feel the need to bend to popular opinion or resort to "saving face"

LOL, ok, whatever you say

LOL, ok, whatever you say there skipy....

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Samuel Adams

ok then how exactly are they saving face?

you brought it up, so I commented. can you elaborate or is that all you have to say?

Dude, how long have you been apart of the movement

You need to do some research. There is a reason those guys were put there, and it ain't because they lack corporate special interest fascist connections. Do your homework on at least one of these guys to see the real reason they were placed on the supreme court.


Interesting tidbit:

George H.W. Bush nominated David Souter to the high court. David Souter had a very thin paper trail. George H.W. Bush professed that Souter would be a conservative on the court. David Souter didn't spend a second agreeing with the conservatives on the Supreme Court.

It concerned me when George W. Bush nominated John Roberts, and then Roberts is placed as the head of the court. Shades of David Souter passed before my eyes.

Long-term Pain

After reading the opinion and 1 of the dissents; this ruling is borderline fraud. It literally makes no sense; and I'm saying that as a person who thinks DOMA should go away.

As far as I can tell the ruling isn't based in the constitution but rather the personal desires of the majority. Aside from the fact that there is no equal protection clause in the 5th amendment (Boling v. Sharpe was also poorly decided), the court doesn't make a coherent argument about how it WOULD violate that clause.

For those of you happy with the opinion, don't be so short sighted. It might be good for you in result but this is a disaster for procedure and the constitution. Those that prefer a result and consequences be damned will find one day they are on the other end of that oppression.

Nor deprived of property

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

In the case before the court, Edith Windsor was deprived of her property by being forced to pay an estate tax on her wife's estate. As the law violated her due process by refusing to recognize her legal marriage, and this directly deprived her of property, it is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment. I thought everybody here was AGAINST government theft?

For the Constitution

I'm against theft but for the constitution. We should be for that.

Do you know what "due process of law" means? It is a procedural guarantee. Any review of the original meaning would point to the 5th amendment as a procedural guarantee. The line of thought in this case is that the due process clause contains 1)an equal protection component and 2) a substantive component. If you think either one of those are true you do not believe in following the constitution as written.

The Federal government is not required to recognize contracts of a state that violate federal law. This has been the case since the founding. There is no due process violation.

It's not surprising.

There's nothing in the United States Constitution that authorizes the federal government to regulate marriage. The Supreme Court's attempt to make it look like regulating marriage applies somehow under some provision of the Constitution is just silly.

But DOMA violates both the 5th and the 14th

So Im surprised that they didnt point to the 14th as well. I don't know what fraud you are pointing to though

DOMA Can't Violate 14th

DOMA, a federal statue, can't violate the 14th amendment as the 14th amendment equal protection clause and due process clause are specifically addressed to the STATES.

Now please kindly point out where Equal Protection is stated in the 5th amendment. Can't? Guess you won't be a Supreme Court justice.

As for the fraud, just read the opinion; it strains itself to come up with reasons to reach a predetermined conclusion. I'll hold aside the "jurisdiction ruling" as I'm not good enough at law to understand that mess. The opinion merely says in several different ways that DOMA limits liberty and you can't limit liberty per the 5th amendment. This is inconsistent with 1) the meaning of the 5th amendment(and the constitution for that matter) and 2)holdings from the exact same group of people that came up with this decision!

How on earth can you say the government can't limit liberty when the amendment specifically says you can limit liberty with "due process of law"? Second, how can you rule sometimes that the government can make laws specific to certain people (polygamy for example) yet can't for other people? It's inconsistent with itself.

I suggest you read the opinion and dissents and see if you can understand the reasoning. I'm telling you, if you love the constitution you will be sorry we had discussions like this one day.

this isn't the best ruling but its a good start

IMO opinion most of SCOTUS rulings are "pulled out of their asses" so I am not surprised.

As far as the 14th, states do not have the right to treat citizens unequally, so SCOTUS could have used that to grant marriage equality through either the Prop 8 or DOMA rulings.

Polygamy is a red-herring though, as it is almost always older men who just want to collect women which often creates slave-like living situations. Marriage was ruled a civil right in Loving V. Virginia and polygamy was never deemed a right.

But I'm not a lawyer (or a supreme court justice) and am trying to wade through this all like everyone else. But as far as I can tell...

Laws must be the same for all so I believe that you can't limit on groups right to life liberty and property which is why they may have pointed to the 5th.

I don't get...

...why government should make laws against polygamy. If a man or woman decides to live and have intimate relationships with multiple partners, even having kids by one or more of them and entering into legal contracts with each other, and they don't call it 'marriage', then we don't think the gestapo should break it up. Take that same exact behavior and call it 'marriage', and suddenly it's the end of the world? Bring in the authoritarians to stomp it out?

Government should just be completely blind to marriage and let the people, houses of faith, secular organizations, whatever decide for themselves what 'marriage' means to them.

I hope that one or more states now move to get rid of all marriage licenses and only see people as people with whatever legal contracts they happen to have made with each other.

I am afraid your the only one that does get it!

I am afraid your one of few that has it right,
To PEEP ON WHAT OTHERS are doing. Government needs to stop
well I guess in the USA the government seems to think that the people can't make there own minds up who to love or not love.
As far as law and deductions, that wouldn't even or shouldn't even enter into it if the Government wasn't taking, our hard earned money so you wouldn't need a law one way or the other.

Kind of sad but most gays where against Ron Paul and he was really there best ally.

Obama only passes no brains laws and let the banks and killer's walk.

Congress is still insider trading also
These laws the congress passes or the states..
Total BS but given the BS the armed enforcers can sure shoot you dead.
Land of the free.
Truth tellers are the enemy of the state..
Like my daddy said IS that rightttttt.....

Just want what seems to be missing, Truth and Justice for ALL
What is fraud except creating “value” from nothing and passing it off as something?

This does not matter

And you're probably right but that doesn't mean the constitution forbids it.

I hate seeing this on a forum about preserving the constitution. Too many are saying the government should not be doing something therefore this ruling is correct. What a government should or shouldn't be doing is irrelevant when it comes to determining the constitutionality of something. I don't think the government should ban soda but it is within their power to do so.

This ruling is wrong and dangerous for the constitution. The ends never justify the means if the means are wrong.

To be clear...

...I was not saying I liked the ruling. Expanding the governmental definition of marriage is moving in the opposite direction of getting rid of such definitions altogether. I agree with you, as far as I currently understand, on the Constitutional concerns as well.

I disagree, though, that discussing what government OUGHT to do or not do should take a back seat to discussing what a government CAN do legally. Just because governments CAN legally prohibit alcohol or other drugs does not mean they should. Discussing what government SHOULD not do is highly relevant to the topic of Liberty, right?

Front Seat

What a government OUGHT to do is much more important than what they can do legally in every instance other than a court case on the subject. Judges should ONLY be concerned with what government can LEGALLY do, not what they OUGHT to do.

The process is just as important as the outcome. Just because we got the outcome right doesn't mean this is a win for liberty, it's a huge defeat. You can't be for liberty when it goes your way and turn to oppression when it doesn't. This ruling defeats liberty in favor of oppression; how ironic is that?