Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
We can't exclude groups of people from the Civil Rights act. That is unconstitutional. And inclusion of everyones equal rights under the law was the intent of the Civil Rights Act. So yes the 14th amendment does cover homosexual rights.
DOMA isn't worth the paper it was written on once it runs counter to the 14th amendment. There will be a small fight but when a simple act runs up agaisnt a constitutional amendment in a court of law, the act gets trashed.
|
FYI, as I noted above, it's the full faith and credit clause that is implicated by this, not the 14th amendment. well maybe the 14th, too, but that's a different argument and you need to get through a ton of legal hurdles before getting 14th amendment coverage.
Also FYI, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, so it could repeal it if it wanted to.
The argument that DOMA isn't unconstitutional (double negative!), as I understand it, is that the Constitution says that "the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." Which arguably suggests that it has some say in the what states have to recognize and what they don't (though I don't buy it).
*EDIT* By the way, lest there be some misunderstanding, I support gay marriage as a civil concept. (I support it as a religious concept too, but the government can't force that....pesky 1st amendment)