So let me get this straight. Republicans and many spineless democrats passed a law in 1996 stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. And now the republicans want to pass a constitutional amendment to say that marriage is between a man and a woman. So this must mean that they think the law that they passed in 1996(DOMA) IS ITSELF UNCONSTITUTIONAL! I want the media(and Howard Dean, since his hands are clean from not having voted for it)to ask the question why is congress passing laws that they know to be against OUR constitution, and then they try to change the constitution to legitimize their own discriminatory, hateful law.

This is PhillyFan's DOMA-main. wink

The same PhillyFan who stated that he could NEVER be labled a hypocrite. The same one who obsesses daily over DOMA but when his hero Chimp wants to alter the constitution to define marriage, its all of a sudden no big deal. To quote PF from another thread:

"first of all, they have zero chance of a constitutional ammend..... so what the hell does it matter if he says he wants it???????/"

Way to be consistent and stand up for what you believe in.

I think the more valid question of any of this mess is, why would marriage laws be left up to the federal government at all?

I do believe in states rights regarding something like this. In that same regard, the federal government shouldnt be the one to tell us who we can and cant marry. The states should just go ahead and concede that marriage is for everyone and not be discriminatory.

The only time the feds need step in is when its a discriminatory action by local/state governments. And for the federal government to discriminate against someone else is what is truly unconstitutional! Thats why we have equal rights amendments for blacks and women, as they were dsicriminated against prior to those amendments being added to revise the already screwed up constitution!

If the feds think this is a good idea, are we soon to be seeing laws that state homosexuals are only 3/5 of a person?

Well... you see, DOMA isn't unconstituional right now.

Since no state defines marriage as anything other than a contract between a man and a woman, it's perfectly fine for a state to say explicity that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

But, now that the Mass. Supreme Court might suddenly create a possibilty of DOMA being unconstitutional, there needs to be a constitutional amendment to make DOMA constitutional. Bah.

Because the Republicans completely own the crap out of the federal government... Hence, anything the Republicans want should be done by the federal government. Of course, when the Democrats own the Federal government, then the Democrats are all in favor of having the federal government stick its hand in wherever the fark it can...

I do agree with alot of things being left up to states themselves, but marriage is one that can really can't be. When, in the "UNITED" states, you have one law for who can marry in one state and then suddenly they aren't considered married in another state, you suddenly have a f***ing mess. That would be the republicans truly ruining the sanctity of marriage.
And of course what about the federal perks that married people get, like social security benefits and tax benefits to name a few. These things are not recieved by just having individual state laws. The fear and anger on the repulicans part is all very mystifying and sad.