Congress has the power to define and regulate marriage and does so in various ways, for tax purposes, military survivor benefits, immigration purposes (including defining sham marriages) etc.
Windsor was not decided on Congress lacking the constitutional power to regulate or define marriage. It clearly stated that it was relying on the provision violating the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. In fact, the opinion noted Congress had some power over that.
The law was arguably unconstitutional at the time it was written but the state of the law in respect to the rights of same sex couples was such that it seemed acceptable. This was before Lawrence v. Texas. Santorum wants Congress to challenge something that is explicitly the law of the land by SCOTUS decision – they crystal clearly said same sex marriage was protected.
I think sexual behavior is much more fluid than sexual orientation. While I think sexual orientation can change for some people, I think it’s much more uncommon for someone to switch to or develop another orientation than it is for someone to simply engage in sexual activities that don’t necessarily adhere to their natural predilections. Lou Reed, I would say, was most likely never attracted to men, generally speaking. He was an opportunist and used sexuality to carve out a provocative public persona for the sake of his career. Some are unaware of their sexual orientation or struggle to come to terms with it before eventually adjusting their behavior to become more (or less, depending on circumstances) congruent with their natural desires. Others may value sexual gratification over sexual attraction to a particular type of person at a given time, ignoring a basic lack of interest in another’s physicality and appearance for the sake of pleasure-seeking. In terms of explanations for causes of sexual orientation, the genetic and biological components get to the heart of what Rachel is referring to when she describes it as an immutable trait, but the more varied way in which genes are expressed and especially all the different types of behavior one can display either due to or in spite of one’s genetics and biology can lead someone like Rick Santorum to the conclusion that being gay could be a choice. By all accounts, and keeping in mind that some people naturally do not fall within the hetero- and homosexual binary, sexual orientation itself is almost certainly not a choice. Fluid or not (and again, I would argue most often not, particularly in males), human beings typically don’t make conscious decisions to be attracted to one another, as the orientation-as-a-choice framing would imply.
1 Like
True. It is Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services that was decided on the basis that the law was a violation of the 10th Amendment and the Spending Clause. Note that this was a suit brought by a state. Other suits were brought by individuals and the states’ rights question was not an issue. The trial judge ruled that the law was unconstitutional:
On July 8, 2010, exactly one year after the suit was filed, Judge Tauro released his decision in the case. He ruled that DOMA section 3 violates the Tenth Amendment and falls outside Congress’ authority under the Spending Clause of the Constitution.
The appeals court also found the law unconstitutional but rejected the argument concerning the 10th Amendment and the Spending Clause. However, the court stayed its ruling pending review by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, however, did not hear Massachusetts but took up Windsor instead. After the decision in Windsor, the other cases, including Massachusetts, were dismissed as moot so the 10th Amendment question remains unresolved.
No, Congress has no power to define and regulate marriage in the first two instances. Congress can legislate certain benefits for tax purposes or for military spouses, but they must rely on the definitions of marriage provided by the states. It was Congress’s attempt to define marriage for federal purposes in Section 3 of DOMA that ran afoul of the Constitution.
Congress does have constitutional authority to make laws concerning immigration and naturalization, including, presumably, what it considers a legal marriage for purposes of immigration and naturalization. Presumably, it could also define marriage as it affects interstate and foreign commerce, but it’s hard to see how.
1 Like
“It” being a Constitutional Amendment that Lincoln referenced.
What the Court has the power to do is interpret the Constitution. If the Court finds that a law violates the Constitution, as it did here, the Court has the power to invalidate the law, because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
There is a flag burning law still on the books long after it was declared unconstitutional by the USSC. Repigs like to cite it, because they are stupid.
1 Like
When I run into a no-nothing clown like this I ask him what he knows about Marbury vs. Madison. They never answer. It’s incredible that this guy was ever elected to any office anywhere.
You hate those who are more accomplished, smarter, more educated and richer than you. Because you are a repig.
You are too stupid to understand what you just did there.
That frothymix thing was brilliant. You can tell because it has seemed to stand the test of time so far. I was going to say “it stuck”, but I just couldn’t.
This was painful to listen to. The worst of twisted logic from Santorum mixed with a lot of complete crap he presents as fact.
Hannity is a college drop out who’s inspiration to get politically active was a fictional character from a sit com. Maddow is a Rhodes scholar with a PhD in the topics she discusses. You may want to take substance into account when you start equating people as juvenile or blockheads. You know, assuming you don’t want anyone with a brain in their heads to immediately identify you as similarly juvenile and blockheaded to what you’re projecting…
1 Like
I really wish she would have challenged him on his interpretation of “consensual”. Seriously and plainly, if you think bestiality and pedophilia fall under the heading of “consensual activity”, you do not understand what consent is.
Huge, regularly reoccurring, problem for conservatives. They too often do not understand the concept of consent, and seem to only recognize and respect agency among white cis males.
Also, the whole fundamental failure on basic civics is just fantastic for a serious political candidate…
3 Likes
Maddow a Rhodes scholar…Obama a Peace Nobel Price winner…
Very stale idea. Republican state legislatures have been doing it for decades.
Right, cause you know, straw man…
The Supreme Court has the right to see that the states use the powers they have fairly. Once the states define marriage they are not allowed to define it differently for different groups of people – blacks and whites for one example and gays and straights for another. It was not an assumption by the court that it had the power to define or regulate marriage – it was a continuation of the court’s power to see that the states act fairly.
That said, just because a right is not explicitly noted in the Constitution does not bar the Supreme Court from protecting it:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Thus, the Supreme Court cannot deny a right to the people simply because it is not enumerated in the Constitution.
You sound like a slave holder fantasizing that the nation really did support slavery.
The nation has tried same sex marriage and finds all it does is make those individuals happy and bothers no one else.
Try your next problem.