Defense of Marriage Act Is Un-Constitutional

Defense of Marriage Act Is Un-Constitutional

The Defense of Marriage Act - much touted in the Newton Gingrich era - is unconstitutional. America's Constitution writers discussed the idea of the national federal Government as censor of the state governments and rejected it. Often mis-cited - the 'comity' clause of the US Constitution requires and empowers the Congress to provide for a registration and procedure for recognizing foreign nations' enactments and judgements; and those of the various American states. They are neither approved nor dis-approved - but are accorded their legal status and judically recognizable -save by conflict with the US Constitution or the state constitution. Where a US Federal right is involved -the state court or constitution must bow. In practice - they would work like an out-of-state judgement or criminal extradition process with all the defenses against or for processing. Hence states may pass laws permitting a form of marriage which does not beget children; which does not require couples married to live together; to marry in the same sex; to marry without religious form; to marry inter-racially; and to re-marry after divorce or annullment; or to marry with or without a blood test; or at earlier ages with parental consent. In the saner rational conservative shorter end - isn't just clearer and better to just call any single united pair of people - human beings - joined by state process in a legal binding , a marriage? What would have Newton Gingrich judged about people joining next? on what grounds? looks? eugenics? child-bearing? If marriage be defensible -it already is -a unique legal coupling of two people. If people prefer a certain status and style of marriage - then as in religion or philosophyy - their example would be the means of that promotion - not a state dictat. In this blogging lawyer's home state now - Massachusetts - the state Supreme Judicial Court has recognized the same principle - and instructed the other State Court - 'The General Court' (our legislature) to provide a process for gay marriage. This lawyer has always advocated a simple secular state legal form of marriage which would recognize a voluntary legal union of two adults; and as the State may not pronounce nor prefer a religious form nor purpose in it - the State law and procedure would be mute in sexual difference or consummation requirements. After all else is considered including the Rube Goldberg fabrications for homosexuals - why not just call it a marriage. The institution with hetersexuals has no greater guarantee than any other marital union; and surely a same-sex marriage cannot be seen, rationally, as de-flating the institution any more than a marriage of childless people nor divorc�es.