Defense of Marriage Act. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states.
Until Section 3 of the Act was ruled unconstitutional in 2013, DOMA, in conjunction with other statutes, had barred same-sex married couples from being recognized as "spouses" for purposes of federal laws, effectively barring them from receiving federal marriage benefits. DOMA's passage did not prevent individual states from recognizing same-sex marriage, but it imposed constraints on the benefits received by all legally married same-sex couples.
Clinton – along with key legislators – later advocated for DOMA's repeal. Background[edit] Gary Bauer, head of the socially conservative Family Research Council, predicted the issue would be "a major battleground in the 1990s".[7] In 1991, Georgia Attorney General Michael J. Text[edit] Does Pete Williams Understand DOMA Ruling? « Comrade Conservative. Comrades, Pete Williams is a legal analyst for NBC, and thus by MSNBC as well.
Recently, the Supreme Court has made a ruling that related to the Defense of Marriage Act. This is based on the Supreme Courts ruling of United States v. Windsor. MSNBC’s TV personality Rachel Maddow has her own blog on MSNBC. Here’s what Pete Williams says: (1) “The interesting thing here is that the court has said that DOMA is unconstitutional as a matter of equal protection — meaning that it’s discriminatory. Let us, as a logical analysis, see if his conclusions follow. (1) is the narrow interpretation of the ruling of SCOTUS in the case. (2) is the broad interpretation of the ruling of SCOTUS in the case. What does Steve Brenen obtain from what Pete Williams says? “Note, the Supreme Court had some options, even once the majority agreed to strike DOMA down. So (1) deals with “state’s rights” and (2) doesn’t deal with “state’s rights”. So what did the Federal government that violated the 5th amendment?
Dean Cannon says state Supreme Court lacks "express authority" to strike the Legislature's proposed amendments. In 2010, the Florida Supreme Court removed three proposed constitutional amendments from the Nov. 2 ballot.
Florida House Speaker Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park, a lawyer, bashed the court for doing so on Nov. 16, 2010, in his first speech as House speaker during the Legislature's one-day organizing session. "As an attorney and an officer of the court, I believe fervently in a judicial branch that is strong and independent and fully empowered and equipped to fulfill its constitutional duties. But for the judiciary to be independent, it must also be impartial and apolitical. It must respect the co-equal executive and legislative branches, and it must protect their unambiguous constitutional powers, and it must practice the restraint that is built into our federal and state constitutions. For this Truth-O-Meter we will explore, is there "no express authority in the Florida Constitution" for the state Supreme Court to remove amendments placed on the ballot by the Legislature?
The Question of State's Rights and The U. S. Consitution: American Federalism Considered. The question of how power should be divided between the federal government and the states is really what American politics has been all about for well over two centuries.
It is a question debated by delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, debated by Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the ratification period, and debated between and within our political parties ever since. Elections have been won and lost on this question, and a Civil War fought over it. The Constitutional Convention undoubtedly was called to broaden the powers of the federal government as they existed under hopelessly ineffective Articles of Confederation.
Yet, there was considerable disagreement among the delegates as to how extensive the powers of the federal government should be. How does your state rate? State Constitutions. Each state in the United States has its own constitution.
Of course, all state constitutions are inferior (in a legal sense) to the United States Constitution, and when reading state constitutions, this must be kept in mind — a state constitution, for example, cannot validly authorize a state religion. However, many state constitutions guarantee civil rights that the United States Constitution does not. State Government Offices, Local US Government, City Government and Federal Government. State Government. How Much Does Your State Government Depend on Federal Funds? State and Local Public Policies in the United States.