Quote:
|
Quote by: italiangm Claiming the christian basis for marriage must be respected when it comes to executing marriage law is clearly an opinion without constitutional support. |
However Preident Clinton and congress did seem to endorse a traditional veiw of marriage (wether christian in origin or not I guess is somewhat moot and I did not intend that point to become the basis for argument, didn't realise the point was contentious... must learn to present my thoughts more clearly)
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS
DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT
AS INTRODUCED ON MAY 7, 1996
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things. First, it provides
that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other
State with respect to a same-sex "marriage." Second, it defines the
words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law.
[…]
The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make
explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years;
that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and
wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex. The DOMA
definition of marriage is derived most immediately from a Washington
state case from 1974, Singer v. Hara, which is included in the 1990
edition of Black's Law Dictionary. More than a century ago, the U.S.
Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in
the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45
(1985).
[…]
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm
ITALIANGM - Why did the sumpreme court refer to "the holy estate of matrimony" was that unconstitutional?