White House Declares Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional

I believe AG Holder meant what he said ... "... violates the equal protection component of the 5th Amendment."

If Holder did in fact say "violates the equal protection component of the 5th Amendment." then he has no business in government, or a lawyer for that matter. the 5th amendment IS NOT the equal protection clause. It is contained in the 14th amendment here, first the 5th: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5 "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." ~U.S. Constitution, Amendment 5. Now, here is the relevant portion of the 14th amendment containing the equal protection clause: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14 "1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ~U.S. Constitution, amendment 14 For cripe sakes, read the blasted constitution yourself instead of relying on the words of government servants who don't care about it.

I would think that any marriage license would quiry whether or not one is "legal" or not ... wouldn't you? There are millions of upstanding people unemployed, I'm sure they'd have no problems paying their fair taxes if they had jobs ... republicans are busy arguing well-settled abortion issues of old! Times have not changed for all too many ... the 5th provides equal protections under the law.

No, the 14th provides equal protection under the law. the 5th prevents one from being compelled to incriminate themselves, declares the right of due process and prevents the implementation of "double jeopardy". Eric Holder is an idiot.

xfahctor, I think you missed his whole argument ... he said ..violates the equal protection 'compenent' of the 5th. Eric Holder .. an idiot ... ah, please .. you really do yourself a disservice, really discrediting when you make such ridiculous statements.

Oops, I missed her use of "equal protection" and thought she may be referring to the 10th. I should have added the equal protection clause as well to my list of constitutional issues with DOMA in my own thread on it. I noted the issues with the 10th amendment and the full faith and credit clause though and I feel those were stronger arguments against it than the equal protection clause.

Does "oops" mean sorry?? It's okay, I've become accustomed to people being really meanspirited for no good reason at all, and never bothering to apologize ... you know civil like! Anyway, xfahctor I placed AG Holder's words in quotes! It's not "MY USE" of anything!!

Maybe you need to read what AG Holder stated ... read with comprehension this time okay.

There is no basis under the 14th Amendment here. Since there is no mention of marriage in the US Constitution there is no assumption that it protects any part of marriage. On the other hand, the "full faith and credit clause" does state that contracts legally made in one state will be recognized in all states.. and that definitely applies. The only legitimate way the federal government can have anything to do with marriage laws is with a Constitutional amendment.

Including the completely unconstitutional, and religious persecution of the federal law banning polygamy.

I have never seen a problem with Polygamy it may not be moral or ethical for some but that is for some not all and it should be allowed for the relationship to decide. I have been involved in a Relationship with a person for about 3 months to where I was in a Poly type relationship. I was the Second person.

I suppose it comes down to 'what our government values most: population quantity or 'quality of life' (and I say that with some trepidation, because 'quality' may be-more 'big families' to some and -more 'satisfied fleshly-hungers' to others!)' More 'straight' marriage brings a greater probability of healthy population-increase. That probability is made lower by introduction of 'gay' marriage (one can still be 'saved' from homosexuality by the right woman, as long as he doesn't get stuck in the 'cement' that gay marriage would provide) Maybe the legalization of gay marriage is the final straw for this world, just like such behavior was the final straw that brought doom to Sodom-&-Gomorrah. Except the deity who arrives will merely draw us up to the clouds and send us somewhere safe (like Goshen in ancient Egypt), instead of sending two destructive angels like He did last time

No not "nit-picky" !! The report that I read stated that President Obama made his decision after he reviewed two cases in federal appeals courts and found them to be in violation of the Constitution among other factors. That the President concluded that discriminatory treatment based on s.. orientation should be "subject to a heightened standard of scrutiny." which the Defense of Marriage Act does not meet. Being a "straight" person (whatever that is) I have no quarter in that dollar, however, I support the fact that nobody should be discriminated against for any reason!!

The Executive Branch is declaring that it is unenforceable which it is part of their job to enforce the laws but by stating that they believe it to be Unconstitutional they could take it up themselves. As the President did swear to follow the US Constitution so AG could go after it in court.