Alex Blaze

AFA Lawyer: DOMA Is Probably Unconstitutional

Filed By Alex Blaze | March 02, 2011 7:00 AM | comments

Filed in: You Gotta See This
Tags: AFA, American Family Association, lesbian, LGBT, marriage

An American Family Association attorney says that DOMA is probably unconstitutional, "particularly" Section 2.

Also, didn't hear this Newt Gingrich quotation, in which he equates the Holder letter to Sarah Palin declaring a Supreme Court decision unconstitutional. Yeah, that would have totally been the same thing.


Recent Entries Filed under You Gotta See This:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


When the US Supreme Court declared that Congress' intent was that Title 42 Section 1981 only apply to Blacks SEEKING to contract (and not to Black who had contracted), Congress passed law holding that the Supreme Court's interpretation of Title 42 Section 1981 was IN ERROR. So, from this, does not one have to conclude that the ultimate decider of what is and what is not constitutional is Congress?

In other words, if the US Supreme Court does rule that DOMA is unconstitutional, Congress can then simply pass law stating that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution with respect to DOMA was in error (as Congress did with respect to the Supreme Court's position on Title 42 Section 1981).

I think that might be the case if the Supreme Court decision depended on legislative intent and not just constitutional law. If it's the latter, then they'd have to pass a constitutional amendment and get 3/4 of the states to agree too.