Attention Legal Eagles: Your Input Requested

[Julie Marie]

An article I was reading yesterday prompted a series of thoughts that brought me to a question.  Is it illegal for the Federal Government to discriminate against its citizens?

Case in point: DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, which states marriage can only be between a man and a woman.  Same sex couples unions will not be recognized as marriage and therefore will not be eligible for hundreds of benefits opposite sex couples enjoy.  That seems like discrimination to me.

Second question: Is the Declaration of Independence a document that sets forth certain rights for today's American citizens?  In other words, do the words written there still apply in today's world?  If so:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

There are other unalienable rights that aren't specifically spelled out but I'm going to focus on the pursuit of happiness.  Is it legal for our government to enact laws that prevent us from achieving happiness therefore making the pursuit of happiness futile.  In other words, "you have the right to pursue happiness but we can do whatever we want to prevent you from achieving happiness."

It makes that part of the Declaration meaningless.  If other citizens stand in your way, that's fine, but if your own government is the culprit, something seems terribly wrong.

Any input form our legal eagles would be greatly appreciated.

Julie

[Janet_Girl]

I am not a legal eagle, but I have a few thoughts' 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

That one set of words is what gives the Feds the right to discriminate against the GLBT community.  It is all about religion.  We are all sinners because of our lifestyles.  Lifestyle?  I did not choose to be this way, I just as a woman trying to get by.

Even within their own ranks they pass laws to block certain "sins".  Take polygamy.  It is against the law, but certain sects of the Mormons still parctice it.

JMHO
Janet

[Flan]

I was thinking more along the lines of the "Equal Protection Clause" under the 14th amendment, as the law in question (DOMA) specifically denies right and/or privileges otherwise enjoyed by citizens.

[Constance]

People have told me that the right to pursue happiness is guaranteed. Achieving it is not. So, it makes the "right to pursue" a bit of a platitude, to me.

[Michelle.]

Flan beat me to the response that I was going to make.

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,

unalianable: in the context that Jefferson was writing means, that these rights are God given, not man given. Since they are given by God, they can't be taken away by mannkind.

The Dec. of Ind. is the Foundation document for the Constitution.
Also keep in mind that Jefferson went on the list the wrongs perputated by King George.
It might be a good idea to start listings the wrongs done to the GLBT community by mainstream America.

Keep in mind Clinton never won a majority of the vote for POTUS. He had both Democratic and GOP support for the DOMA and Don't Ask Dont Tell.

Obama won the recent election with about 53% of the vote. Party ID at election time was about 45% Democratic. Yet the "no" votes on gay marriage issues run between 52% to over 60%. It's not all GOP votes bringing about those results, some columns with in the more liberal strain of American politics are casting no votes as well.

[Julie Marie]

The direction I am going with this is can our federal government discriminate against its citizens?

Can it say we have the right to the pursuit of happiness but block any efforts we make in that pursuit?

Can it selectively say "we don't agree with what you feel you need to be happy, even though it harms no one, so we will enact laws that will prevent you from achieving the happiness you pursue"?

Julie

[Dennis]

No idea about American law, but in Canada, our Constitution expressly prohibits discrimination and it has been held that denying the right to marry to same sex couples is discrimination. We've had same sex marriage here for years now (and there doesn't seem to have been a negative impact on heterosexual couples )

Dennis

[Janet_Girl]

The direction I am going with this is can our federal government discriminate against its citizens?

Can it say we have the right to the pursuit of happiness but block any efforts we make in that pursuit?

Can it selectively say "we don't agree with what you feel you need to be happy, even though it harms no one, so we will enact laws that will prevent you from achieving the happiness you pursue"?

Julie

As much as I hate to say it.  Three little words.  The Patriot Act.  Thet can use that stupid law to do anything that they want.  Should they?  Hell, No.

Janet

[Sandy]

I'll go Janet two better.  One little word: yes.

The "Government" can, will, and does, openly, actively and with malice aforethought discriminate against it's citizens.

It used to be legal for one human being to OWN other human beings.  And if they mistreated said owned property, they weren't even fined though if they mistreated their horse they could be jailed.

That was the government "of the people, by the people, for the people".

Interracial marriages used to be forbidden my law in most states.  The reasons cited were public decency and child safety.  And the bible was quoted often stating that it was against God's law and not the natural way.

Same sex marriages are now the most popular adrenaline pumping public item.  Thanks to DOMA, overcoming this hurdle will be extremely difficult.  And having equal rights mean equal rights will be a mountain to climb instead of a hill.

And the Obama administration despite his repeated campaign statements of being a "fierce advocate" of LGBT issues has been "fiercely silent".  Statements out of the administration say words to the effect that the prez can only do so much at one time.  This despite the fact that he was quoted as being one of the first presidents to be able to "multi-task".  My heart aches for fear of broken promises made by a man I so deeply admire.

Yes, Julie, there is discrimination.  And knowing your ninja like logical skills, I ask why you are surprised that discrimination exists?

Pursuit of happiness will always be consensual.  Not consensual between two lovers, but between a person and everyone else in society.  Or at least most everyone in society.  And until most everyone in society agree, the "government" WILL enact laws that will restrict OUR pursuit of happiness.

But perhaps in time it may not always be so.

-Sandy