From insidenova.com:
BOSTON —
An appeals court ruled today that a law that denies a host of federal benefits to gay married couples is unconstitutional.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.
The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004.
The appeals court agreed with a lower court judge who ruled in 2010 that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.
During arguments before the court last month, a lawyer for gay married couples said the law amounts to “across-the-board disrespect.” The couples argued that the power to define and regulate marriage had been left to the states for more than 200 years before Congress passed DOMA.
An attorney defending the law argued that Congress had a rational basis for passing it in 1996, when opponents worried that states would be forced to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. The group said Congress wanted to preserve a traditional and uniform definition of marriage and has the power to define terms used to federal statutes to distribute federal benefits.
It has been interesting to watch this right move through the court system. Remember that sodomy has been decriminalized only about a decade. Many of us think of this as one of the last frontiers of rights to be guaranteed by the courts. Right now many states, including our own, have thrown the books at making anything gay, illegal. Regardless of how we feel personally about same sex marriage or civil union, it is coming, as sure as segregation and women’s rights came into their own in the 60’s. It isn’t a matter of if but when.
What will happen to the “Defense of Marriage” laws like we have in Virginia? They will simply neutralized by the higher court. right now, this case is on a fast track to the Supreme Court. How will it be handled there? Who knows. but cases like this will keep appeariong and reappearing until all Americans have the same rights.
Why the hell can’t they come up with another name besides ‘marriage’, and this whole controversy will go away. Why must they trash the traditional definition of marriage to get their whatever social agenda supported. Aren’t they creative (definitely not procreative) enough to figure this one out? So now all the forms will have to add another question after ‘marital status’, and that will be ‘hetero’ or ‘homo’ I guess. Certainly won’t have to worry about over population in the future if this trend keeps up. Another thing, how do you address a newly ‘wed’ couple? Now presenting Mr. Smith and Mr. Smith?????
SA, why do you call this a social agenda? Did you have a social agenda when you carried Mrs. Alamo across the theshold?
Would you support civil unions for everyone? There is just too much “they” in your statement for me. We are talking about 2 people wanting to legalize their commitment to each other. Why is that so bad?
I don’t see any reason to specify homo or hetero. Who cares?
Not sure who the “they” folks are that SA is talking about, but the underlying point is a good one. A lot of this controversy is essentially semantic. In addition, there is confusion between what the state does and what religious organizations do with respect to uniting couples. If we followed our best American instincts about separating religious and secular affairs, the churches would continue to manage religious rites, including or excluding whomever their doctrines required them to include and exclude. The state would dole out the licenses/rights/legal status related to coupledom as it saw fit, subject to legitimate exercise of police powers (protecting the underaged, rational limits on consanguinity etc.) and Constitutional protections related to equal protection of the laws.
Much of the confusion comes because it is commonplace in America for the state to license clergymen to dispense the civil permits during the religious wedding. One stop shopping and all that, I guess. My many friends in Europe routinely go to city hall to get married. Then, if they and their family are of a religious bent, they have a subsequent religious ceremony.
There is no way that the Government can force religious organizations to dispense the “marriage” status to people that religious principles deem ineligible. Conversely, the state, because it is dispensing a legal status that fixes in law certain rights and obligations, must dispense that status within constitutional limits. There is no reason I can see that these two legitimate interests cannot exist simultaneously without controversy. Maybe the easiest way out is to call every state-issued permit to coupledom a “civil union” without regard to the sexual orientation of the participants. That would address SA’s very good point that this is primarily a fuss about what you call things.
Just a question…
If two gay men or women can marry for legal benefits, will straight people be allowed to “marry?” So, to get the legal protections and advantages of marriage, anyone can “get married?” How about more than 2 people? If not, why not? If there is no definition of marriage, why can’t polygamy or polyandry come back?
Two straight men married in Canada in order to receive the “benefits” under Canadian law to the outcry of the gay community up there.
There it is…I have been waiting for the polygamist/bigamist question to come up. That has become part of this discussion for years. I am not sure why.
Polygamy is still amongst us. It just isn’t a legal contract with the state except for one spouse at a time. One at a time.
As for straight people marrying, who gives a rat’s ass. Do you mean 2 same sex straight people? It’s none of my business what they do. for all I know, that is what is happening now.
@Moon-howler
Yes…two same sex straight people. That’s what happened in Canada.
My point is that if there isn’t going to be any definitions of marriage or limitations, then why would any of the above be illegal? Why not allow 3 or more people to get married if they love each other? This question comes up because allowing same sex couples to marry brings the law into a new realm of strictly legal requirements. So, following the logic, it follows that ANYBODY, in ANY combination, should be allowed to get married.
@Cargo,
I would just limit it to 1 person at a time. To do otherwise stresses our legal system too far. Otherwise you might have hords of drunks marrying and wanting to undo it the next day. One at a time is where I draw my line.
I don’t care what the polys do as long as it is adults. It isn’t always. That is a problem.
Bringing “the law into the realm of strictly legal requirements”, as CS puts it, strikes me as a durn sight better than bringing the law into the realm of religious requirements. Under my proposal above, the religious entities do their thing according to their doctrine and the state dispenses legal status equally to any couple who otherwise qualifies. What the state does is not “marriage” in the same sense that my church regards the institution. The polygamy and Man-Who-Wants-Marry-His-4H-Project straw men are just that. The State can, under its police powers, rationally define its legal union status in ways that restrict the status to two humans. The restriction to a man and a woman runs into the kind of trouble that Ted Olsen and others have pointed out so clearly because the underlying rationale for the restriction is so easily shown to be completely arbitrary from a state interest standpoint.
“One at a time is where I draw my line” Society used to draw lines also, and one of them was that marriage was between one man and one woman. Unfortunately things have changed so drastically that not only is the gay “lifestyle” protected, but it is being promoted like sliced bread. Our poor ‘hormonally normal’ children must be so confused with all the adults basically telling them they can marry anything with two or possibly more legs, and attacking anyone who is against it.
I haven’t heard anyone promoting gay marriage. I have heard people advocating for the right for gays to marry. There is a huge difference.
SA, how does same sex marriage hurt you? I am not asking if you like it, but how does it in any way harm you? I understand it might be creepy to you.
Oh and I am not going to get hysterical if polygamy were legalized. I don’t care that much. I just think it presents an entire slate of problems that same sex marriage does not present. I don’t think our current legal system would be able to adjust that easily for a number of reasons.
I actually don’t see where same sex marriage and plural marriage have anything in common or could be easily compared.
“SA, how does same sex marriage hurt you?” To me it is a fundamental degradation of our society. Abnormalities can be accepted, but they also have to be identified as just that, and not be promoted as some ‘normal’ intended human characteristic. My fear is for my grandchildren who may be steered in a direction that they would not normally travel if it wasn’t for the almost celebrity status that society has bestowed upon the gay community. It’s one thing to not discriminate, but lets not promote through societal support either.
@SA, Thanks for an honest answer. I think when inequities have gone on for a long time, we sometimes have to over-promote to right things. I don’t worry that my grandkids will be gay because of any future legislation or court ruling. I figure if they are gay, they are going to be gay and that was determined long before any legal ruling.
Your grandchildren are probably far more acceptant of homosexuality and related things than you are but it is the times we live in. They are probably a lot more acceptant of a lot of other things also. Think back to when you and I were growing up….think back to how grossed out our grandparents were over some of the stunts we pulled.
I can remember my grandmother wanting to wrap a tablecloth around some woman who was showing too much leg etc while dancing. We all thought it was funny. My grandmother did not. I remember making out on her front porch and getting seen. Geez Louise, you would think I was ….well never mind. I was, in her words, “necking.” All I heard for the rest of the week was some poppycock about why chase the cow if you have already bought the milk. Not so sure I liked being compared to a cow and said so, Well damn, there was a replacement….why chase a street car if you have already caught it.
Point, I am sure they worried about the degradation of our society too. Remember our parents didn’t want Elvis on stage because of those giration.
Probably in 20 years or so no one will even notice that Mr. and Mr. Wilson are both males. (I think they would each keep their own names.)
I understand what you are saying Moon, but the one thing that is different is that what you were experiencing was normal sexual attraction as nature intended. I’m upset over the overwhelming ‘acceptance’ of actions that are not as nature intended. There’s a big difference in the outcome.
I don’t think we will be attracted to things we aren’t wired for. I don’t think I will see gay women and be lured over to “the other side” if I am not wired that way to start with.
Let’s talk more about overwhelming acceptance….Are we speaking of accepting people or practices?
I don’t care what others do as long as my 5 senses don’t come in to contact and that goes for what striaght people do also.
We can accept people knowing that perhaps they can’t help the way they are, and that won’t harm anyone. However, society has accepted the practice such that they flaunt it in TV shows as if it’s the way to ‘go’. I know that nature is the true orchestrator of our future. Without normal hetero relations out species is dead. Natural selection takes no prisoners!
SA, the only time it has ever really bothered me is a politically correct display at Jamestown about 25 years ago. It was for school aged kid and I felt it just was too much, considering the ages of the intended audiences. I also questioned its accuracy.
Are you sure that what you are calling flaunting isn’t really normalizing? Do you want gays to stay in the closet?
Nothing ‘normal’ about it. It’s not normalizing, it’s popularizing. I think the attraction is similar to what use to bring people to the circus to see things that they don’t normally see. The side show is another good example. Society tries its best to treat abnormalities of the human body from mental illness through to addictions. Why is it that this abnormality gets no attempt at treatment whatsoever, but instead is viewed as normal as if from some other world. I just pray that this seeming surge in the ‘gay lifestyle’ hasn’t been brought on through the application of chemicals in our food chain such as growth hormones for beef, and things of that nature.