A federal appeals court in Boston just ruled the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, because it discriminates against gay Americans.
In their decision, First Circuit Court judges explained that DOMA hits gay people with "serious adverse consequences," and the law's rationale - "defending and nurturing the institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage" - isn't adequate justification. DOMA was passed in 1996 to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and to prevent the federal government from recognizing gay marriages in the various states where it's legal.
Today's ruling won't be applied until the Supreme Court weighs in - but if DOMA does get ditched, it means gay marriages can gain federal recognition and receive benefits like Social Security survivors' entitlements.
If the government is going to impose on the religous institution of marriage, then gay marriages should be clearly identified and seperated from any religous ceromony. Gov. should not try and force a church to perform the ceremony either.
Good riddance, it was a red herring. Back to the states. Watch this over the next few years. Gay marriage will become normalized and the thing to watch is how it will affect the First Amendment. We already know the Democrats don't value the freedom of worship part of it. My prediction is we will see lawsuits against churches that refuse to perform gay marriages. Mormons and Catholics will be the main target. Absent from the equation will be mosques just as Islam is excused from women's rights issues. Women in western nations are being killed over honor. Homosexuals are executed in Iran. Where is our bearing? Why am I the bad guy, evil hater, homophobe because I think churches should be able to perform or not perform their rites for whomever they choose? Don't believe me? Why is the debate now about "gay marriage" instead of "civil unions"?
Religious freedoms are being affected in Canada and Sweden, two countries that have legalized same-sex marriage. Pastors and priests are being fined and/or put in jail for quoting from the Bible, the Catholic Catechism, and papal encyclicals. We are next.
Why can't they just give them the civil unions and leave it at that! Then they can reap the benefits after their partner dies! That's what all this comes down to doesn't it? Do not intrude on the sanctity of marriage. This is a religious institution and they want a government institution so give them that.
Marriage isn't a religious institution. People were getting married before the Bible was even written, and your imaginary friend Jesus Christ thought of in the minds of the fiction writer's who made him.
You probably think Jesus is the Son of Christ, too, wherein you completely ignore the historical FACTS of the world and believe whole-heartedly something Constantine of Rome and the Roman Senate made true, huh?
Marriage was never a religious institution, until some priest discovered he could charge you money to do the job, and get paid extra on top of his already grotesque, devoid of fact, logic, and morals lifestyle.
I'm sorry, but I must disagree with you on a few points. Jesus is the Son of God and my savior. I'm sorry you will spend eternity rotting in a terrible place. I hope for your sake you find God and become at peace with yourself. Secondly, marriage, especially in America, is a religious institution. It was based in a church and to be held in front of God for his blessing on the marriage. The vows come directly from the bible. And lastly, if it doesn't make a difference if it is religious or not why do they want to intrude on marriage, why can't they have their civil unions? Just adjust them so they can reap the benefits of their partner without invading morals and values.
Are you only married to your spouse because of the benefits you receive when he dies? I'm assuming you married because you love your partner and want to spend the rest of your life with them. I'm pretty sure that's what the gay community wants. Not death benefits.
Also by your logic heterosexual atheists aren't allowed to get married either.
I am with my spouse because we love each other and worship in the Lord together and we are doing what is right by us and Him. I believe they should have civil unions, and the reason I brought up the benefits is because it seems that is what they are mostly concerned with. If they weren't why wouldn't civil unions be enough? They are getting to spend the rest of their lives together in union. Isn't that what they want anyway?
About time. If you can't discriminate against blacks, hispanics, women, old, young, natives, Indians, or any other minority, why should discrimination against gays be allowed? No more double standards.
They may be two different subjects, but they're subjects that can both be based upon the same principle (as they have been in the past): discrimination. So no, being black isn't the same subject as being gay. But discriminating against blacks is the same principle as discriminating against gays.
As usual, the court ignores the actual constitutional issue, which is that the Constitution does not empower the federal Congress to make laws regulating marriage. Whether you are for or against same-sex marriage, this is a very clear-cut example of a power that is reserved to the states.
Normalizing step parenting is not in the best interest of children. By promoting same sex marriage we changing it from being an institution to protect the support and security of children to ....I don't what?
Very much like Loving v. Virginia. Today a slight majority of Americans approves of same-gender marriage, and as a more enlightened and literate generation comes of age the approval rates will continue to increase. Twenty years from now people will wonder how this was even an issue, just like anti-miscegenation.