Posted on 05/07/2010 11:58:49 AM PDT by NYer
A group of homosexual gay marriage advocates are arguing that state law should trump federal law. Wow! I didn't see this coming. Wait. I thought anybody who said they wanted to return power to the states was really just speaking top secret racist segregationist redneck code.
But seven gay couples and three widowers who married in Massachusetts are now saying that because the state has recognized their marriages the federal government should pony up with the federal benefits.
Of course, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) stands in the way of that so the couples filed a lawsuit calling DOMA discriminatory hoping to have the federal law removed .
The AP reports:
The couples include a Social Security Administration retiree who was denied health insurance for his spouse; three widowers who were denied death benefits for funeral expenses; and couples who have paid more in taxes because they are not allowed to file joint returns.The Justice Department lawyer tasked with fighting this in court has made it clear that the Obama administration actually sides with the gay couples but that the Justice Department is required to defend federal law.
Mary Bonauto, an attorney with Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, said the 1996 law, known as DOMA, got the federal government involved in regulating marriage, something it had left to the states for more than 200 years. She said the law denies gay couples access to more than 1,000 federal programs and legal protections in which marriage is a factor...
The lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording Social Security and other benefits to same-sex couples.
But the couples obviously believe that state law should trump federal law at least in this case. An interesting and at least a little ironic position for liberals, isn't it? But us conservative types are a welcoming sort. We'll make room for all those gay racist segregationist rednecks at the next Tea Party.
Ping!
lol
This is why everyone should be treated equally under the law regardless of marital status (taxes, SS etc). And why the state has no business with marriage. Marriage is a religious institution.
Stereotypes? Sure, but they explain why marriage in the mainstream should be protected, while "marriage" among the fringers is just another form of tax evasion and entitlement.
“This is why everyone should be treated equally under the law regardless of marital status (taxes, SS etc). And why the state has no business with marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. “
Amen to that, We shouldn’t promote or demote single/married life by the Government. To do so is (in the words of the ACLU “Forcing someone” to do something).
The ACLU whined about a government program a while back that would pay welfare mothers with multiple kids to get their tubes tied voluntarily. They claimed it was “forcing them” to get sterilized. What about government progranms “forcing” people to get married for tax benefits or to stay single for other benfits? The ACLU is silent on that.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Zackly!
Reynolds argues that the tradition within American and British jurisprudence (ie, the civil law), has always assumed federal regulation of marriage wrt to the question of polygamy. This is why they argue that the second marriage has never been recognised in any American jurisprudence.
If in fact the states can determine what constitutes marriage (as opposed to the paramaters of marriage), ie permitting men and men to marry vs permitting 16 year olds to marry, then there is nothing stopping Utah from permitting polygamy.
Reynolds argues that the state has a legitimate power to regulate the constitution of marriage (ie, one man and one woman). All the precedents bear this out. This has to do with the citizenship rules too. If America has granted citizenship to those who marry American citizens, then this control cannot be given to the states.
Separating secretaries from everyone else is an abhorrent practice!
The problem is that it’s always been interpreted as an enumerated power of the federal government to regulate marriage in this fashion.
The question is where. It’s never been interpreted as a state’s right, and Reynolds reaffirms this argument.
I don’t see ‘judicial activism’ as a part of Reynolds, as it seems it was consistantly interpreted and enforced this way by the federal government. Now, the question as to whether it’s an enumerated power or not is a good one. I’d like to ask Justice Thomas more about this question, because I’m not a lawyer.
There is no enumerated constitutional power to regulate sodomy either, but the stupid SCOTUS forced every state to decriminalize with Lawrence vs TX.
The fedgov is so far beyond what it is constitutionally allowed that it needs a redo. Restart, something. It’s already about 90% too much.
Actually, heterosexual marriage laws exist to ensure population. It still takes a man and a woman to reproduce.
Agreed. They needs to add usurpation of constitutional powers to the definition of treason.
Enumerated means that it’s defined clearly in the constitution. You don’t need to be a lawyer to see if there is or is not an enumerated power.
Is there any precedent for states permitting polygamy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.