Posted on 05/14/2004 11:42:50 AM PDT by NYer
MIAMI -- Two sign-language interpreters, the entertainer ``Fluffy,'' two women with medical backgrounds and a gay couple together for 12 years gathered on the courthouse steps Wednesday to be the first to challenge an 8-year-old federal law banning gay marriage.
Tired of waiting for approval from the government or gay rights groups, the four gay and lesbian couples filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which became model legislation for 38 states.
The law defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and allows states to refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states.
``Any idea whose time has come cannot be stopped,'' said Ellis Rubin, the couples' attorney. ``There's a conflict between the Constitution and the Congress, and we're going to ask a federal judge to resolve it.''
The lawsuit adds a new strategy to the legal campaign against bans on same-sex marriage. For the last decade, gay advocacy groups have been pursuing a state-by-state strategy to win marriage for same-sex couples in state courts only, intentionally avoiding a direct challenge to the federal law.
When the planned lawsuit was announced Monday, the gay rights group Lambda Legal expressed misgivings about both its timing and location.
``It's hard to find an up side to any of the timing of it,'' said Greg Nevins, a Lambda Legal senior staff attorney.
``It's actually very late for this (lawsuit) to be coming forth,'' said Erika Van der Dijs, one of the women suing. ``What I think it important is that as U.S. citizens, we're not asking anyone for our rights. We're demanding them.''
A federal appeals court in January upheld a ban on gay adoptions in Florida, the only law of its kind in the nation. No one is confident that the U.S. Supreme Court is either ready to step into the politically charged issue or prepared to legalize gay marriage.
Rena Lindevaldsen of Liberty Counsel, which opposes gay marriage, said she was confident the federal law will be upheld as constitutional. She also doubts the Miami couples will meet the threshold requirement of legal standing because they are not married and don't risk the loss of rights in other states.
Jason Hay-Southwell, who legally changed his name four years ago as a public expression of his love for his partner, said, ``It is for us, but it's also for many of our friends.'' He sees the fight for gay marriage as a battle and considers his lawsuit a new front.
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
Lol! "It's all about me!"
Man, Karl Rove is damn good..)LOL).He couldn't ave planned this any better..if he wanted to do so..
"What I think it important is that as U.S. citizens, we're not asking anyone for our rights. We're demanding them."The irony is, they have no idea of the backlash their 'demands' are stirring up.
You go, girl!
What Federal government marriage laws? I thought states determined their own marriage laws.
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues" |
Homosexual Agenda Ping - A Wake-Up Call For Those Who Think "Gay" Marriage Has Nothing To Do With Anyone Else Except the Two Homosexuals Involved.
Someone recently pointed out that calling this cr*p "gay" marriage or even homosexual marriage is propaganda. Homosexuals aka "gays" can get married any time they like already. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex, just as all of us do. It should be called "same sex marriage". JMHO.
Definitely time to fight, fight hard, and not give up or give in. The future depends on this.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
How about "Sodomite wedding" or "Lesbian marriage?" Just kidding, sorta.
And who said there was no need for a Constitutional Amendment to fix this problem?
There are a lot of accurate phrases I could come up with, which some people would take offense at. Since I want fence-sitters to be able to read these threads without freaking out, I keep said phrases to myself.
But go ahead! Be creative and accurate!
Thanks for your words of encouragement. I did indeed choose "little jeremiah" after the prophet of old; his message was often not received well, and he endured punishment of various kinds for his warnings.
I am only a little teeny tiny jeremiah, following (far behind) in his footsteps.
Hiding our heads in the sand (collectively speaking) is what empowered the moral relativists, homo-promoters, leftist etcs to get where they are now. Knowledge and truth are the sword and shield we need.
Geez, you two. Get a room.
: ))
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Thanks - and FR is a great place to find people of like mind, and spar with those who differ. And then there's the fun of troll-zotting!
Seriously, though, I want to see people who believe in the existence of God and are sincerely trying to follow His instructions see each other as brothers, even if their particular sects of Christianity differ, and even if they are not Christian. The moral absolutes in every monotheist religion are essentially the same, and even those which are not strictly speaking monotheist, such as Buddhism, Sikhism, and Taoism. They all condemn illicit sex, especially same sex acts, and all the basic sins. Although I disagree with the basic premise of Buddhism (for instance) - that no one really exists and there is no God (! what a basis for a philosophy!) at least the teachings of Buddhism have strong ethical dos and donts, and I'd rather live in a Buddhist country than a Muslim one, for instance.
[I know the Koran also advocates the same essential moral absolutes, but I am so ****** at Islam right now I don't want to include it in my list.]
Since moral relativists want to dismantle ALL traditional morality, which is founded on religion, moral relativists (and their subsets, such as Darwinists, communists, socialists, hedonists, atheists, secularists, homosexualists, and so on) are the real opposition. Not people of different religions.
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.