Posted on 10/31/2011 4:44:42 AM PDT by markomalley
Efforts to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act are in full swing, as a major lawsuit advances, another lawsuit is filed, and a Senate panel meets soon to consider legislation to overturn the law.
“We are working hard to strike the blow that will end DOMA,” said Mary Bonuato, civil rights project director at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and lead attorney in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management.
Gill is one of several lawsuits filed by gay spouses who say their lives have been injured by DOMA, which defines marriage, for federal purposes, as the union of a man and a woman. DOMA also tells states they do not have to recognize out-of-state gay unions.
GLAD attorneys are asking the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the July 2010 ruling of U.S. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro that said DOMA is unconstitutional. The GLAD brief, filed Oct. 27, maintains that the only purpose of DOMA is “impermissible animus” against gays, and that there are no rational justifications for keeping the law on the books.
Only states can decide marriage laws, not Congress, GLAD attorneys said in their brief. Moreover, Congress‘ arguments that it should favor heterosexual marriage and procreation do not hold up, especially in light of the real discrimination afforded to same-sex couples, the lawyers said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
If anyone has injured their own lives it’s the gays. They are entirely responsible.
Cant get it passed by votes, so get one state to do it, and then force the rest to accept it!
Notice from the above :” .. that there are no rational justifications for keeping the law on the books. “. This has become the primary constitutional doctrine that liberals challenge federal laws on. Also, when the constitution was written there was no medicare or social security benefits so there was no need to define marriage at a federal level. Social Security and Medicare were partially sold on the idea of supporting traditional marriage.
The Federal government should not be telling states who they can marry. But the liberal states have NO business (re-)defining marriage for the Federal government and entire country, which is the purpose of over-turning DOMA.
Civilization is under attack by these perverts. In the military, in the schools, in marriage. Time to stand up against them
Once again, when pushed, they admit that 'acceptance' of what is unacceptable is, in their eyes, simply a function of venue and judge shopping.
Also, once again, the liberal view of the law and legal decisions operates as follows:
1) When a decision even PARTIALLY favors a liberal cause, liberals and the media (possibly redundant) trumpet it as a landmark decision that must be implemented without objection and as quickly as possible. They also demand societal acceptance of same.
2) When a decision goes against them, they declare the judge 'out of the mainstream,' file appeals and challenges ad infinitum, and refuse to concede a loss. Legislators attempting to implement the will of the people are targeted for destruction.
It was a much better world when these people got the medical help they needed instead of turning the rest of the world upside down to accomodate their unnatural obsessions.
There are many military benefits that are associated with marriage (or legal “dependents”) in the military, too. That is why they wanted to repeal DADT. Now they’re pushing to get these financial benefits applied to servicemembers who are in same-sex “marriages”.
Taken together, these two statements mean that ONE liberal state can approve same-sex marriage but force the other 49 states to accept their definition, whether those other states want to or not.
Their #1 goal is to legitimize homosexuality in the voters/public's view, so far very successful. Repealing DADT has already giving Obama the opportunity to accuse Republicans of standing by and listening to (gay) soldiers being attacked, referencing the audience reaction in a Republican debate by Obama.
They been using a similar argument to get the Dream Act passed to reward illegals for document fraud to get in the military.
Problem is, too many on the Republican side have surrendered, look at the Romney supporters in the party.
The state’s definition of marriage is simply whatever most folks think it is, even if pols and judges don’t cut out the middle men first.
Supposedly 40% of people think marriage comes from man and the state, so they will accept whatever the state says it can be.
Freegards
Agreed.
I can see it coming down the pike where one might hear of some GLAD saying something to the effect....”it is unconstitutional to deny a man his natural rights to have a baby”.
Men have challenged child support laws based on the fact that the woman is given the sole legal right (by Roe vs Wade) to decide if her baby is born and there-for should not be entitled to the windfall profits for giving birth. The courts don't care. It is considered in the best interest of the born baby to have the mother get the father's paycheck. The baby has no legal claim to the money, unlike Social Security for example which must be spent on the child.
Also where is the man's right to privacy regarding forced paternity tests?
I made the statement sort of “tongue in cheek”, probably should have added end of sarc. Men cannot get pregnant. But your responses are obviously ok in the framework of the issue.
The logic goes : ‘If a man engages in sex he must face the consequences, but if a woman does she is a victim/hero’ . Then you got men who are proved not even being the father having to pay the mom child support in the child's interest.
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.