Skip to comments.Boston appeals court finds federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional
Posted on 05/31/2012 7:21:25 AM PDT by Perdogg
An appeals court has ruled that a law that denies a host of federal benefits to same-sex married couples is unconstitutional
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
This campaign season would be an EXCELLENT time to begin the process of introducing a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage. Everybody on record, let’s go.
Well, of course a liberal judge has found the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional. Of course a liberal judge rules that we cannot define marriage as a man and a woman. We have to be liberal. Homosexuals are an officially aggrieved liberal special interest group. Somewhere along the way, it became cool to be gay.
We have to bend over backwards to prove how liberal we are.
The fact is, that current marriage law does not discriminate against anyone, because all men and all women are treated the same under current marriage law. But that doesn’t matter to the liberal judges.
I’m waiting for the polygamy and group marriage lawsuits. If we can’t define the sex of the partners in a marriage, then it must also be discriminatory to limit marriage to only two people.
At this point, too many judges are just attorneys with political connections and their decisions on issues of this nature should be regarded in that light.
They don’t interpret law, they attempt to make it.
I hope all the liberals in Mass, etc. are going to enjoy their totalitarian leftist governments when all the producers in their respective states have seen the light and moved on. It is an interesting thing to see how vultures react when there is no other prey.
By this logic, how can you deny any federal benefit to anyone?
Is it any less disriminatory to deny presidential level medical care or subsidized senatorial level perks to the homeless or working poor, or to any citizen or resident for that matter?
Exactly! These judges are legislating from the bench!
Under traditional marriage law, all men and all women are treated exactly the same under those laws. There is no violation of equal protection of the laws, by defining marriage as 1 man and 1 woman. Yet liberal judges have twisted things, because homosexuals want to marry a same sex partner.
What nobody is saying, however, is that the number 2 is also discriminatory, if it’s discriminatory to say that marriage is limited to opposite sex couples.
I have never been able to justify the DOMA, Constitutionally... should have handled with Constitutional Amendment a long time ago before the homosexual agenda was shoved down our throats so far. Now am amendment would be highly unlikely.... IMO
The will of the people has become the will of the bench.
Do you seriously believe there is any point to trying to pass an amendment when winning a simple majority election is seriously in doubt?
For some highly obscure reason, when people can't win an ordinary election they seem to think the cure is an amendment, which is at least an order of magnitude more difficult.
For instance, there are 99 houses of state legislatures. 13 of them not voting to ratify the amendment would prevent it from passing.
Does anyone seriously contend there aren't 13 states where at least one house would not vote to ratify?
The reason DOMA passed in 1996 was because there was not enough support for a constitutional amendment. There is surely less support now, sixteen years later.
Unless and until the broad social consensus that “sexual orientation” is a real, fixed entity, like “blue eyes-brown eyes”, as the propagandists like to say, is changed homosexual “marriages” are going to be mandated within a few years.
“We have to bend over backwards to prove how liberal we are.”
They’re bending over, all right. But they’re not bending over backwards.
Well he was nominated by Nixon and looking at his record he has been quite conservative on many issues before. So it’s a little confusing why he’d go this route.
There is much more support nationally now that people have seen what the courts have done to state initiatives across the country. I know the numbers, this has been a part of my life since 2000.
:: What nobody is saying, however, is that the number 2 is also discriminatory ::
Now that “equal protection” is the sole measure of discrimmination...
It is also “discrimminatory” to deny a brother from marrying his sister, as long as they are happy.
It is “discrimminatory” to deny a 50 year-old man to marry a 12 year-old girl as long as they are happy.
It is “discrimminatory” to deny an adult woman’s wish to marry her horse as long as they are happy.
Because of RINOs like McCain. McCain gave some lame excuse for not supporting a constitutional amendment because he thought DOMA was adequate when any idiot could of forseen Federal courts striking it down and the case going to the SCOTUS with Kennedy will be providing the fifth vote to strike it down.
I believe that's true, but you need 290 Representatives and 67 Senators to send an amendment to the states, and that level of support is inconceivable to me for the foreseeable future.
Apparently you missed the kenyan tanking in the polls right after he did his gay tap dance on TV. This continued homo fixation by the dims is going to push a lot of married women to the GOP. That could be key in places like OH.
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.