Skip to comments.Defense of Marriage Act heads to US Supreme Court
Posted on 06/01/2012 2:31:47 AM PDT by markomalley
A battle over a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman appears headed for the Supreme Court after an appeals court ruled Thursday that denying benefits to married gay couples is unconstitutional.
In a unanimous decision, the three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the 1996 law deprives gay couples of the rights and privileges granted to heterosexual couples.
The court didn't rule on the law's more politically combustible provision that states without same-sex marriage cannot be forced to recognize gay unions performed in states where it's legal. It also wasn't asked to address whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry.
The law was passed at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved the practice, led by Massachusetts in 2004.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
25. From the beginning of the world, indeed, it was divinely ordained that things instituted by God and by nature should be proved by us to be the more profitable and salutary the more they remain unchanged in their full integrity. For God, the Maker of all things, well knowing what was good for the institution and preservation of each of His creatures, so ordered them by His will and mind that each might adequately attain the end for which it was made. If the rashness or the wickedness of human agency venture to change or disturb that order of things which has been constituted with fullest foresight, then the designs of infinite wisdom and usefulness begin either to be hurtful or cease to be profitable, partly because through the change undergone they have lost their power of benefiting, and partly because God chooses to inflict punishment on the pride and audacity of man. Now, those who deny that marriage is holy, and who relegate it, stripped of all holiness, among the class of common secular things, uproot thereby the foundations of nature, not only resisting the designs of Providence, but, so far as they can, destroying the order that God has ordained. No one, therefore, should wonder if from such insane and impious attempts there spring up a crop of evils pernicious in the highest degree both to the salvation of souls and to the safety of the commonwealth.
I would agree. There’s a full plate as it is right now.
The curious thing here...you can’t identify anything in the Constitution where Congress can manage or control marriage...except for possible the commerce clause (that’s the one that health care fell under). I suspect that they will say that the national government can’t regulate, award, or control marriage...with the current Constitution. So it may invite lots of lawsuits over how taxes are done, or how benefits are done via social security.
However, they may point out that several states have Constitutions which discuss this, and they are within their limits of making various laws to manage marriage. So a state-by-state effort will come out of this.
I think the primary argument would come from Article 4 Section 1:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
But then you have medical licenses and bar admissions...neither of which is recognized across state lins. And the state licenses marriages...they are not strictly a private contract between two (or more) people.
The founders were some pretty sharp people, but who could have foreseen—after thousands of years of tradition—that an attack against the sanctity of marriage would ever come from a portion of the populace rumored to be no more than 2%,and that 98% of the remainder would be forced to accept a mental aberration as normal.
This isn’t about whacko’s who are in love with each other this is about scamming for monetary gains that are denied to people who engage in perversion.
Why do we have laws forbidding more than one wife when we are accepting homoexual perversion. Certainly more than one wife is more normal, than what this is proposing.
And Mitt Romney was governor at that time.
Or why do we have laws against incest? That is two consenting adults.
Civil and criminal laws were based on the Ten Commandments (common sense and natural law). Once the Government based tax laws on marital status, dependents etc., the ‘gay marriage’ demands were inevitable.
Tax law should be based on individual income.
So now the government uses taxpayers’ forced tribute - subsidizing Planned Parenthood to kill babies and GLBT organizations to marry men to men and women to women.
America - what a Country!!!!!!!!!!
Like Air Water & Food The heterosexual act and only the heterosexual act is an absolute requirement for the survival of the human race ...
Therefore is it not logical and in fact necessary that governments must acknowledge this as a unique requirement in human relation?
Given that the heterosexual act is a unique requirement for humans reproductive survival... Heterosexual "Marriage" is certainly the first and oldest human institution ...
It is, as much as Air Water & Food, a natural law for human survival and predates all human law
I dig the quote. The problem with the state’s involvement, at least in the modern era, is that the definition it uses for its recognition of marriage is simply whatever judges, pols, or the majority thinks it can be at anyone time. It was always a danger that it would go off the rails. After all, as far as the state is concerned, the institution is simply a collection of benefits and strictures that can be broken and resumed between anyone the state allows. And that’s it.
in related news, the attack on children by the fetisists condinues. DCcomics just announced the “revised” character is alan scott, the golden age era green lantern. HOWEVER, it is the one on the alternative universe earth 2. (IOW the disposable universe)
This entire doma debate is solidly foundationed on the myth of born that way to a fetish. Unfortunatly the lawyers who make up the judiciary are too stupid to know science. (or like in california may be homosexuals themselves)
Hawaii actually voted against gay marriage by agreeing that marriage is only between man and woman. Is there any state where the issue was brought to voter and the pro gay marriage won? IIRC those where gay marriage is legal were decided by the state courts.
Arizona failed to pass one in 2006, then passed one in 2008. Hawaii was actually one of the first, passing one in ‘98 by 69%. No way does it pass by that much now. The Hawaii amendment is actually pretty weird in that it gives the state legislature the power to reject gay-marriage if it wants; it has done so.
the race to the bottom continues.
given that the venue is Massachusetts, I find this particular choice of words entertaining.
Plus, he calls it "insanity", which bolsters my "mass insanity" theory. But whoa, what's this?! Another curious coincidence of words!