Skip to comments.House Democrats ask court to overturn DOMA
Posted on 07/11/2012 7:09:28 AM PDT by scottjewell
House Democrats asked a federal appeals court Tuesday to overturn the 1996 law that denies federal benefits to same-sex spouses, saying it is discriminatory and serves no legitimate purpose.
"A driving force behind this law was the desire to disapprove of ... gay and lesbian couples," Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and 131 fellow Democrats said in a brief filed with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
The law, titled the Defense of Marriage Act, was declared unconstitutional . . . by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of San Francisco . . .
. . . The Democrats' filing Tuesday came in response to an appeal of White's ruling by House Republican leaders, who hired lawyers to defend DOMA after President Obama withdrew his administration's support of the law.
In a filing ... the Republican lawyers told the Ninth Circuit that withholding federal benefits from same-sex couples was a rational way to save federal dollars, encourage responsible child-rearing and leave the volatile marriage issue to the states.
That filing "does not speak for a unanimous House," the Democrats declared in Tuesday's brief. DOMA reflected an "unfortunate desire to create partisan wedge issues for political gain," they argued, while acknowledging that many Democrats had voted for the law.
Signers of the brief included Bay Area Reps. Anna Eshoo, Michael Honda, Barbara Lee, Zoe Lofgren...
The appeals court has also heard from 10 Republican senators. . . in support of DOMA. In a filing last month, they argued that Congress had validly adopted a uniform federal policy on the subject and that the motives of individual lawmakers, or of Congress as a whole, were legally irrelevant.
"The fact that many legislators hold traditional views on the subject of homosexuality cannot possibly invalidate DOMA," the Republicans said.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The Reps should offer a vote to repeal DOMA before November.
If one realizes that “sexual orientation” does not constitute a separate class of citizens in need of protection, then it follow logically that DOMA is not unconstitutional.
The Democrat can’t get any lower now they go after the 1% for votes.
But liberal judges do believe that “sexual orientation” is a protected class of citizens.
Civil rights laws do NOT give protected class rights to homosexuals/bi-sexual/trans-whatever, but liberal judges have issued rulings as if they DO have these rights under the law.
It all comes back to liberal judges. Liberal judges in the worst cases make up the law as they go along.
Not everyone is motivated by the same issues. Your suggestion would give a huge edge to Obama.
There is also a major error in assuming that what have been called "social issues," or what have been called "economic issues," may be clearly separated. The deliberate policies of the Left, that have undermined cultural continuity & community cohesion in America, have contributed greatly to the economic malaise. When you break down the sense of community--of people with kindred values, common history, common identity;--you increase the difficulty in adjusting to changing economic factors, and destroy much of the incentive to work together to a common purpose in the future.
“A driving force behind this law was the desire to disapprove of ... gay and lesbian couples,” Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and 131 fellow Democrats said in a brief filed with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals”
Actually not true. The law is an effort to prevent perversions to become the norm in American society.
Lets review the bidding as objectively as possible.
Marriage in the West has, for over a thousand years, been defined as a relationship between one man and one woman. Because of issues of property and inheritance, Countries and their political subdivisions got involved to formalize the concept of marriage into their laws (e.g., taxes, inheritance, hospital visits, ...)
Some homosexuals decided that they wanted some of those benefits for their partners, and lobbied legislatures to give them marriage too -— no dice.
So they lobbied to legalize “civil unions” which have most of the benefits of marriage for same sex couples. Many States passed such laws.
But ... some homosexuals decided that civil unions weren’t enough, and they wouldn’t get no respect until they could have a relationship called “marriage”. So ... homosexual activists attempted to persuade Legislators and Governors to pass laws allowing homosexual “marriage”. Some did.
The Constitution requires each State to recognize legal rulings of other States. The majority of voters in other States didn’t want to recognize such marriages in their States. California even passed an Initiative saying so. So Congress passed DOMA to protect the States that don’t want it.
So ... the complaint by homosexuals in the lawsuit is valid. “The driving force behind this law is the desire to disapprove of ... gay and lesbian couples.” Absolutely true. If the majority of the US population approved of homosexual marriage, they would pressure legislatures to pass laws to legalize it. But it just ain’t the case.
So, unable to persuade the electorate, the homosexuals (and their liberal supporters) whine and demand that judges ignore the will of the people and declare that they have a civil right to change the definition of marriage so they will “get respect”.
That’s it! Respect! The homosexuals demand respect even if judges have to order police to rip it out of non-homosexuals at the point of a gun. Unfortunately for them, there is no civil right to “respect”.
The secondary argument is that it costs non-homosexuals nothing to allow homosexual marriage. Tell that to the Colorado Bakery that politely declined to provide cupcakes to a homosexual organization, and became the subject of a lawsuit for discrimination with nation wide visibility.
The problem with this whole conflict is ... it violates the principle of laws having the “consent of the governed”. Bad things happen when this principle is violated ... very very bad things. Consider the list of laws that failed the “consent of the governed” test, and their consequences:
*** alcohol prohibition - caused the growth of organized crime, the growth of federal law enforcement
*** school bussing — caused the implosion of the inner cities when the whites moved to the suburbs
*** Roe vs. Wade abortion ruling — caused the politization of the Supreme Court
*** Affirmative Action — Well ... you know.
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.