Skip to comments.Conn. judge: US gay marriage law unconstitutional (Bush appointee)
Posted on 07/31/2012 4:15:23 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
HARTFORD, Conn.Part of a federal law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman and denies tax, health and other benefits to married gay couples is unconstitutional, a judge in Connecticut ruled Tuesday.
U.S. District Judge Vanessa L. Bryant in Hartford issued a 104-page decision saying the provision in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act violates the Fifth Amendment right to equal protection.
The provision "obligates the federal government to single out a certain category of marriages as excluded from federal recognition, thereby resulting in an inconsistent distribution of federal marital benefits," Bryant wrote.
Bryant also noted that "many courts have concluded that homosexuals have suffered a long and significant history of purposeful discrimination."
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution which supports the Laws of Nature.
Nothing as unnatural as homosexual sodomy acts-—can be redefined as a “Right” and “good”.
Reason and Logic has to be used in Just Law and homosexuality not only ejects Reason and Logic and biology—and redefines words to make them meaningless—it is the promotion of EVIL as GOOD. Sodomy is always a Vice and can not be promoted by Laws which by very definition in the Constitution, have to be JUST LAW.
Of course, these Marxist judges don’t believe in the Supreme Law of the Land and its Standard-—which is based on GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS-—not Satanic Rights from Barney Frank.
These “judges” should be impeached because they do not uphold their oath of office.
This is one twisted woman. The very law has segregated homosexual marriage as not conforming. The choice has been made. That, however, does not matter. If I prove my point, she will go to some other form of semantics to try to justify legalizing homosexual marriage, a concept that in itself is inherently flawed. She is a sad sac!
How in the world were the fud puckers able to redefine marriage? What next, a tomato is a vegetable???
Positivism dominates out legal profession. This puts us through the looking glass, where potentates can says that words mean precisely what they say it means. But of course even insanity is logical. All one has top do is believe that there is no human love that is not sexual in nature, the gay marriage follows. And incest and beastiality, and self-mutilation..
Doesn't anyone else see the tautology here? The federal government can't discriminate against a "certain category of marriage" without violating the Fifth Amendment. However, the whole issue here is whether a homo "union" IS A MARRIAGE!!! This judge has made the completely fallacious assumption that it is, and therefore any difference in how it is recognized constitutes an unconstitutional discriminatory act. But the assumption is UNPROVEN ON ITS FACE!!!
A first-year logic student could punch holes in this ruling.
What an absurd ruling. But if they say it violates to equal protection under the law, single people are being discriminated in the tax code as well. They have different tax rates than married people do.
The left have been changing this nation not through elections or convincing the citizens but by the courts.
It is time to correct some judicial activism.
It is time for some constitutional amendments.
One would be to define marriage as between one man and one woman (allowing the states to set any other requirement)
What the left fails to learn is that they can shut people up with the full weight of the government, but they can not make people accept what is unacceptable.
I would advise the left to go back and re-read history. We are not the first nation in history to have small groups attempt to change human nature. I will give them a hint, it always ends bad for those that try it.
Absolutely. And I want to claim my dogs on my taxes as dependents because they certainly are. I adopted them like homosexuals adopt children and I have a constitutional right under equal protection to claim them as dependents!
I am single. I should be allowed to marry myself and take advantage of the tax benefits bestowed upon other married persons.
Yes-—good old John Austin and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and the destruction with Postmodernism/Progressivism/Leftism—whatever-—where Logic and Reason and the Fundamental Principle of Justice is removed from Rule of Law in America.
Legal Positivism-—remove God’s Standards of Right and Wrong—and you get arbitrary man-made up laws-—on a whim—an urge—a “feeling”. This removes Justice from any law.
True love—Agape—is loving human beings in a completely selfless way and never using them as a means to an end.
Homosexual “love” is not possible, unless homosexuals suppress the urge to debase their “love” interest and use them for lust and narcissistic pleasure. You can never use another human being for a means to an end-—it is unethical and evil. It is the core of Marxism—Leftism. There is no Individualism or Natural Rights for Communists.
There can be no love in homosexual acts. They are all debasing and dehumanizing and removes God and Natural Design from the body. It is a rejection of logic and biology and Natural Law Theory-—the basis of John Locke’s philosophy which dominates the Founders’ thinking and all our Founding Documents.
The founding fathers had no idea we would ever sink to the point where we would demand homsexual marriages. For that reason they put nothing in the constitution to ban it.
Basically the Constution is silent on it. It is also silent on marrying chickens. They just never conceived of such a mess.
For that reason any court which rules a system which was 100% the only way marriage was looked at by the writers could only rule against voters who upheld that old and respected institution could only do so by their own prejudice. In this particular case there is no other way to rule. You have to rule with the present state of affairs when the people vote and say they want to keep it the same rules which they have done over and over and over. Well the judge is a jackass who just makes it up him or her self simply because that is the way they want it to be.
And that id tyranny plain and simply.
Good point about the tax code and single people. In fact the tax code “discriminates” against all kind of people — you name the loophole. Taxes are always violating somebody’s “equal protection.”
Nor is this a trivial violation of our rights. The power to tax is the power to destroy.
Goats to the left, sheep to the right. Eternity records all our deeds. Siding with evil is a Loser.
You certainly should be allowed to marry your aged parent(s). It would facilitate the passing of the estate.
Amendment X to the US Constitution:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
I agree the judge decided wrongly basing her decision on the 5th Amendment. The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 is unconstitutional because the Constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate marriage in the individual states. It is up to the states to establish laws and regulations pertaining to marriage.
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.