Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

New Posts

Reader

Reader

New Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2004
Messages
7,033
Reaction score
93
http://www.centurylink.net/news/rea...org>&news_id=18954386&src=most_popular_viewed

BOSTON (AP) — A federal appeals court Thursday declared that the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally denies federal benefits to married gay couples, a groundbreaking ruling all but certain to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In its unanimous decision, the three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the 1996 law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman deprives gay couples of the rights and privileges granted to heterosexual couples.

More at link....
 
I am happy to see this decision. There is supposed to be a separation of Church and State but the homophobics in society demand to have the right to determine who can get married.
 
I wish I had more confidence in what the Supreme Court will do when the issue gets there.
 
The constitution might not state it explicitly, but one would think that the lack of state religion alone would preclude the government from deciding law on a religious basis.

I swear it's the religious folks who are driving me further and further from religion.... :what:

Is there somewhere non-religious that a bad catholic girl can get her ritual/incense/candles/gloomy chanting fix? :innocent:
 
TrackerSam said:
Where in the Constitution is that written?
Nowhere.
Click to expand...

Would that be the same Constitution that said people can't drink and then decided it was ok to drink? Where does it say in the Constitution that the government shall deny people to marry, no matter who the object of their intention is?


Article [XVIII]16

1: After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

2: The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.


Article [XXI]

1: The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. affects 16

2: The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.


Then there is my favorite, concerning how much Senators and Representatives will be paid.


Amendment XXVII

No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.


http://constitutionus.com/

You do know that the US crafted their Constitution on the Iroquoian Constitution?

http://tuscaroras.com/pages/history/iroquois_constitution_1.html

Thanks for the info about the Constitution.
 
Gardenlady said:
The constitution might not state it explicitly, but one would think that the lack of state religion alone would preclude the government from deciding law on a religious basis.

I swear it's the religious folks who are driving me further and further from religion.... :what:

Is there somewhere non-religious that a bad catholic girl can get her ritual/incense/candles/gloomy chanting fix? :innocent:
Click to expand...

Ya have to come to the Black Hills, there are a few of us 'heathens' here. :floorlaugh: I don't burn incense, just sage, tobacco and sweet grass. Also, no gloomy chanting but there will drumming. :D As for rituals, I do a mean garlic chicken burnt offering on the grill. Not exactly burnt though, just nice and crispy. :woohoo:
 
Man you would think here in the degenerate, hedonist, northeast, and worst of all, the bastion of liberalism, MASS, where we let anyone marry ANYONE, and we're all having orgies of general wickedness, apparently, you'd think a girl could find a good pagan ritual!

I HAVE heard tell that there is a witch living on the hill down the street from me - apparently once a local pastor tried to perform an exorcism on her :what: - maybe she can hook me up locally with some chanting? :D

But if not maybe it's a road trip to the black hills! :woohoo: I am overdue for a trip west and loooove chicken on the grill. And burnt offerings!
 
Yay!

Slowly. Surely. Love Shall Overcome.
 
Gawd, it seems so obvious, and finally, some judges are willing to take responsiblity for how utterly OBVIOUS it is.
 
Jacie Estes said:
Where does it say in the Constitution that the government shall deny people to marry, no matter who the object of their intention is?

Thanks for the info about the Constitution.
Click to expand...

It doesn't, nor does the Federal Government prohibit it, as far as I know. The states do, by definition of marriage in their constitutions, including California.
You're welcome.
 
I did a little research too :headache: and found this link with some good information about separation of church and state:

Religion in the Constitution:

Religion makes only one direct and obvious appearance in the original Constitution that seems to point to a desire for some degree of religious freedom. That appearance is in Article 6, at the end of the third clause:

[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Click to expand...

Religion is addressed in the First Admendment:

Through the debates in the House, Senate, and conference committees, the wording of all of these proposals was whittled down to the religion clauses of what is our 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Click to expand...

There have been several U.S. Supreme Court decisions addressing freedom of religion...here is one that addresses 'separation of church and state':

Finally, in Everson v Board (330 US 1 [1947]), the Court put the final touch on the incorporation of religious liberty as applies to the states, though in a roundabout way. Arch Everson brought a suit against the Ewing, New Jersey schools for authorizing payments to parents of students attending parochial schools for use of the public bus system to transport the student to school. Everson contended that such payments to parents of parochial school students unconstitutionally funded religion with public funds. The law in question did prohibit the disbursement of funds to any parent who sent their child to a private school that was run for-profit.

The Court disagreed, in a close 5-4 vote, with Everson. In doing so, however, it wrote some powerful statements concerning the 1st Amendment:

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'
Click to expand...

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html

:run:
 
You know what I find interesting? That marriage is somewhat out of style in our culture-- remaining single and divorce have become just as "natural." It seems, to me anyway, that the push for equal rights in this regard has re-energized the union for everyone-- frankly, I think the entire contract is out of date.

I hope the religious right can hold onto this new popularity of the marriage contract as they let go of their unwinnable squabble in other peoples' business. It's way past the time to sit down and hush, imo. (I mean, really? In this country arguing about what your neighbor's personal (very personal) rights are???? This has been a joke, right?!! Amazing. The entire country seems to want to be run like a homeowners association. NOT gonna happen. :gavel: )

MO

:scale:
 

Attachments

  • Gay-Marriage1.jpg
    Gay-Marriage1.jpg
    46.8 KB · Views: 7
Quiche said:
You know what I find interesting? That marriage is somewhat out of style in our culture-- remaining single and divorce have become just as "natural." It seems, to me anyway, that the push for equal rights in this regard has re-energized the union for everyone-- frankly, I think the entire contract is out of date.

I hope the religious right can hold onto this new popularity of the marriage contract as they let go of their unwinnable squabble in other peoples' business. It's way past the time to sit down and hush, imo. (I mean, really? In this country arguing about what your neighbor's personal (very personal) rights are???? This has been a joke, right?!! Amazing. The entire country seems to want to be run like a homeowners association. NOT gonna happen. :gavel: )

MO

:scale:
Click to expand...

You mean like regulating what people eat and drink? Happy Meal toys? Now Berkely Cal. is trying to outlaw sitting on the sidewalk. No wait -----that's what liberals do.
 
Reader said:
I did a little research too :headache: and found this link with some good information about separation of church and state:

Religion in the Constitution:

Religion makes only one direct and obvious appearance in the original Constitution that seems to point to a desire for some degree of religious freedom. That appearance is in Article 6, at the end of the third clause:



Religion is addressed in the First Admendment:

Through the debates in the House, Senate, and conference committees, the wording of all of these proposals was whittled down to the religion clauses of what is our 1st Amendment:



There have been several U.S. Supreme Court decisions addressing freedom of religion...here is one that addresses 'separation of church and state':

Finally, in Everson v Board (330 US 1 [1947]), the Court put the final touch on the incorporation of religious liberty as applies to the states, though in a roundabout way. Arch Everson brought a suit against the Ewing, New Jersey schools for authorizing payments to parents of students attending parochial schools for use of the public bus system to transport the student to school. Everson contended that such payments to parents of parochial school students unconstitutionally funded religion with public funds. The law in question did prohibit the disbursement of funds to any parent who sent their child to a private school that was run for-profit.

The Court disagreed, in a close 5-4 vote, with Everson. In doing so, however, it wrote some powerful statements concerning the 1st Amendment:



http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html

:run:
Click to expand...

And what it means is, the government can't interfere with religion. Nowhere is it written that religion can't attempt to influence government. Or shall we prohibit the practice of campaigning from the pulpit as is a common practice illustrated here -
"Black church leaders, who long have been involved in voter registration efforts, are ramping up their work to address legal changes across the country."
and The NAACP is working with the National Baptist Convention, USA, to respond to the new voter laws by working to increase voter participation by minorities and elderly and young people."

http://www.blackchristiannews.com/n...e-strategies-to-combat-state-voting-laws.html

Regardless the reason, religion is involved in our political process.
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama campaign in churches.

In any case, same sex marriage is and always has been a states issue, not a federal one. The religious right hasn't changed this fact. Arguably, the most liberal state in the country, California, prohibits SSM. Ths U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with it.
 
Why should it be solely a states rights issue? Where does it say that? Maybe that's your opinion, but I don't think that makes it a fact.

Fact is, the federal govt often steps in when basic rights are being denied at the state level. Thus would include slavery, equal education issues, segregation, etc. As the supreme court has called marriage a "right" in the past, it seems to me that if this right is being denied at the state level, then it's far past time for something to be done at the national level.

As a Mass resident, I'll challenge California's claim to most liberal state, btw ;) unfortunately for those working for equality, CA seems to have some very large pockets of conservative voters.
 
Gardenlady said:
Why should it be solely a states rights issue? Where does it say that? Maybe that's your opinion, but I don't think that makes it a fact.
Click to expand...

I didn't write the rules. I don't think you can be married by a federal judge presiding in a federal capacity. Whether in church or by a JOTP, the laws of the state you're married in apply, as does the divorce laws.
Or can you cite where I'm wrong without all the "way it should be" hyperbole?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 214 more.
Total: 2,917 (members: 215, guests: 2,702)

Online statistics

Members online
215
Guests online
2,702
Total visitors
2,917
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,233
Messages
17,965,562
Members
228,729
Latest member
PoignantEcho
Back
Top