Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

Discussion in 'Up to the Minute' started by Reader, May 31, 2012.

  1. Reader

    Reader New Member

    Messages:
    7,020
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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....
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Gardenlady

    Gardenlady Active Member

    Messages:
    7,232
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Hooray! :woohoo:
     
  4. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,162
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A big win.
     
  5. Jacie Estes

    Jacie Estes Medical Marijuana Advocate

    Messages:
    6,243
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  6. Nova

    Nova Active Member

    Messages:
    19,111
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I wish I had more confidence in what the Supreme Court will do when the issue gets there.
     
  7. TrackerSam

    TrackerSam New Member

    Messages:
    4,278
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Where in the Constitution is that written?
    Nowhere.
     
  8. wfgodot

    wfgodot Former Member

    Messages:
    30,162
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, I guess that means we have to be a theocracy then. Darn.
     
  9. Gardenlady

    Gardenlady Active Member

    Messages:
    7,232
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    36
    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:
     
  10. Jacie Estes

    Jacie Estes Medical Marijuana Advocate

    Messages:
    6,243
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  11. Jacie Estes

    Jacie Estes Medical Marijuana Advocate

    Messages:
    6,243
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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:
     
  12. Gardenlady

    Gardenlady Active Member

    Messages:
    7,232
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    36
    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!
     
  13. Emma Peel

    Emma Peel Keep your bowler hat on in times of trouble, & bew

    Messages:
    9,892
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Yay!

    Slowly. Surely. Love Shall Overcome.
     
  14. PeteyGirl

    PeteyGirl New Member

    Messages:
    667
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gawd, it seems so obvious, and finally, some judges are willing to take responsiblity for how utterly OBVIOUS it is.
     
  15. TrackerSam

    TrackerSam New Member

    Messages:
    4,278
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  16. Reader

    Reader New Member

    Messages:
    7,020
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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:
     
  17. Quiche

    Quiche New Member

    Messages:
    9,086
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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:
     

    Attached Files:

  18. TrackerSam

    TrackerSam New Member

    Messages:
    4,278
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  19. TrackerSam

    TrackerSam New Member

    Messages:
    4,278
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  20. Gardenlady

    Gardenlady Active Member

    Messages:
    7,232
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    36
    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.
     
  21. TrackerSam

    TrackerSam New Member

    Messages:
    4,278
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice