You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’ tag.

The Supreme Court ruled that the California Prop 8 challengers did not have standing to challenge the ruling of the lower courts, and thus the trial court ruling making Prop 8 unconstitutional stands. The Court appears to have narrowly tailored this decision to California and Prop 8, and not in making a sweeping decision that recognizes same sex marriage nationally.

With the ruling in the Prop 8 case, and the DOMA ruling, both sides of the marriage equality issue claim victories and defeat. Those on the side of marriage equality would ideally liked to have seen a sweeping decision, much like Roe v Wade, but the Court was not prepared to make that leap.

So for now, gay couples married where same sex marriage is legal are entitled to federal recognition of that marriage, and in those states where same sex marriage is not legal, their laws still stand.

Sounds like not that much of a change. The battle on both sides shall continue on!

While many pro-gay marriage advocates will sing the praises of the Supreme Court’s decision today regarding the Defense of Marriage Act, the actual ruling will only make for more of a legal quagmire for same-sex couples who get married, but do not reside in state’s that recognize their marriage as valid. With 60% of the states having laws against same-sex marriage, the federal benefits, tax return filings, state benefits, and state filings, will create a nightmare for many couples. A same sex coupe married in NY who move to Texas will be entitled to all the benefits, etc. recognized under the federal governmnet, but not to those by the State of Texas, which does not recognize gay marriage.

With Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion, he said that the federal government cannot penalize a group of citizens whose marriage is legally valid and recognized by their state. It does not, however, force states that do not recognize gay marriage to recognize them and give state benefits. Where I forsee a problem in the future is in the federal government bullying states into recognizing gay marriage because many state benefits are tied to federal funds.

Some will see this as a major step for gay rights. Others will mount divisive vitriole. I think that the resolution of the marriage equality issue is still a long way from being settled, but I do believe that both sides of the issue should move away from the hate aspect of the argument….. nothing is more tiring than for someone to say you are a hater because you disagree with the concept of gay marriage.

 

Today is the beginning of the final week of the US Supreme Court’s session, and Court Watch is in full swing.

Among the major cases, two pertain to same-sex marriage. One pertains to affirmative action. And one challenges the continuation of the Voting Act of the Civil Rights movement.

 

 

From today’s arguments before the Court:

 

Kennedy said the Defense of Marriage Act appears to intrude on the power of states that have chosen to recognize same-sex marriages. When so many federal statutes are affected, “which in our society means that the federal government is intertwined with the citizens’ day-to-day life, you are at real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the state police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody,” Kennedy said.

If the court does strike down part of DOMA, it would represent a victory for gay rights advocates. But it would be something short of the endorsement of gay marriage nationwide that some envisioned when the justices agreed in December to hear the federal case and the challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage.

http://news.yahoo.com/boost-gay-marriage-justices-us-law-210143944–politics.html

The commentary from the Justices today is different than yesterday’s when discussing Prop 8. From my perspective, gay couples should receive the federal benefits afforded to married couples if they are in a documented committed relationship, i.e., civil unions.

from the FreeRepublic:

In Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) SCOTUS defined marriage as “the union of one man and one woman…” 3/27/2013 | Laissez-Faire Capitalist

Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 12:37:31 PM by Laissez-faire capitalist

In Murphy v. Ramsey, SCOTUS defined marriage as “The union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony.”

In Maynard v. Hill, SCOTUS spoke of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Remember, liberals, Stari Decisis….right? Chuck E. Cheese Schumer seems to like to invoke those words whenever it suits him.

Marriage should be redefined, and those that are against redefining it are bigots? Then why are liberals bigotted against consenting ADULT Polygamists? Marriage is about love and equality? Then why don’t liberals love consenting adult polygamists/polygamy and desire equality for them, too? We’re talking about adults here.

Why do liberals act as if they only want to redefine something so far and no further — but it never seems to end up that way?????

Liberals are NEVER done when it comes to changing/redefining things…..

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3001288/posts

A. Let those men who want to marry men, marry men.

B. Allow those women who want to marry women, marry women.

C. Allow those folks who want to abort their babies, abort their babies.

D. In three generations, there will be no Democrats.
Oh, don’t ya just love it when a plan comes together!
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Life is Short … Drink the GOOD wine FIRST!!

Restoring Marriage Requires Knowing What It Is

Ryan T. Anderson

December 21, 2012 at 12:00 pm

(0)


The President’s Marriage Agenda for the Forgotten Sixty Percent,” despite the impression its title might give, was released earlier this week not by the Obama Administration but by the Institute for American Values and the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia. It is a timely, compelling, and important report, but it falls short in a basic way: It never once even attempts to define marriage.

You cannot advance a marriage agenda without knowing what marriage is and why it matters for public policy, as my co-authors and I argue in our new book, What Is Marriage?

I published a review of the report earlier this week:

The report rightly notes that “marriage is not merely a private arrangement; it is also a complex social institution.” But the report never says what this complex institution is, or why it ought to be governed by the standard marital norms of monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and a pledge of permanence—norms that many leading defenders of redefining marriage explicitly reject. Yet without these norms—and the intelligible basis that grounds them—marriage can’t do the work that the authors want it to do.

That is important work indeed, as the report explains. It helpfully documents the retreat from marriage afflicting today’s middle class and how fixing this “is the social challenge for our times.” While in the 1980s “only 13 percent of the children of moderately educated mothers were born outside of marriage,” today that figure has “risen to a whopping 44 percent.” Indeed, the majority of births to women under thirty “now occur outside of marriage.”

The report rightly recognizes the societal cost of the breakdown of marriage, arguing that as families fail to form and as children are born out of wedlock, the state has to fill in the void—the annual cost to taxpayers is around $112 billion. However, the various policy proposals in the report are undermined by the redefinition of marriage:

The report’s fourth recommendation, “End Anonymous Fatherhood,” notes that “the anonymous man who provided his sperm walks away with no obligation.” Although a relatively small percentage of parents “use sperm donation or similar technologies to get pregnant, the cultural power of the idea that it’s acceptable deliberately to create a fatherless child and for biological fathers to walk away from their children is real.”

The authors propose that the United States ban anonymity in sperm donation “and reinforce the consistent message that fathers matter.” But how does marriage policy reinforce that message if it redefines marriage to say that mothers and fathers—one of each—are optional for marriage? How does redefining marriage to include lesbian relationships not further incentivize the type of anonymous sperm donation and resulting fatherless children that the authors protest?

Marriage redefined and separated from the bearing and rearing of children not only lacks the sexual complementarity of spouses, but other characteristics of marriage—monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence—also become optional insofar as marriage becomes nothing more than any interpersonal relationship that consenting adults, be they two or ten in number, want it to be: sexual or platonic, sexually exclusive or open, temporary or permanent.

Some who see this logic, thinking that marriage has no form and serves no social purpose, conclude that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether.

Of course, children stand to lose the most from redefining marriage, as children born and raised outside marriage are six times more likely to experience poverty, and welfare spending will continue to skyrocket as the basic unit of civil society—the family—is weakened.

This highlights the central questions in this debate: what marriage is and why the state recognizes it. It’s not that the state shouldn’t achieve its basic purpose while obscuring what marriage is. Rather, it can’t. Only when policy gets the nature of marriage right do we reap the civil society benefits of recognizing marriage.

The future of our country, then, relies upon the future of marriage. The future of marriage depends upon citizens’ understanding of what it is and why it matters—and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage. Unfortunately, “The President’s Marriage Agenda” overlooks these questions. How successful can a “new conversationon marriage” be when its leaders can’t even say what marriage is?

To understand the arguments in depth, read my essay in its entirety at Public Discourse, or my new book What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, co-authored with Sherif Girgis and Robert P. George.

From http://blog.heritage.org/2012/12/21/restoring-marriage-requires-knowing-what-it-is/

      While proponents of gay-marriage will frame any decision by the Supreme Court regarding marriage-equality (the PC term for Gay marriage) as a win, and a movement toward its full legalization, legal experts warn to the contrary. Of the ten cases that the Court can choose to hear during this session regarding this issue, the two that they are most like to take will be Windsor v. US, a Defense of Marriage Act case, and the California Proposition 8 case.

The Defense of Marriage Act

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, recently has been struck down by two federal appeals courts, which means the Supreme Court is all but obligated to take at least one of the cases to settle the dispute between Congress and the courts. The case thought most likely to be picked up by the justices is Windsor v. United States, which challenges DOMA, a law passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 that prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex married couples, even those in states that allow gay marriage.

The suit was brought by Edith Windsor, a resident of New York who paid $363,000 in estate taxes after her wife died because the federal government did not recognize their marriage. New York is one of nine states (and the District of Columbia) where gay marriage is legal, so Windsor argues that the federal government is discriminating against her by not recognizing her state-sanctioned marriage. (editor note: Ms. Windsor and her partner were married in Canada in 2007, but her partner died in 2009 in New York AFTER New York began recogonizing same sex marriages from other jurisdictions)

Windsor’s attorneys are not arguing, however, that marriage is a fundamental right that all Americans are entitled to, no matter their sexual orientation. And few experts expect the Supreme Court to make such a sweeping decision.

Proposition 8

Court watchers think the Supreme Court also will take up Proposition 8, California’s gay marriage ban. Voters passed Prop. 8 in 2008 months after the state’s high court had legalized same sex unions and thousands of gay Californians had already tied the knot. Two federal courts have struck down Prop. 8 as discriminatory, leaving the Supreme Court to render a final judgment

The Prop. 8 case differs from the DOMA case in one key respect:  In Prop. 8, the pro-gay marriage side is arguing that marriage is a fundamental right that should not be denied to people based on their sexual orientation. That means the Supreme Court, in theory, could issue a sweeping decision on Prop. 8 that legalizes gay marriage throughout the country and invalidates state gay marriage bans.

Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, thinks that’s unlikely. He says the justices will most likely wait for public opinion–which has just recently begun to swing in support of gay marriage–and state laws to coalesce around the issue before issuing a broad decision.

The more this percolates, the easier it is to address this in the future,” Stone said.

         In 3 states, in this past election, the VOTERS decided to permit same-sex marriage. In more than 30 States, the VOTERS have voted to the contrary, disapproving of the redifining of marriage. And the Courts have forced same-sex marriage on its citizens, and in some cases, like the Prop 8, did so AFTER the vote of the people. This issue will continue to be debated,and as Pastor Rick Warren has said, it is a welcomed debate if it is done so in the right forum and the right demeanor.

for article:http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/primer-major-gay-marriage-cases-pending-supreme-court-210914785–election.html

Despite the fact that twenty-six states have laws or a part of their Constitution that define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and despite the fact that the only states where same-sex marriage is deemed legal are where it has been done by the Legislatures or court, and despite the fact that in EVERY STATE where the measure has been placed on the ballot for the vote of the people the idea of same-sex marriage has been rejected, the Obama Administration is weighing in that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) should be overturned.

Before the “homophobe” comments begin, let me reiterate a point I have made many times on this blog: being opposed to the idea of gay marriage does not mean I hate gays. It does not mean that gays should be discriminated against.

Yet, the argument goes that by not permitting gays to marry discriminates against them. It denies them certain rights that married couples enjoy. I have said repeatedly that with the exception of tax benefits and social security benefits, every other right or benefit can be afforded to a same-sex couple by legal and enforceable means.

So why is the President pushing this issue now? Why didn’t the POTUS push this at the same time he pushed for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? Is this exactly as it appears… a calculated political move?

My question to those who support the change in the definition of marriage– if we make the change to same-sex marriage, where do we draw the line when the polygamists want it changed to accomodate them, etc?

     The White House has announced that they will no longer defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which Bill Clinton signed into law 15 years ago. It seems that “King Obama” has deemed the law “unconstitutional”. The last time I checked, Obama was elected to the Presidency, not appointed to the Supreme Court, and it is NOT his role to determine if a law is or is not constitutional.

      So Obama is willing to defend his blatantly unconstitutional health care legislation, but refuses to defend a law that has been on the books for 15 years.

      How does the White House enforce the DOMA, but not defend it?

      Is this a “distraction” from jobs, the debt ceiling, the budget?