The Justice Department argued the federal government has the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits -- including requiring that those benefits only go to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.
Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.
clockzero: I wish we could bill the Republican party for the wasteful spending that overturning their hateful bullshit entails.
marriage, n. (13c) 1. The legal union of a couple as spouses. • The essentials of a valid marriage are (1) parties legally capable of contracting to marry, (2) mutual consent or agreement, and (3) an actual contracting in the form prescribed by law. Marriage has important consequences in many areas of law, such as torts, criminal law, evidence, debtor-creditor relations, property, and contracts. -- Also termed matrimony conjugal union. [Cases: Marriage -> 1.12.]"It has frequently been said by courts, and even by Legislatures, that marriage is a 'civil contract.' But to conclude from these statements that marriage ... has all, or even many, of the incidents of an ordinary private contract, would be a grave error. In fact, these statements to the effect that marriage is a 'civil contract' will be found, upon examination, to have been used only for the purpose of expressing the idea that marriage, in the American states, is a civil, and not a religious institution, or that ... in some states mutual consent alone without formal celebration is sufficient to constitute a valid marriage known as a common law marriage, or that, as is true in all states, the mutual consent of the parties is essential, even in the case of a ceremonial marriage." Joseph W. Madden, Handbook fo the Law of Persons and Domestic Relations § 1-3, at 2-3 (1931).
"It has frequently been said by courts, and even by Legislatures, that marriage is a 'civil contract.' But to conclude from these statements that marriage ... has all, or even many, of the incidents of an ordinary private contract, would be a grave error. In fact, these statements to the effect that marriage is a 'civil contract' will be found, upon examination, to have been used only for the purpose of expressing the idea that marriage, in the American states, is a civil, and not a religious institution, or that ... in some states mutual consent alone without formal celebration is sufficient to constitute a valid marriage known as a common law marriage, or that, as is true in all states, the mutual consent of the parties is essential, even in the case of a ceremonial marriage." Joseph W. Madden, Handbook fo the Law of Persons and Domestic Relations § 1-3, at 2-3 (1931).
The modern state depends heavily on the federal government's taxing and spending powers for many of the benefits that citizens hold dear, including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the newly passed provisions of the Affordable Care Act. These programs have regulatory effects on state family policies just as much as DOMA does. If DOMA's direct interference with state prerogatives is beyond federal power, then perhaps any or all of these programs are vulnerable-- and unconstitutional-- to the extent they interfere with state policies regarding family formation as well.
you have got to be kidding me. ugh, libertarians.
"We can't allow the lowest common denominator states, like Massachusetts, to set standards for the country."
"If robosexual marriage becomes legal, imagine the horrible things that will happen to our children. Then imagine we said those things, since we couldn't think of any. As a mother, those things worry me."
“‘The fact that the judge could, with a straight face, conclude that after several millennia there is no rational reason why Congress might want to define marriage as one man and one woman, even though it has existed that way for thousands of years, is irrational,’ said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for CitizenLink, the political arm of the group Focus on the Family.
Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, called Tauro’s decision ‘another blatant example of a judge playing legislator.’
‘We believe it’s an egregious decision by obviously an activist judge, and it runs counter to previous federal decisions in other districts,’ he said. ‘The federal government should have the right to determine [who receives federal] benefits.’ Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the conservative Family Research Council, argued that Tauro’s decision ‘results from the deliberately weak legal defense of DOMA that was mounted on behalf of the government by the Obama administration, which has called for repeal of the law.’’*
"Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who brought one of the two challenges, said the decisions would apply only to the approximately 16,000 same-sex couples who have married in Massachusetts since gay marriage became legal here in 2004. They will now become eligible for the same federal benefits extended to married heterosexuals, she said.
'Judge Tauro’s decision does not technically apply to other states,' Coakley said. 'It doesn’t change anything in terms of how they treat marriage or how they’re treated by the federal government.'
But opponents as well as proponents of same-sex marriage predicted that the Obama administration will appeal the rulings to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston and that the constitutionality of the law will be decided by the US Supreme Court. During an appeal, it is likely that the law would remain in effect, lawyers said."*
"The right is hoist on their own federalist petard and will now have to choose whether states' rights or marriage inequality is more important to them."
Gallup | May 25, 2010: Americans' Acceptance of Gay Relations Crosses 50% Threshold.
Gay? Whatever, Dude.
"73% of the general public in the United States in 2001 stated that they knew someone who is gay, lesbian, or bisexual....76% of the general public think that there should be laws to protect gay and lesbian people from job discrimination, 74% from housing discrimination, 73% for inheritance rights, 70% support health and other employee benefits for domestic partners, 68% support social security benefits, and 56% support GL people openly serving in the military. 73% favor sexual orientation being included in the hate crimes statutes."*
• 73 percent of military personnel are comfortable with lesbians and gays (Zogby International, 2006).
• Majorities of weekly churchgoers (60 percent), conservatives (58 percent), and Republicans (58 percent) now favor repeal (Gallup, 2009).
• Seventy-five percent of Americans support gays serving openly - up from just 44 percent in 1993 (ABC News/Washington Post, 2008).
« Older Now! 75 Chart Medley. Brett Domino (wikipedia, off... | CityLights interview with Paul... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt