A federal appeals court in Boston found on Thursday that the Defense of marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman unconstitutionally denies federal benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples.
The ruling sets the stage for a same sex marriage showdown in the Supreme Court.
Conservatives should not really be surprised that an appeals court in the liberal 1st Circuit has thrown out DOMA, especially given that the Obama administration announced that it deemed the law unconstitutional and would not defend it.
The major consideration conservatives now have is, “what happens next?”
The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals said their ruling would not take effect until the Supreme Court has had an opportunity to review the law. The plaintiffs' demand to receive federal tax and Social Security benefits will remain on hold pending any appeal.
In making the ruling, the court noted that the Supreme Court has never said that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages. Therefore, their ruling in the Massachusetts case was limited to arguments “that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”
But isn’t that where advocates of same sex marriage are taking this?
Dale Schowengerdt, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund -- a Christian advocacy group that has defended California's gay marriage ban in court -- noted that, “Under this [the court’s] rationale, if just one state decided to accept polygamy, the federal government and perhaps other states would be forced to accept it, too.”
Thus the California Supreme Court could reason that California’s same sex marriage ban was unconstitutional, “because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples.” In other words, the law should be free of value judgments about human behavior.
What the court in Massachusetts and courts in California that have also acted to strike down DOMA and bans on same sex marriage are really saying is that the government must divorce law from morality or moral standards.
If the argument that the law should be values-free holds, then that means any behavior consenting adults freely agree to should be legal. At some point, Americans must affirm that the law is a means of organizing society to reflect a certain set of values. Conservatives must begin to make the case now that if the law and moral judgment are divorced, then rather than protecting society’s most fundamental institutions -- such as marriage and the family -- the law will become nothing more than a means of picking winners and losers in commercial relationships.
nanny state = family optional then chaos
Sowell's "Conflict of Visions" and Steyn's "America Alone" pretty much sum it up.
It's about Personal Liberty and 1st Amendment Rights. Not.
These arguments -- "civil rights" - "expression of individual liberty" - "1st amendment" -- are pure nonsense. The comparison with desegregation is particularly grating. Marriage exists, and has been preserved throughout antiquity by cultures and governments worldwide, expressly for preservation of the species through cultivation and protection of the family. This is the basis for the one-man-one-woman definition of marriage. Once that definition crumbles, the door is open (as the respondent seems to recognize) to legitimization of "marriage" involving polygamy, incest, pedophilia and other types of chronophilia, and ... you name it. "I want to marry my mother. And my sister." Supporters of homosexual marriage are deep on the emotional arguments, but never articulate an intellectually-honest principle that limits marriage to hetero- and homosexual couples.
But suppose we accept the respondent's view-- that the state of "marriage" today is a shambles, poisoned by divorce and unnecessary for child rearing, and that in any event, our culture has now "advanced" to the point where we no longer need marriage for its original purpose. Then because marriage no longer warrants governmental support, the only sensible, principled, conservative solution is to get government out of the business of marriage altogether, and replace it with simple contractual arrangements between (or among) the loving parties. No more "marriage" in the sense of a sanction by the state. This makes all relationships "equal," meeting the LGBT requirement, and has the added benefit of getting the matter out of the political realm.
DOMA
DOMA should be struck down for the same reason Roe v Wade should be struck down. It is bad law. Whether you are for or against gay marriage or for or against abortion these issues are none of the FEDERAL governments business!
DOMA
You are right. These things are NOT the business of the Feds! Unfortunately, they have made it their business and it cannot now be ignored! Besides, did you not read above where it says that whatever the states decide on marriage will have to be recognized everywhere? Some things HAVE to be a federal issue. You can't get married in one state and then not be married when you cross state lines!
Yes, but we must also act to stop the leftist judges.
Such persuasion is very important in the broader public, but will never change the minds of the leftist judges who have struck down Prop 8 and DOMA. The most effective way to stop these judges from reading their personal social policy preferences into the Consittution would be to amend the hopelessly vague 14th amendment to restore it to its original meaning of being a ban on government race discrimination. This would zero out not only the decisions against Prop 8 and DOMA, but every other leftist judicial overreach exploiting that vague and open-ended amendment. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com
It's about Personal Liberty and 1st Amendment Rights
Richard - the time for "Gay Marriage" has arrived. This is an issue of Civil Rights. It's an issue of personal freedom. Gay Marriage is an expression of Individual Liberty and 1st Amendment Rights. "Sexual Morality" isn't something we should as a Free Nation try to legislate.
It is true that we must have "Moral" people guiding the country HOWEVER some ideas of sexual morality are not universal. Some religions are opposed to homosexuality and believe it to be a "Sin" while others do not view it as a sin. Some religions believe that bigamy/polygamy is a Sin while others believe it to be sacred. Other religions believe that extra marital affairs are a sin. Some believe Pre Marital Sex is a Sin and some do not. Some religions do not believe in consuming alcohol while others view alcohol as symbolic. Others believe the Cow is sacred or the pig is dirty and other religions believe those animals are to be consumed by “man”. Above all else - some people are not affiliated with any religion and simply follow the Golden Rule which generally is the most universally accepted moral guiding principle.
Our country isn't going to fall into ruin because Gay Marriage becomes legal everywhere. We already have a 50%+ divorce rate in this country among hetero couples. We already have plenty of broken homes with hetero parents leaving their wives/children/husbands. While strong communities are based on strong families we don't ban divorce in this country - we accept the fact that some people have different lives, choices and circumstances. We tolerate other people choices in as much as they do not harm another individual and that's the way a free society should work.
IN another 50 years we will look back on Gay Marriage the same way we did with Desegregation and the Civil Rights movement in the United States. There will still be some that teach Homosexuality is a Sin – that is their right as long as they do no harm to those individuals (of course emotional harm is done but that’s hard to prosecute in a court of law).
America can be a moral nation by accepting Gay Marriage as an expression of individual liberty and 1st amendment expression even if we some Americans may not agree with Gay Marriage from a personal moral or religious standpoint.