WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court today ruled that same-sex couples that are legally married shall be entitled to the same treatment under federal law as their opposite-sex married couples.
“Today’s DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) ruling is a historic step forward marriage equality,” President Obama tweeted after the decision was released.
“By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States,” the court’s decision stated. “DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution’s guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group. DOMA cannot survive under these principles. Its unusual deviation from the tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage operates to deprive same-sex couples ofthe benefits and responsibilities that come with federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of a class recognized and protected by state law”
” Tax laws and inheritance laws were establish from history and common laws from previous civilized societies to promote the family. No society in history has survive after it accepted homosexual conduct.”
Here you are not referencing law, but suppositions. It is insufficient to justify actions based on historical references because we have seen as a Republic, history is full of defective philosophies. Our courts have worked to correct such defects (Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, Yoder v.Wisconsin, et al).
There are times where morals are trumped by basic rights under our Constitution. Should basic Constitutional rights be ignored when the behavior is deemed immoral? Iowa Supreme Court just decided a case to that extent, when a judgement against a drunk driver (immoral) was overturned because of an illegal search (Fourth Amendment).
In doing so, Justices conclude that subverting basic constitutional rights in favor of immoral behavior goes against the ideals of a free society.
So does that mean Peter L can now legally merry the neighbors dog? It is his right.
Here’s an interesting note that might put this in perspective.
DOMA was introduced to the House by Bob Garr and Don Nickles, two republicans in response to a lawsuit in Hawaii filed by two same sex people who wanted to get married. The Hawaii supreme court had ruled that the state could not deny them that right, since Hawaii, just like Iowa, has an equal rights provision.
These guys were scared to death that if ssm became popular in Hawaii, other states would follow suit and ssm marriage would be accepted everywher.
Hence, they cooked up DOMA, for one reason and one reason only. To deny a specific group of citizens their civil rights as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and US Constitution.
This has nothing to do with tradition, the bible, nature, genetics of marrying your car. It’s the word of our constitution.
This is why it’s important to silence hateful toads like Bob VanderPlaats, whose only purpose in life is to DENY certain people their inalienable rights.
I don’t like guns. I wish they didn’t exist. But it’s your constitutional right to own one. So I accept that. Now it’s up to you to accept this with some sort of grace.
“Instead religious kooks waste our time with initiatives like DOMA and other measures designed to exclude and demean.”
just thought this needed to be said again.
@Peter L.-I have not always agreed with you and I guess that is a good thing, but, you do make some good points.
I am atheist. I object to your statement.
“I guess people still aren’t understanding that marriage is a religious practice”
I got my marriage license at a government court house. issued by the state of Iowa. We went to the justice of the peace for the proceedings. I did not have one GOD DAMN thing to do with the church. Even when I got divorced. It went thru the state of Iowa, and Iowa laws. Once again it had NOTHING to do with the church. It is YOUR opinion only that marriage is church sanctioned. Everyone who wants to get married needs a state issued license, unless common law. In my opinion, the church is only another outlet for announcing your marriage.
Your statements confuse me as you also stated this.
“The only legal recognition for a civil union by the government should be done by the magistrate, and yes, without prejudice or concern for sexual orientation, or plans on whether the newly unified couple is planning on having sex at all”.
If by this you mean “with a marriage license” I agree totally. But then again I was under the impression that obtaining the marriage license is all that is needed to be legally married.
Will someone please explain to me when separate but equal became a constitutional doctrine?
“What they did was make it so the government will accept gay marriage, benefits will go to a gay partner. Therefore making gay marriage not only legal but acceptable.”
Incorrect. I am not sure where you read that interpretation, but it sure was not from SCOTUS.
“What they did was say DOMA was unconstitutional. They didn’t do anything else. It’s up to the individual states to decide whether or not they will recognize same sex marriage. Iowa already does.”
100% Correct.
It’s all about the Constitutional right to equal treatment under the law. Nothing more, nothing less. Same concept was reached in Iowa under Varnum v. Polk. You cannot treat one party any differently than another.
Now all these Gay Republicans can get married.
Although a couple may celebrate with a church wedding, the marriage itself is simple a civil contract which is why there are divorce laws — rules to break a civil contract. That is why the Iowa Supreme Court agreed that churches could decide whether they would allow same sex marriage in the church. If magistrates perform heterosexual marriages, they must also perform same sex marriages.
Marriage is between a man a woman not a man and man or a woman and woman. It has been that way since the the first man and woman walked the earth. It is that way to promote healthy and cohesive society. Tax laws and inheritance laws were establish from history and common laws from previous civilized societies to promote the family. No society in history has survive after it accepted homosexual conduct. Look at the what happened to the Greeks and Romans their civilizations fell apart when they started down the path to accept homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct is not a civil right it is a choice. There is no gene or physical disability that makes a person a homosexual. It is a choice and we cannot change thousands of years of what works for a choice that is going to leading to further degrading of our culture. I know some of you are going to call me a bigot but I do not care what you do in your private life but changing the definition of marriage because of someone sexual choice is wrong.
That’s it!
Damn well said buddy!!!
because as history has proven. religious people think they have the right to stick their noses in other peoples business.
since when does the government follow the bill of rights or the constitution now days?
hell in a hand basket with the libs leading the way.
Hurray SCOTUS !!!!
At long last!