E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Breaking Glass Pictures
Edith Windsor, left, and Thea Spyer, partners for 44 years until Spyer's death in 2009, in an undated photograph. Windsor won a case against the Defense of Marriage Act in a district court, but that ruling is being challenged by the law's proponents in the U.S. House.
As same-sex couples wait for the Supreme Court to decide if it will hear one of five challenges to a law that bans federal recognition of gay marriage, opening arguments were heard Thursday in one such case in New York.
The case before the U.S. 2nd Court of Appeals concerns Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, a lesbian couple who lived together in New York City for 44 years and formally married in Canada in May 2007. While this case is still in earlier stages of the court process, attorneys have also asked the nation’s top court to bundle the case with the others in the legal battle against the Defense of Marriage Act across the nation.
The state of New York recognized the marriage of Windsor and Spyers, but federal law did not because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman.
When Spyer passed away in 2009, Windsor was hit with $363,053 in federal estate taxes. Had they been considered spouses under federal law, she would have assumed Spyer’s assets, including their home, without incurring estate taxes.
Windsor sued the government in November 2010.
In June, U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones in Manhattan ruled in Windsor’s favor, and declared the 1996 DOMA law unconstitutional, by discriminating against same-sex couples. That decision prompted the current challenge by proponents of the law.
The Supreme Court has been asked to hear five different challenges to DOMA, including the Windsor case, in their next session, which opens Monday.
"It is critically important for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear one or more of the DOMA cases," said Susan Sommer, director of constitutional litigation at Lambda Legal. "In addition to being barred from the protections, rights and benefits afforded under 1,138 federal laws, it is demeaning to married same-sex couples and their families to have their federal government treat them as legal strangers."
In their next term, the justices could decide to take up one or more of the cases, none of them or simply delay considering the issue indefinitely.
However, in comments last week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she believes the Defense of Marriage Act will reach the Supreme Court within the coming year.
Watch the most-viewed videos on NBCNews.com
Each of the five cases that have been successful in district court challenges of DOMA’s Section 3 — the portion that defines marriage as heterosexual — that are now at various stages of appeal in circuit courts.
Each focuses on different federal benefits that are currently provided for people in traditional marriages, but not for those in same-sex marriages.
The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton after it appeared in 1993 that Hawaii might legalize gay marriage.
Since then, many states have banned gay marriage through amendments to their constitution, but six have approved them, including Massachusetts and New York.
In Feb. 2011, the U.S. Justice Department under guidance from President Barack Obama has said it would no longer defend DOMA in court because they believe it to be unconstitutional.
Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter
As a result, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives is spearheading appeals to uphold DOMA against challenges, acting on behalf of the legislative body.
Lawyer Paul Clement, speaking on behalf of bipartisan group on Thursday told the appeals court that the Defense of Marriage Act was consistent with the intention of Congress to continue "preserving programs the way they've always been — not opening these programs to others."
NBC's Kari Huus and Miranda Leitsinger and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Summer's over, but drought persists; two-thirds of contiguous US affected
- Lucky 13 brings $202 million for Powerball ticket sold in Iowa
- Authorities hunting for 73-year-old accused of killing his daughter-in-law
- Video: Helmet camera captures soldier shot in firefight
- No fix for 'Jesus rifles' deploying to Afghanistan
Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
I guess we should not expect the laws to be fair to everyone, should we? Oh, and forget about justice too.
I'm glad to see that this unconstitutional act is finally being brought to the Supreme Court, and that those individuals who are having their civil right of marriage (Loving v Virginia) abridged are finally being afforded the due-process of law which is their Constitutional right.
Unfortunately, lawmakers think they can pass these acts abridging the rights of others without consideration for the due-process of law... thus abridging the rights of individuals for decades before those it effects get what is their RIGHT.
Seeing that DOMA is entirely based on religious arguments, and that their is NO existing legal argument which can support it - the Supreme Court would have to be absolutely corrupt to uphold DOMA on Constitutional and Legal grounds.
DOMA is pretty mean spirited. I can't think of anything more un-American than legislating bigotry.
When you read "this isn't about money," know It is about money.
Of course it's about money, On it, as well it should be. It's over a third-of-a-million dollars. She's absolutely right to fight for it back when straights don't have to pay that kind of money in to the government. It's like being taxed just for being gay. Why not institute a tax on being black if this is allowed to go unchallenged? It's equally wrong and ridiculous to treat gays this way.
Actually, it is about money only because so much of our legal system is about money. In order to challenge an unconstitutional law, you have to have standing, and the easiest way to demonstrate standing is by showing an objective, numerical difference. Other differences (i.e., hostile environments and such) are subjective in nature and therefore are of secondary value in proving that a law is constitutional. If that's all you have then sure - go for it - but when you can prove objective, numerical differences, then definitely use those differences first.
Lawyer Paul Clement of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives is quoted as saying: "The desire to save the government money was a rational basis for the law (DOMA) as well..."
DOMA was passed in 1996. Eight years later, Congress asked the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to tell them how much DOMA cost or saved the federal government.
The CBO study can be viewed on web at: cbo(dot)gov(slash)publication(slash)15740
page 1, paragraph 2 states that the federal government would realized a GAIN of about $1 BILLION a year, if gays could marry in all states.
That would have been $16 BILLION more than the US Treasury collected over the last 16 years, since DOMA was enacted.
The excuses, lies and delays from this discrimination are appalling. That the courts even spend time and money delaying the end to DOMA is just plain stupid. It certainly points out the bigotry and hatred enacting and enforcing DOMA and all the state Constitutional amendments that have absolutely NO RATIONAL BASIS whatsoever.
My mantra "Always, follow the money".
Granted, I am not a lawyer...but this couple was married in another country. Would this still fall under DOMA?
New York state recognized the marriage, so I would assume it does.
Yes. American citizens married abroad have their marriages automatically recognized by both the Federal and the State governments -- meaning that the marriages are recognized in each and every one of the 50 states and each and every U.S. territory and possession.
Presumably they were married in another country because, at the time, the haters still wouldn't allow them to get married in this country. NY State Law now recognizes that foreign marriage, which means DOMA attaches for them.
Marriage in the US is supposed to be regulated by the states.. something Republicans like to point out when states want to be more restrictive than DOMA wants them to be. Unfortunately, these hypocrites don't think this works the other way around. They seem to believe that Federal law should trump state law whenever the states are more progressive.
Actually, federal law does trump state law. The state can recognize the marriage for its tax purposes, but federal law does not -- yet.
To be precise, DOMA unconstitutionally shields federal regulations from having to comply with constitutional provisions that delegate to the states the right to regulate marriage and compel all states to grant full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.
The Canada connection, here, is not relevant. Specifically: None of the parties to this dispute content it is pertinent to the matter. The fact that New York recognized the marriage (just like they have recognized many heterosexual marriages that were sanctioned in Canada) addresses that aspect.
Justice seems to be at times not only blind, but since this seemingly unconstitutional act has been in effect for 16 years, also very slow.
To be fair, the unconstitutional act just set down on paper what was already long-standing injustice.
Erin, no, the Feds can tax using whatever standard they want to, but Congress' legislative powers - which they ignored when they illegally, to my view, enacted DOMA - are not unlimited. It can be argued that the enumerated powers in Article I of the constitution establishes the scope of Congressional legislative authority, and the regulation of civilian marriage is - very intentionally, if you read the framers' comments - NOT there. This was an intentional compromise since the few heavily Catholic colonies (e.g., Maryland) were concerned that the Protestant ones might try to dictate to them how to get married, and otherwise lead their lives in respect of social and family life, etc. This idea was later, further reinforced by the 10th Amendment, in respect of the reserved powers of the Federal government versus those powers delegated to the states. This was an issue that the framers were very much aware of.
Republicans completely ignore this legality when they try to regulate things like marriage. They talk out of both sides of their mealy mouths. Every time the states try to be more conservative than the current presidential administration or Congress, they invoke Article I and the 10th Amendment. Every time the states try to more progressive, they take the opposite position. In short, they are a pack of lying, hypocritical con-men.
Though slightly off the subject matter, another long standing injustice is a felon, even after paying for their crime, being forced to wear the "Red Letter "F" for the rest of their life.
How many 19 year olds in this country, whose brains have not even completed the cooking process, make stupid, immature mistakes and are then branded and punished for life?
It makes one wonder how laws like this have been allowed to exist.
Whatever happened to "equal protection under the law" and "all men are created equal?" The thing that I don't understand is why there is any government involvement in marriage at all--it's really none of their business. It all seem like just one more way to protect the special privileges of the "chosen few."
I agree Doreen M. Marriage is just a contract between two people, the same as any other contract.
The Feds can't say a marriage contract between two people of the same gender is invalid, while another contract, such as a landlord/tenant contract between two people of the same gender IS valid.
Since marriage is a legal contract primarily concerning property and kinship rights, government will always be involved if only to regulate the execution of that contract (ie, joint debt obligations, etc).
The government also has a concern that both parties can give legal consent to enter the contract.
But skrekk, what does the sex of the parties have to do with the contract?
That's why government is involved. One of the primary, if not THE primary purpose of governing authority is to enforce contracts.
Marriage, as a contract, comes with a wide array of legality. Inheritance, kinship, taxation, immigration, custody of children, etc etc. These all have legal clout attached to them - and with legality comes the judiciary, and with the judiciary comes the government.
DOMA clearly oversteps those bounds beyond what government involvement is required in a marriage contract. It's arbitrary, unneccessary, and fundamentally unconstitutional because it strips the civil right of marriage (Loving v Virginia) without affording the individuals it targets the due-process of law (14th Amendment).
It has nothing at all to do with it. That's why DOMA is just as unconstitutional as the old anti-miscegenation laws.
The government simply has no legitimate interest in the race or gender of your spouse.
Just to clarify, what I meant to agree with is the government trying to legislate the gender of who can enter into a contract. Thanks all for clearing that point up.
Should there be any limit on marrige? Number of spouses? Related spouses? What should the new rules of marriage be? Anyone can marry anyone else. Or will it be two people and ignore anyone who feels different about it?
A bunch of questions that have nothing to do with the matter at hand, marriage equality for homosexuals. When the government gave women the right to vote, there were suggestions that people consider whether that would mean farm animals would eventually gain the right to vote. It was an offensively opportunistic diversionary tactic then, just like the matter of who else could gain marriage equality is today. It is, specifically, nothing more than an act of bigotry against homosexuals, to equate homosexuality with anything other than heterosexuality.
Slippery slope non-sequitur.
Seems like in this case the feds have 363 thousand reasons to keep DOMA intact.
After all that would run the government for 363 seconds.
Funny......it seems the courts see that as 363,053 reasons why DOMA won't be around after next June.
Looks like the dumb bigots lose another round.
Wow... They have been together for 44 years! Probably been together long than 65% of the other breeders err marriages...
Wow johnfsteph - I thought Biology taught that 2 females of the human species couldn't interbreed. Personally I could care less if they were married or not in this case. My question is - Why the federal government has any claim on an individuals wealth at death? This is the only true wealth tax we have in the US.
The law of the land is the law of the land until it is changed. The fringe want it changed for monetary reasons and I can see why. Marriage is one man and one woman today and always no matter what anyone says as far as I'm concerned but then I'm not the one collecting taxes, LOL.
Nope, not always. The definition of marriage has changed over time and throughout civilizations.
It is only some narrow-minded religious zealots who keep chanting "one man one woman" thinking it is a sound or valid argument.
The union of two people should not be up for group approval. As far as the taxes go, it is just like any other two income marriage, they get taxed higher.
Still rewriting history to support your lies, I see, Coolhand.
The union of a man and a woman is not up for group approval. God Almighty defines marriage, not me, you, or all the people on the planet.
Every rebellious act and heresy builds up wrath from God in the judgement to come.
Really, Bible talk Herald? God Almighty does not define marriage, the Bible is the word of man, as purportedly inspired by God.
Bolton,
I'll go one step further, how do we even know God is a He????
Herald, Your God is a figment of what Conquerors impose on conquered lands.
People have always worshipped the gods of the unknown.
Why does "GOD" kill innocent people and let vile ones live?
You might as well believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too.
WHATEVER happened to Satan, no one ever talksabout him anymore.
Don' forget to tithe your neighborhood church.
Bolton,
Ah yes, us "Whores of Bablyon". How silly of me! I'll go back to passively waiting for someone to purchase me from my father, for 25 Sheckles and a goat.
He may need to bring the price down though.
Bolton,
Gotta love an enlightened man!
I don't think there's any place in the comic book called the Christian Bible in which their "God" actually defines marriage as being only between one man and one woman. Many of the ancient Hebrews were polygamists, and they didn't seem to think that they were violating "God's Law"... A lot of Bible-thumpers point to the wedding feast at Cana as an event in which Jesus "sanctified" heterosexual marriage by blessing the couple. Except, of course, that He said nothing whatsoever about marriage. He was just a guest - not the rabbi performing the ceremony. I just love the way so many people who call themselves "Christians" feel it's okay the cherry-pick the Bible for the "confirmation" of their prejudices - and utterly ignore the parts that say their attitudes are WRONG. I don't care whether you believe in this comic book or not, but if you're going to say you DO believe in it, you have to believe in ALL of it. All, or nothing.
Your god is neither required or necessary for marriage!
Threats from your cosmic boogeyman is hardly convincing or persuasive. Maybe to the weak and guillable-minded maybe. But not to me!
Now there's a sad loss.
Coolhand,Be careful what you gloat over.The government can tax one of your hobbies,favorite foods etc.
Mitt Romney's great grandfather was a POLYGAMIST (polygamy recognized as valid and legal under Mormon/LDS law) -- had five (5) wives.
RobertW--and YOUR great Grandfather might have owned SLAVES, or beaten his wife, or been a cheat, liar, or murderer.
Does that mean YOU are too?
Hey Herald, You do realize that your religiously nonsensical argument is absolutely irrelevant when it comes to US Law... right?
You do also realize that other religions in this country approve of gay-marriage, so as far as your religious beliefs go... they are rendered moot by the existence of other pro-gay religions in a nation of Religious Freedom. (Religious Freedom = your god is legally no more legitimate than my god)
Momma Rose - the tax was due because of the value of the estate and not because of whether or not they were married.
This couple and every other gay couple that are worried about estate taxes when they die know the current laws in the US will tax their estate when one of them passes away and if they don't like it they can move to a country that recognizes their marriage.
That makes no sense. It's because the Fed doesn't recognize their marriage under DOMA, an act which is now being evaluated for its Constitutionality.
Do you have a problem with Congress passing Acts which may be unconstitutional? Or does constitutionality not matter so long as it suits your personal prejudices?
Herald9
"Matrimony" is a religious sacrament; "marriage" is a civil contract.
My wife and I cannot have children. (We're too old.) Does that mean we cannot be married? What ridiculous nonsense you've come up with there, Herald9. You're correct that God defines marriage - not you. God sanctions marriage between homosexuals as much as between heterosexuals. This is implicit in the principles of my religion. You're welcome to live your life, and structure your marriage, in accordance with your religion, but don't you dare presume to do anything that deprives me of the same right, the right to structure my marriage in accordance with my religion.
erin , you are an idiot troll, in what way exactly did I try to rewrite history?
Mike, you are correct, the definition of marriage is different in different places and at different times. People change that definition to meet their perceptions and perversions but at the core of this discussion, the common person world-wide would define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The fringe in this country is now trying to include,,,whatever and future groups may try to include their perception so they to can get tax benefits and credits but many people (those narrow-minded religious zealots) you call them, would still not recognize those unions as marriages. Unions perhaps but not marriages.
Walt, I'm not sure what Bible you have been reading or what God you are praying to but the one from the Bible does not recognize and embrace homosexual marriage. And no I won't school a troll.
Marriage has NOT always been "one man and one woman" -- ancient civilizations allowed same-sex marriage, the the Native Americans here in the US also performed same-sex marriages. Furthermore, marriage was not always just for two people, as in the bible: many biblical men had multiple wives.
Do you really enjoy it when we point out your stupidity? I'm beginning to believe you do.
erin, I wrote:
The law of the land is the law of the land until it is changed. The fringe want it changed for monetary reasons and I can see why. Marriage is one man and one woman today and always no matter what anyone says as far as I'm concerned but then I'm not the one collecting taxes, LOL.
You are the one putting history into what I wrote duffus. I simply said that today it is this and it will be until it is changed. How difficult is it for you haters? I also said that as far as I'm concerned it will always be one man and one woman that makes a marriage and that is my opinion so how is that rewriting history? Go back in your corner and sit on the stool. You really are dense.
My original post was neutral with an opinion but you haters attacked anyway, LOL you people are so weak.
You must be a member of one of the bigoted cults like the Mormons or Southern Baptists. You nuts always thought some people were inferior and should be treated as 2nd-class citizens.
Episcopalians, the ELCA and many other Christians have no problems at all with gays, and fully recognize and bless same-sex marriage. Even 71% of Catholics support marriage equality.
skrekk,,,,, LOL Right and the rest of the Bible believing community is shaking their heads. You can be clueless, Godless and a hater if you want and it still will not fix things the way you attack everyone that does not agree with you.
You hurt your daughters agenda and yours by being so hateful.
Actually, you christo-bigots have helped the "gay agenda" with YOUR flagrant ignorance and bigotry.
BTW, what is the "gay agenda," since you like to refer to it?
erin, not until you answer up. You owe explanations for attacks on previous posts 6.25. and others. You do that a lot. When called out you just ignore and then attack again or throw a red herring. LOL child.
Erin, that's the delicious irony......bigots like Coolhand are too clueless to realize that it's their hate which is causing the courts to treat sexual orientation as a suspect class. The dumb bigots have shot themselves in the foot.
I "owe" you nothing, Coolhand. You cannot refute any legitimate, credible sources presented anywhere, so you resort to ad hom attacks -- yet another indication that you have lost your arguments.
Considering you still believe the Bible condemns homosexuality at all, I'd say the clueless one is you.
I'm talking about God, not your preferred Bible.
There's only one God. Not three Gods - not a three-headed God - just one God - Nature's God as a matter of fact - the God that is actually mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
And so folks who see God the way you have chosen to are welcome to refrain from same-sex marriage. Your corrupted sensibilities are your own. Don't expect to be able to inflict them on others with impunity. In my religion, putting yourself as lord over others in that way is hubris, a sin.
Which is code for the fact that you realize that your mythology is nothing but stories and parables and you cannot defend them on merits, so all you have to work with is trying to make it seem like you have some right to lord over others, issuing edicts for how they are to view and live life "because [you] said so". First lesson for free: You don't have such right. You have the right to determine what goes in inside your own body, and you have the right to determine your own family relations, and you have the right to determine your own manner of worship. That's it with regard to religion. Everyone else has the same right as you, to determine what goes on in their own body, to determine their own family relations, and to determine their own worship. And where you meet with others in the public space, they let you live your way and you let them live their way, without either holding those personal decisions against the other in any way. That's a very simple application of something called the Golden Rule. You should check into that - it is pretty important for living in community with others.
Bull.
erin, I accept your surrender, and the only thing I have lost with you child is time that I could have spent reading something that contained more intelligence like say,,,,a comic book. But, it was my choice and somewhat funny so thanks,,,
skrekk, what can I say,,, I'm married and prefer women so,,sorry you can't have me but thanks. You will have to find some other man. Your hate for me is such a poor cover for your true feelings and you will feel much better if you just come out.
allswell, you did not end well,
walt, you can make up any god you wish, LOL, sorry to get your goat and I'm glad your god makes you happy, it's good to have a god that agrees with your lifestyle. I'm sure it makes sleeping at night easier.
To all have a nice day...I bore with your hate
My God isn't made up. It's the real one. If you are a Christian, and believe in the Christian Bible, then you believe in a made up God, made up essentially by Paul and his contemporaries, as part of the Pauline mythology. This fake God actually has changed in nature since the beginning, starting out originally as merely a conception of the one God of Judaism, and later morphing by committee into this capricious, three-headed monster that many fundamentalists like to prattle about. A great bit of fiction, but still a fake God.
You do realize that I'm a guy, married to a woman, right? My "lifestyle" has nothing to do with anything. Really the only "lifestyle" at issue here is the "lifestyle" of expressing bigotry and acting in hate toward homosexuals, something which I'm not guilty of.
What you actually became bored with is the righteous repudiation of the hate you wanted to support.
That's really the best you can do? Sad, but expected. Can you prove the Bible condemns homosexuality in its original languages? Or are you so entrenched in your hate that you can't accept the possibility that all you know is a lie?
At the end of the day, the only one hating is you.
There is nothing to "accept," Coolhand, since I -- and those on my side -- have WON. You have been schooled in history AND civics, whether you admit it or not.
I'm sure neither skrekk nor any other person in his/her right mind wants you.
Bigots like Coolhand have lost on DADT, within 9 months they'll have lost on DOMA, in November they'll have lost in 3 or 4 more states, and in a few years when SCOTUS takes up the next Prop 8 case they'll have lost in all 50 states.
It must be tough to be a dumb bigot on the wrong side of history......even Coolhand's kids realize he's a bigot and laugh behind his back. That must be humiliating to realize what your kids really think of you.
Lol, and those like Coolhand are given the same voting rights as everybody else to determine the future of this country. Laughter is a better alternative than crying.
On a thread related to another DOMA story, someone wrote "We will one day look back on this and not understand why there was ever a controversy about it, as we do now with the civil rights of African Americans."
I think that is perfectly-stated.
God Almighty invented marriage, contrary to what others on this thread conjure up. No matter what immoral humanists say, marriage can only exist between one man and one woman. God says so, that's who.
Marriage has been recognized as a sacred union between one man and one woman by almost every civilization.
There is no coincidence that through the decades many Americans have rejected God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible, and now immorality is being advocated as a normal lifestyle.
Whatever feels good, do it. Isn't that the rebel humanist creed?
Herald9,
What are you talking about. How many wives did Abraham have? How many Sexual concubines did he and Moses have? Instead of belching the putrid rubbish from an illeterate pulpit, read a few books if you dare and if you can read.
The tenants of religion as we know it was mulled over, rewriten a hundred times over the thousand years after Christ died before it became Cannon laws.
You are carrying on the hatefilled teachings of the Hebrews, and the deadly Roman Empire.
Get a grip and read a book, respectfully,
Lazarus
Herald,
Darn, that stupid 1st Amendment, getting in the way of your religious rants! It must really stick in your craw, huh?
Thank God, we're protected from YOUR God.
That's nice. prove it! While you're at it, prove there's a god too!
Merely your opinon/belief.
Gay marriage has been and currently is, recognized by many countries and cultures!
There is nothing immoral about gay marriage. You and your god don't have the monopoly in defining what's "moral!"
If it harms no one or doesn't break the law, what's the problem?
Question: Before Christianity and its missionary work, before Judaism and its missionary work, before Buddhism and its missionary work, before any religion and its missionary work -- DURING THE PAGAN YEARS, if there is no God or Christ, can there be a SACRED UNION???
Herald,
You couldn't be any more wrong in your statement. Marriage pre dates religion. It wasn't until some Catholic Bishop in Roman times declared that marriages needed to be performed in the Church that "God" even entered into the picture.
Of course it is obvious that facts will not matter to you. Only your faith in a book full of contradictions and magical stories matter to you.
You might as well believe that middle earth exists.
If by pagan you mean polytheist - yes, pagans had sacraments too, as well as marriage. In fact, many of the current marriage traditions of Christians comes not from Christianity, but from pagan sacramental ritual. The binding, the rice throwing, etc.
Except that the arguments used against both are the same, Willie. YOUR comparison fails the legal tests.
BTW, what "special treatment" are gays demanding?
They are related, but a more proper equation would be that interracial marriage ~ same-sex marriage.
Herald9: "God Almighty invented marriage"
The only young man I know about, who may have suffered from having two dads, was Jesus. Only one of his dads cause the suffering.
The other dad, Joe, I’m told, was a pretty decent guy, though he and his wife, Mary, I am told, never had a kid of their own. But they were married.
Willie willie willie,
I love how people who actually get more than another group, claim that the other group is looking for special treatment in asking to recieve what others already have.
What's the matter don't want to share your special privilages with others?
duh
Why are the Feds always out of step with the Country ??
Because Congress is filled with elderly bigots.
Skrekk--"Because Congress is filled with elderly bigots." And with two faced reps from BOTH parties who pander to the religous nuts from both sides of the 'aisle'.
And before anyone tries to claim that ONLY the pubs are bigots, remember that BLACKS and HISPANICS are majorly (in the main) against gay marriage.
And they are also Majorly DEMS.
MO,
And yet the Democratic National Party's position, is that gay marriage should be legal, where Republicans is that it shouldn't be.
I'm sure there are individual bigots on each side, but party wise, it's pretty cut and dry.
You obviously have no clue about what "legal consent" or "equal protection" mean, Willie.
And you are correct the Repuglicans exhibit "morals" -- the "morals" of alley cats.
Yes willie, republicans exhibit morals.. you did just read of the voter fraud scandal they just got caught in right ??
some morals !
Willie,
Yup, I sure do. I think any behavior that doesn't interfere with the rights of others is perfectly fine.
You mean the morals of adultery? Of warmongering? Of agreeing with the idea that homosexuals should be put to death?
What morals are you talking about?
I think that's a little naive. The reality is that Hispanics tend to be Catholic, and 71% of Catholics support marriage equality......much higher than the 54% of the general public who support it.
Same thing with blacks where the opposition is rapidly declining. After Obama's endorsement a few months ago, the majority of blacks in Maryland now support marriage equality. So does the NAACP and almost every black civil rights leader.
It mostly tends to be teabaggers and other Republicans who oppose equality (94% of teabaggers oppose it), as well as Mormons, Southern Baptists and other evangelicals. And even within those groups there's a large differential based on age, as the bigots tend to be elderly.
The hateful religious laws that have caused so much human suffering is still alive and well. What a travesty as the Hypocrisy of religion has no bounds. We see the Muslims perpetrating brutal acts of persecution towards other humans, when the Christians are quietly using money and the legal system to do their dirty work.
Not long ago there was a story in the press about the Southern Baptist saying they had two million dollars to "oust" any senator/congressman who openly supports same sex marriage.
My Question would be what Jesus would spend two million dollars on if he were alive today. The problem with religion is that people justify their own hate filled acts by saying it is God's Will.
That is what the Muslims were chanting as they stoned two people to death and when the married man murdered his wife for having been raped.
How about you hate filled hypocrites come out and just begin stoning people in the name of the Christian God here in America? At least we can see you and your hateful ways first hand. during the thousand years after Christ died, all of the religions had one thing in common in the Golden Crescent area of the World, The Pagans were all killed as quickly as possible because NONE of them would pay taxes for a religion so none of them could become wealthy from collecting money from the religious followers. and that is the Root of All EVIL, Money for God.
Personally I would like to hear TRUTH for once come from the mouths of Christians shouting the HEBREW LAWS of the Old Testament. You are not following Jesus when your vile hate filled nature is shown. It is the Adopted Hebrew Laws of an Ancient set of JEWS, the SAME JEWS that killed JESUS.
I was raised a Southern Baptist and I am glad because somewhere along the way Jesus gave me the ability to think on my own as I am sure he did as he opposed the Hebrew Police State. Read history if you dare and see the truth of the scripture that you believe is ordained by God. It is not spoken by Southern Baptist.
The act of Shunning is alive and well in many protestant religions and is about as vile a practice as there is because it attacks the basic needs and nature of all humans. But like the Koran says "Do not expect riches in this life but in Heaven".
When I hear that statement I am reminded of the statement that being rich or having money will not make you happy. While that may be true to a point, I say it will at least make suffering a lot more tolerable. At least with money, the basic human needs are taken care of like hunger, and shelter.
I have been in poverty much of my life from childhood and have been homeless on occasions and it sucks. I managed to make a few right decisions like Join the Army and serve my country, go to college, get a degree, and learn how to survive on my own. The largest lesson I learned in life is that Moral values are not learned for a book, certainly not a book that preaches murdering each other in the name of God. True Moral values come from see others do acts of kindness and love and then perpetuating the act by duplication. Many other religions from around the world have this philosophy. Why is it that force and threat of death is the foundation for religions that shout love to hide behind. Eternal damnation is alright as far as I am concerned because the alternative of being tortured in life is not appealing at all. Personally, I feel that the Romans and others corrupted the teachings of Jesus and all of these hate filled religions are not representative of Jesus at all.
So far I have not seen one act of God that kept a single person from suffering from the wrath of God at the hands of true believers nor prevented innocent people from suffering at the hands of brutal humans.
God blessed these two women for a chance at happiness even if they needed to hide to stay alive. It has proving easier for women to show affection to each other than men. If two men were to kiss in public in any small town in just about any region of the nation, I can only imagine the moral indignation that would follow.
Religious fanatics would speak in tongues, preachers would be calling on eternal damnation for the kissers, and the ignorant followers would be looking for some way to insure that hell would visit them on Earth.
I say, "who is harmed if two people find happiners in this life? There is so little true happiness allowed to exist because others want to impose their misery onto others. Jesus gave his life rebelling against a religious, business/police state, and he tried to help as many people as possible. Why can't we follow that example for a while?
But that is just me, if you please, allow me to worship The Jesus I know to be abhorrent to hate and torture of humans.
Lazarus
How does this"book" you wrote above have anything to do with the film maker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula? Stay on the subject (topic) and stop advertising your religion here. We're discussing the film maker.
How does any of this "destroy any belief in a God or a Supreme Being"? Our government is secular, so the existence of "God" or any other "Supreme Being" is irrelevant to our laws and government.
BTW, there are many gays who are Christians, or who follow other religions.
What a ridiculous thing to say! My minister has a very strong belief in God, and he's gay. Stop assuming that your own personal understanding of God is anything close to accurate for anyone, especially anyone other than you. If you want to live in a Universe where God is a capricious, bigoted monster, that's your prerogative. In reality, that isn't God. God loves all equally and doesn't make mistakes: Having created someone as a homosexual is proof that God intends for some people to live in our society as homosexuals. Instead of working so hard to find new ways to think or act badly against them, God wants you to challenge yourself to find new ways to think and act kindly toward them, to respect them as you would want to be respected yourself, to value them as you would want to be valued, to grant them the dignity that you expect for yourself, to accept their participation in and benefit from society in every way that you wish to participate and benefit from society. This is God's message.
Willie,
Well, since your "Christianity" (notice the parenthesis, as you don't seem very Christian at all) is used to deny them equal protection under the law, when they've done ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong, and the only argument that they HAVE is RELIGIOUS...
Shucks, what could it be?
Case in point...
Here's a thought. Keep YOUR God, out of THEIR private lives and OUR government, and nobody will say a damn thing.
Willie, you need to read your own arguments.. you just stated that:
1. gays are mocking Christianity, the Bible and any Supreme being <-- then you go on to say that a percentage of gays are Christian.. so they obviously wouldn't mock Christianity.. so which is it ??
2. gays are mocking Christianity, the Bible and any Supreme being <-- which isn't true actually, i DO read these threads and some of the people on here that do mock those things are actually heterosexuals.. and heterosexuals who are married too ! and some single heterosexuals.. which again gives your argument an invalidation
so Willie, care to try again ? your blanket statement has holes in it, it won't keep you warm after all
NO, Willie, I do not "need" to read any more of your ignorant bull@!$%# to know that you're full of it. YOU can call them "pretend" marriages, but that does not make that true.
And no one mocks Christianity; we who support equality mock your pathetic attempts to use your so-called "Christianity" to justify your hatred and bigotry. We also mock your pathetic attempts to foist your religious views on everyone, since we do not all believe in any religion -- as is the right of everyone in this country.
In the first place, morality is subjective -- YOU are not a "moral person" in any way, shape, or form. Second, gays are not attempting to "destroy any mention of God" -- there is no "God" in our government or laws. PERIOD.
WRONG. Approximately 70% of gay adults identify themselves as Christians.
Willie,
Since you seem to be so versed in our Constitution, please tell me where GOD is mentioned? I'll save you the trouble, god is NOT mentioned anywhere. God is not the individual who dictates our morality or the civil laws of the United States. The first amendment is very clear about freedom of religion, but anyone with a basic knowledge of American History would also know this country was founded on FREEDOM From religious tyranny. SCOTUS has also been very clear about the seperation of church from state.
As far as I am concerned, people have their right to believe whatever they want. However, your beliefs end where my secular rights begin.
First off, morals don't come from the Christian god alone. Morals are individual, not absolute.
Secondly, that phrase should be stricken from all government instances. It was added by a fearmongering group of Congressmen during the Red Scare and serves zero purpose but to advance the Abrahamic Religions (a clear violation of the Constitution).
Taking bets here. This old boy is going to be a sacrificial lamb, fall on the sword to cover up the deceiving p.o.s. marxist and thief obama's pi$$poor foreign policy and incompetents.
welcome to obamelot the gaywad fantasyland capital of the universe.
Clown.
Let the lady have her money free and clear.The inheritance tax should be done away with altogether and it will then become a non issue.We as Americans are taxed to death so that the government can figure out ways to waste the money.
Maybe we should first try to treat all Americans equally under the law, then we can discuss whether the estate tax is a good idea?
Otherwise it's like saying that blacks can ride at the front of the bus when we end bus service.
Question: Before Christianity and its missionary work, before Judaism and its missionary work, before Buddhism and its missionary work, before any religion and its missionary work -- DURING THE PAGAN YEARS, if there is no God or Christ, can there be a SACRED UNION???
Mitt Romney's great-grandfather (only 2 generations) was a POLYGAMIST (polygamy recognized as valid and legal under Mormon/LDS law) -- had five (5) wives.
Mitt Romney's father was “born on a polygamy commune in Mexico" where members of the Mormon Church/LDS went to continue the practice of "plural marriage" after it was banned.
(ex. http://www.theconservativepundit.net/?p=751)
Can a single mother marry her daughter to evade estate tax?
No. States have incest laws.
Just like a mother could marry her adopted son or son in a blended family situation.
What's your point?
Oh... You didn't have one...
WillieSmith - and it looks like a father could marry his adopted daughter or daughter in a blended family as long as the daughter was of age and at least one of them declared they were straight
go figure huh ?
your arguments against gay marriage apply to arguments against straight marriage...
um.. ooops on your part huh ?
You mutants never stop....
i completely agree al, if only bigots would just leave everyone alone, we'd all be better off
Of course, if the court doesn't take up any of the cases that have come before it regarding DOMA, that inaction has the effect of upholding the rulings of the lower courts since they've consistently struck down all or parts of DOMA. That wouldn't be the best option since it would leave other federal courts the option of upholding DOMA in their districts, but at least it would be a start.
That disparate treatment between federal districts guarantees that DOMA will be heard this session.
Have there been disparate rulings? Based on the matters before them, some courts have struck down more parts of DOMA than others, but as far as I know no rulings have upheld it. The Court could wait until it has two rulings in direct opposition.
Barry, my point was the same as yours - that SCOTUS won't fail to take it up since to do so would leave DOMA unenforceable in some federal districts but enforceable in others, which is untenable.
There were something like six cases which "upheld" DOMA very early on, before there were any married couples with standing to challenge the law. In general none made any ruling on the merits of the case since the plaintiffs lacked standing. See pgs 161-163:
http://hosted.law.wisc.edu/wjlgs/issues/2009-spring/mclaughlin.pdf
The court will have no option but to rule in favor of same-sex marriage, as it has already ruled that marriage is a right, and the 14th amendment stipulates that all laws be applied equally to all people.
Willie, the courts see it as a 14th Amendment issue, too -- gays are demanding equal treatment under the law, which is provided in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Since the Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the 14th Amendment, that has to apply equally to gays as taxpaying citizens of this country.
No wonder you bigots are LOSING at every level; you lack reading comprehension skills, for one thing.
"Same-sex marriage" is the ultimate oxymoron. Can't exist!
Changing word meanings, definitions does not change essence. Calling a rock a piece of steak does not confer "steakness" upon the rock. So it is with marriage. Marriage can only exist between opposite-sex couples.
Calling your dogma, based on ancient mythology, "righteous" is "changing word meanings". It's "self-righteous" - big difference.
Calling your argument a "proof" of your contention is "changing word meanings". It's "opinion" - big difference.
The reality is that marriage is defined not by your reactionary perspective but rather by the intention to form and commit one's self to a family. Homosexuals are therefore as capable as heterosexuals (though I've certainly read comments from professed heterosexuals that make me wonder if they even acknowledge the essential aspects of marriage, much less have the capacity to exhibit those aspects themselves).
And saying that marriage is between opposing-sex persons doesn't make that true either.
But as you said "opposing-sex couples" then I get it you believe only polygamist marriage are valid.
You and the other bigots don't own the word "marriage," Willie.
Umm No. Civil unions are not acceptable. It creates a 'seperate but equal clause' in our laws and SCOTUS struck that down. Everyone is entitled to equal marriage rights.
No.
Some of the same-sex marriages I know of are more so "real" marriages than some of the heterosexual marriages I've witnessed. You don't get to define marriage for anyone other than yourself. If you want something special just for you, to your specifications, then create it outside the public sphere. In the public sphere we are all welcome, despite your baseless preference to claim part of the public space for yourself.
I suspect Willie also thinks whites-only drinking fountains are a good idea.
Lonesome Rhoades-2738573
Claiming that your religious beliefs is the only valid definition does not change the pre-exisiting fact that it is a civil contract, and civil contracts are defined by the State, not the Supernatural. Do you guys ever look in the mirror when you make your thunderous pronouncements?
People like that only read the bible, so they have no clue about facts. Marriage existed long before their god was invented. They stole the term, and now they're crying because they're not able to get away with their bigotry much longer.
Willie, you can have your religious unions, and we'll take the term "marriage" back. No god has ever been required for a marriage to be legal, anyway. Marriage is a civil contract having nothing to do with your god.
I am a Christian who believes that gay marriage should be legal in the US. The only opposition for it is for religious reasons. Separation of church and state dictates that this is not a valid reason. Therefore, gay marriage is a constitutional right. If there are churches that choose not to recognize gay marriage that is their choice. But the government really has no choice and I hope that they realize that sooner rather than later.
Civil Marriage is, under a Federal court ruling in Loving vs Virginia, a civil right. The fourteenth amendment requires that our government protect the rights of all people equally.
Holy Matrimony is a Religious Rite the first amendment requires that our government pretty much remain silent on such matters.
When all loving, committed, consenting adults are afforded the fourteenth amendment's protection of their civil right to marriage, the first amendment's protection of religious liberty will insure that no religious organization can be required to offer the Rite of Holy Matrimony to anyone they do not choose to.
The Courthouse and the Church see the world in very different ways, I'm good with that.
WillieSmith -
I think YOU are the one who needs to go back to school and study the consitution and how are government works. Marriage is a fundamental RIGHT and SCOTUS has ruled on it more than once. The 14th Amendment was INVOKED several times about the right to marriage.
Actually, Bear, it is "marriage" that is a basic civil right, since under our secular laws, legal marriage is strictly a civil contract. Many people confuse "holy matrimony" with "marriage".
Christian and Jewish and Muslim employees who work for the federal government, beware. Your deeply held moral and religious convictions about the abnormality of homosexual behavior are about to make you the victim of a fresh wave of hate crimes. The homosexual lobby has a new cudgel, and they're coming after you.
And you're still WRONG. Nowhere does the 14th Amendment -- or the entire Constitution -- explicitly say that two people, whether opposite or same genders, can marry. That is why the Supreme Court interpreted that marriage is a "basic civil right" under the Equal Protection Clause of that amendment; it is the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution as it applies to laws. Several federal judges have agreed that it applies to same-sex marriage, as well.
Their word on this trumps your pathetic rantings. No wonder you bigots keep LOSING in the courts.
WillieSmith
Stand by whatever you believe. That's part of being an American. However, it doesn't mean it's right and SCOTUS would tell you to get a basic education as well.
Raymond-1126037
Beware. Your rights to discriminate against two individuals of the same sex that want to be married are about to be revoked. If you prefer to live in a country where this is not acceptable, I believe Iran would be a good place for you to live.
Raymond, if you're going to copy and paste from Bryan Fischer, you have to use the "quote" function and give a citation for the source.
You are plagiarizing, and you've been reported.
Willie,
You're failing miserably at pretending to be a lawyer. The 15th Amendment gave blacks the right to vote, not the 14th.
Since you're so anxious to be an attorney...
Loving v Virginia, which is applicable because the defense used by the state is the same used to justify the anti-equality case. The argument that failed, was the same one you made above, when you said...
PSSST IT DIDN'T HOLD WATER. So just change the word "race" to "gender"...
Lawrence v Texas, which deals with our right to privacy, implied through the 4th and 9th Amendments...
On top of that, one could make a case regarding the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment, which could also encompass gender discrimination in contract law.
Question #1-
So, if you can, please give me that LEGITIMATE STATE INTEREST, the court needed in Lawrence, which would enable the government to limit, at least the 14th, 4th and 9th Amendment rights of an entire group of people?
Continuing, the act of marriage essentially falls under contract law, it has never simply been between one man and one woman, and it predates organized religion. It shouldn't be confused with HOLY MATRIMONY, which is the religous sacrement or sanctifying, or spirituality that's been added over the years.
This is why the STATE issues the lisence, not the church. Why the court oversees divorces, not the church. And, why tons of people are married everyday, without stepping foot in a church. On top of that marriage comes with over 1000 benefits for those who enter into the contract.
That being said...
Question # 2 -
Since the only difference between a gay marriage and a straight marriage, is the gender of a single party, what is inherent to that single party's gender which would lead to bestiality, incest, polygamy, pedophilia, or marrying inanimate objects? Remember, you're ONLY changing ONE person's GENDER, so logically, it must be something within that one person's gender, which would lead you to believe gay marriage would open the door to any of those things, so... WHAT IS IT? Why would gay marriage lead to the repeal of the laws we have on the books, banning all those things?
Question #3-
AND, since marriage is a legal contract, NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH HOLY MATRIMONY, why then, does that one thing from the paragraph above, NOT ban those parties from ALL contract law?
NONE of the bestiality, pedophilia, incest, polygamy, or inanimate objects arguments WILL EVER WORK, logically or legally, until you can answer those questions.
So, why can someone who has committed adultry stay married, or re-marry if they divorced due to an affair? Isn't "thou shall not commit adultry" a commandment? What about "thou shalt have no other god before me"? - so why can an athiest marry when they flat out reject God? If you are going to use "it's a sin" as the reason for objecting to same sex marriage, which does infringe on a tax payers rights who has broken no laws, then don't you have object to marriage for anyone who is a sinner? Especially if the sin is relatable to marriage?
I love it when people who believe God is a capricious, mistake-prone monster try to dictate what God is and what God intends.
Willie, just because someone is an atheist does not mean that s/he has not read and understood the bible; in fact, a person usually becomes an atheist BECAUSE of the bible and its nonsense.
Wait, you're a masochist?
Comment # 28 deleted for plagiarism.
Raymond-1126037, mind the CoH.
The Federal government has no place interfering in our lives and marriages.
Vote to keep the Federal Government out of our lives.
Write in Ron Paul.
Marriage is a civil institute, it does not exist without governance.
Ender
Sorry. But I think even Ron Paul would agree that the government has to be involved in the contractual side of things. But I take your point that the government's involvement should be limited to the same requirements of any contract. Legal age, consenting adults. Period.
Ron Paul actually opposes legal equality for gays, he supports DOMA, and he supports sharia laws being enforced by the states. He even wrote the odious "Marriage Protection Act" and "We the People Act", both of which would deny basic civil rights to gays.
His solution is like telling blacks they can ride at the front of the bus after the government ends bus service.
Asked his opinion on same-sex marriage in October 2011, Paul replied, “Biblically and historically, the government was very uninvolved in marriage. I like that. I don't know why we should register our marriage to the federal government. I think it's a sacrament.”
Ron Paul believes in the RULE OF LAW.
Please do not confuse this with his personal views.
While he personally believes marriage is between a man and woman, he understands that it is not for the federal government to decide.
My apologies to Dr. Paul if i got any of this wrong.
Then he shouldn't be mentioning religion at all. Marriage was a secular, civil institute long before religion shoved its hand in.
Of all the reasons that same -sex marriage is a bad idea, has anyone contemplated this : prisoners are allowed to get married; you'd have to let same-sex prisoners get married; you'd have a scenario where a more powerful prisoner pressures another one to marry him, and then can forever make property claims against him.
There are millions of prisoners, so it would actually a pretty major new issue. That's just ONE of many absurd new scenarios we'd be dealing with nationwide if we accept the absurd notion of same-sex marriage.
you're joking, right? forced prison marriages to get assets would be a MAJOR new issue? lol. you're funny.
clue for the clueless: we're already got "many absurd scenarios" with just regular marriage. The tiny number of same sex marriages isn't going to change anything.
oh of course that's such a major issue Porter (which i remember you stating before on another thread and it was shot down), because right now we don't have heterosexual men, who are more powerful than the women they prey on, marrying weaker women so they can forever make property claims against them etc... it just doesn't happen right ? there are NO women out there who feel they have been forced to be married, or women in abusive marriages that are scared of their husbands and can't find a way out..
nothing like that going on... heterosexual marriage is just peachy.. and this is outside of the prison system.. yet you overlook it and want to focus on the prison system right ?
willie: lol, yeah, there's no sex in prisons now "when the lights go out". What, you think prisoners won't have sex unless they are married? LOL
You mock it but you don't refute it. Yes, it would be a major new issue in prisons (that's millions of people) if prisoners could manipulate living arrangements and make property claims through sham or coerced "marriage".
And this is just ONE of many absurd new scenarios.
willie, why are you so obsessed with gay sex? lol.
porter: how can you refute an absurd claim? you could claim that martians are invading new york, and I can't refute it either.
that's why i'm mocking it..its absurd.
Porter, i'd like to see your evidence that this scenario will happen and run rampant as your irrational mind paints the scene as happening
you have an inmate that you have your eye on ? or are you just scared that Bubba can soon make legal claim on you through a "sham marriage" ?
willie: again, what does gay marriage have to do with polygamy? as long as polygamy isn't legal, then gay marriage doesn't change that. lol.
no, gays don't have to think about these "consequences", since they exist only in your confused mind. :)
What is REALLY absurd is that convicted felons can marry; while homosexuals, who are taxpaying, law-abiding citizens, cannot.
Porter,
Gay relationships occur now, and are not allowed in prison, currently. If they were caught having a relationship, the prisoners would be separated.
Remember, your rights are restricted in prison. They MAY be allowed to get married, but once separated, they wouldn't be allowed to communicate between prisons or cell blocks, seeing as they don't allow that now.
I really don't know what's more absurd. This scenario, or the whole, "What's next, toasters?" panic.
oh the toaster !!! i have been neglectful of my relationship with my toaster lately.. i think its mad at me :(
Don't worry Phoenyx, you can always keep the coffee pot on the back burner. And if that doesn't work out, just go for the burner itself.
but Sarah,
i don't drink coffee (yucky) so my coffee pot absolutely hates me..
but the burner itself ?? well at least it would keep me warm all the time :) .. that would be a great benefit in the winter time !
1) coerced marriage is illegal no matter what
2) shams can be uncovered and are also illegal (defrauding)
3) no prisoner can specify who they share a cell with (they can specify who not, if there is a threat)
Weak, guys, real weak.
Porter,
You do realize that when a hetero prisoner gets married, the person they get married to DOESN'T MOVE IN!
So what makes you think they would allow two same sex married prisoners to live in the same cell together?
And by the way...nice jump to ludicrous just to justify your stance against same sex marriage.
Willie seems to really enjoy thinking about what sex acts gay men commit. Kissing, fondling, having sex in the shower ... it preys on his mind. Methinks he doth protest too much. Having any nice dreams lately, Willie?