Defense of Marriage Act takes a major blow

[knapplc]

Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

 

BOSTON (AP) -- An appeals court has ruled that the heart of the law that denies a host of federal benefits to same-sex married couples is unconstitutional.

 

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled Thursday that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against married gay couples by denying them federal benefits.

 

The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004.

 

In 2010, a federal judge in Massachusetts declared the heart of the law unconstitutional in two separate lawsuits. The judge found that the law interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.

 

Not a surprising ruling at all.

[NUance]

Defense of Marriage Act takes a major blow

 

This could be read as a humorous double entendre. Especially in view of the context.

[Yossarian]

I cannot figure out why people still hold onto the outdated concept of "holy matrimony." What's holy about it? Some seventy percent of all black babies are born to teenage girls who are not married, and some forty percent of white babies are born to unwed mothers. It's getting to the point where only well-educated, older people (straight and gay) get married. Bottom line - if it's so holy, why do people skip the legal ceremony?

[knapplc]

I think America needs to redefine "marriage" as a theistic thing, and "unions" as a legal matter, much the same way they do it in France. Marriage in America means two things - one, that you are united in the eyes of God (whichever God that may be), and it means you have certain legal (secular) privileges, such as different taxation, inheritance rights, etc. These matters need to be separated, and if we separate them a lot of these issues will die down.

 

In France, to be "married," you go in front of a government official, and wed. If you choose to perform a marriage ceremony in front of a religious official that's entirely your choice - but if you only "marry" in front of a religious official and not in front of a government offial, the French government does not recognize your wedded status and you don't have legal rights as a wedded couple. This seems perfectly legitimate, and the best of both worlds - you get your legal rights from the government and your religious rights from the religion of your choosing.

[bhamHusker]

I cannot figure out why people still hold onto the outdated concept of "holy matrimony." What's holy about it? Some seventy percent of all black babies are born to teenage girls who are not married, and some forty percent of white babies are born to unwed mothers. It's getting to the point where only well-educated, older people (straight and gay) get married. Bottom line - if it's so holy, why do people skip the legal ceremony?

 

I think what you're describing is a function of economic status / conditions rather than race. While I'm not sure of the need to inject race into the discussion, I think I agree with your underlying point about marriage regardless. There's nothing holy or traditional about our 21st century definition of marriage. It is an arrangement that has evolved greatly over the centuries, and probably never more than it has in the last 100. Until relatively recently, marriage was an exchange of property from the father of the bride to the groom, and nothing more. Marriage ceased to be the purview of the church the moment that the government began recognizing, licensing, regulating and granting special rights to those who are married. Two males or two females marrying does absolutely nothing to diminish the value or quality of the marriage between my wife and myself, or that of anyone else. Religion, in this case, is merely one of the few remaining shelters for bigots who want to inject their sense of right and wrong into everyone else's affairs.

[carlfense]

Chalk one up for liberty and states rights, eh?

[VectorVictor]

I think America needs to redefine "marriage" as a theistic thing, and "unions" as a legal matter, much the same way they do it in France. Marriage in America means two things - one, that you are united in the eyes of God (whichever God that may be), and it means you have certain legal (secular) privileges, such as different taxation, inheritance rights, etc. These matters need to be separated, and if we separate them a lot of these issues will die down.

 

In France, to be "married," you go in front of a government official, and wed. If you choose to perform a marriage ceremony in front of a religious official that's entirely your choice - but if you only "marry" in front of a religious official and not in front of a government offial, the French government does not recognize your wedded status and you don't have legal rights as a wedded couple. This seems perfectly legitimate, and the best of both worlds - you get your legal rights from the government and your religious rights from the religion of your choosing.

 

Gee, it's almost as if France has kept Religion and the Church separate from the State and Government. What a novel concept.

[MLB 51]

I think America needs to redefine "marriage" as a theistic thing, and "unions" as a legal matter, much the same way they do it in France. Marriage in America means two things - one, that you are united in the eyes of God (whichever God that may be), and it means you have certain legal (secular) privileges, such as different taxation, inheritance rights, etc. These matters need to be separated, and if we separate them a lot of these issues will die down.

 

In France, to be "married," you go in front of a government official, and wed. If you choose to perform a marriage ceremony in front of a religious official that's entirely your choice - but if you only "marry" in front of a religious official and not in front of a government offial, the French government does not recognize your wedded status and you don't have legal rights as a wedded couple. This seems perfectly legitimate, and the best of both worlds - you get your legal rights from the government and your religious rights from the religion of your choosing.

 

Gee, it's almost as if France has kept Religion and the Church separate from the State and Government. What a novel concept.

Godless heathens.

[JJ Husker]

I cannot figure out why people still hold onto the outdated concept of "holy matrimony." What's holy about it? Some seventy percent of all black babies are born to teenage girls who are not married, and some forty percent of white babies are born to unwed mothers. It's getting to the point where only well-educated, older people (straight and gay) get married. Bottom line - if it's so holy, why do people skip the legal ceremony?

Maybe it's just me but I don't view "legal marriage" as "holy matrimony". In this context, "Holy" to me implies something of or related to the church, God, religion, etc. Since most religions I am aware of caution against sex outside of marriage (I believe it is referred to as adultery and fornication), I don't see how these statistics of 70% and 40% impune real holy matrimony. The legal side of marriage (marriage license, getting hitched by the justice of the peace or outside a church, etc.) really has nothing to do with "holy matrimony". This glaring difference is one of the reasons I am not opposed to gay marriage. They should have the same rights as typical man/woman couples when it comes to legal matters. But, if my church starts thinking it's ok for gays to be married then I'll be looking for another church/religion to frequent.

 

Many like to bash the church for outdated views in these matters but I think the 70% and 40% out of wedlock birth data would suggest that maybe the church has a good point when it comes to this. You are absolutely correct, "holy matrimony" has not one thing to do with the sad state of marriage and infidelity in our country today.

[Ziggy]

I actually 100% agree with Knapp on this one, except the whole french thing haha. But seriously marriage is and should remain up to each religious affiiation one belongs to. As to civil unions, it seems like with a slight tweek it is pretty easy to switch marriage licenses with civil union licenses and allow people to come together regardless of their sexual orientation, race, religion or favorite color. No matter what it will continue to be a pretty contenious discussion for various reasons.

[HSKR]

Support of any form of government recognized marriage, civil unions, yada, yada, is nothing more then supporting the discrimination of couples straight or gay who believe that marriage or unions, whatever you want to call them are unneeded ceremonies based in religious origins of societies. There is no reason any couple can't live long and happy lives together without partaking in a silly ceremony and having the government put it on paper. There is also the issue of those who chose to have more then one spouse that are being discriminated by government recognized marriage of two individuals. If you truly want separation of church and state, if you truly don't want to discriminate, then you should agree that the government should have no involvement with marriage or unions, otherwise those that champion gay marriage are no better then the hypocrites who think the government should only recognize the unions between a man and a union.

[Street Novelist]

Call me old fashioned, but I'll always believe marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Whenever you attend a wedding or watch them on tv, it seems the priest always says something to that effect. I always thought marriage was something a man and a woman enter when they want to start a family. Since procreation can only occur between a man and a woman (not two of the same sex), I will never understand how marriage could be anything different. That would be changing thousands of years of history. As a Catholic, I would have a huge problem with that. Marriage would no longer be between just a man and a woman. It would no longer be unique. It would no longer carry the same significance to me.

[strigori]

I cannot figure out why people still hold onto the outdated concept of "holy matrimony." What's holy about it? Some seventy percent of all black babies are born to teenage girls who are not married, and some forty percent of white babies are born to unwed mothers. It's getting to the point where only well-educated, older people (straight and gay) get married. Bottom line - if it's so holy, why do people skip the legal ceremony?

Maybe it's just me but I don't view "legal marriage" as "holy matrimony". In this context, "Holy" to me implies something of or related to the church, God, religion, etc. Since most religions I am aware of caution against sex outside of marriage (I believe it is referred to as adultery and fornication), I don't see how these statistics of 70% and 40% impune real holy matrimony. The legal side of marriage (marriage license, getting hitched by the justice of the peace or outside a church, etc.) really has nothing to do with "holy matrimony". This glaring difference is one of the reasons I am not opposed to gay marriage. They should have the same rights as typical man/woman couples when it comes to legal matters. But, if my church starts thinking it's ok for gays to be married then I'll be looking for another church/religion to frequent.

 

Many like to bash the church for outdated views in these matters but I think the 70% and 40% out of wedlock birth data would suggest that maybe the church has a good point when it comes to this. You are absolutely correct, "holy matrimony" has not one thing to do with the sad state of marriage and infidelity in our country today.

I know I disagree with you a lot, but we are on the same page. Legal marriage/civil union rights are what I care about. As long as the justice of the peace is an option. Let churches run ceremonies for whom ever they like, or not. Typically you have to be a member of the denomination to have it done anyway.

[bhamHusker]

Call me old fashioned, but I'll always believe marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Whenever you attend a wedding or watch them on tv, it seems the priest always says something to that effect. I always thought marriage was something a man and a woman enter when they want to start a family. Since procreation can only occur between a man and a woman (not two of the same sex), I will never understand how marriage could be anything different. That would be changing thousands of years of history. As a Catholic, I would have a huge problem with that. Marriage would no longer be between just a man and a woman. It would no longer be unique. It would no longer carry the same significance to me.

What about protestant marriages? Buddhist? Hindu? Atheist? They're not holy in the sense that you consider to be Holy. Beyond issues with the nebulous concept of what's holy and what isn't (and to whom), marriage doesn't automatically involve procreation. What about the countless marriages between people with no ability or intention to procreate such as later in life marriages between widows, marriages between one or more sterile persons, people who simply have no desire to have children? When my wife and I married, we were both adamant that we never wanted children. Ten years later, we were singing a different tune and now closing in on 12 we have two beautiful daughters. Should we have been barred from marriage because it was not our intent to squeeze out a litter of crotch fruit? Regardless, homosexuals are entirely capable of having children in the same manner as an infertile couple - they can use surrogates or sperm donors, they can adopt, or they might have kids from previous heterosexual pairings. Would the legal protections and benefits available to any other straight couple not be of benefit to the children of homosexuals?

 

You need to remember that your mythological beliefs are only relevant to you and the others that share them. They mean absolutely nothing to me or others that have different beliefs. Live how you believe it's appropriate in your own life, but don't try to impose your morality on everyone else. It's absolutely infuriating when religious people use their superstitious dogma to justify telling the rest of us how to live our lives. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a dude. If you don't like divorce, don't do it. My 12 year marriage to my wife has absolutely no impact on your marriage, and vice versa. For that matter, neither does a 72 day sham of a marriage like Kim Kardashian's. They don't make yours any stronger or weaker or more or less valuable, and neither does two men or two women who choose to marry.

[Street Novelist]

You're missing the point. I am not telling people what is right and wrong. I am saying that if marriage is no longer solely between a man and a woman, what else is left? What else would people like to change? I don't know about your upbringing and your religious affiliation or whatnot, but for a lot (if not most) of Christians, your parents teach you that getting married and having children is the purpose of life. At least, that's what I was taught. My parents forgot about the part of being happy, but that's another story.

 

I am not passing judgement. I am saying that if marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, what else is open to interpretation?