DOMA has started to fall.

[GAYtheist]

That's right, a Federal Judge has declared DOMA unconstitutional.

All I can say is, Its about damned time! Now, here come the appeals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/us/09 ... tml?src=mv

http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/07/ ... inst-doma/

http://www.gaycitynews.com/articles/201 ... 562188.txt  

DANCE PARTY!

 :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  

[Sophus]

[pinkocommie]

YAY!  Some quick info for the less familiar -

Defense of Marriage Act is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions were codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law, also known as DOMA, had two effects:

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

[Sophus]

YAY!  Some quick info for the less familiar -

Defense of Marriage Act is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions were codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law, also known as DOMA, had two effects:

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

If the Federal government defines it that way, how have some states been able to allow gay marriage? I mean, it's great that they have but - how? This seems related to the Federal lawsuit against Arizona. Could the federal government technically sue them if they wanted to?

And what happened to all the hype about repealing the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy? That needs to be taken care of quick!

[GAYtheist]

YAY!  Some quick info for the less familiar -

Defense of Marriage Act is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions were codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law, also known as DOMA, had two effects:

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

If the Federal government defines it that way, how have some states been able to allow gay marriage? I mean, it's great that they have but - how? This seems related to the Federal lawsuit against Arizona. Could the federal government technically sue them if they wanted to?

And what happened to all the hype about repealing the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy? That needs to be taken care of quick!

It left the marriage debate to the States, instead of to the federal government. Notice that it says "No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) NEEDS to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state." Basically its saying that if the state government decides to recognize gay marriage it can, but it isn't necessary.

[freeservant]

National Organization for Marriage Decries
Boston Federal Judge's Decision Striking Down the Defense of Marriage Act

"A Boston judge has no moral right to decide the marriage question for the people of the U.S."
â€" Brian Brown, President, National Organization for Marriage

WASHINGTON, DC â€" The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) released the following statements today in response to a federal judge in Boston ruling the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.

"Under the guidance of Elena Kagan’s brief that she filed when she was Solicitor General, Obama's justice department deliberately sabotaged this case," charged Brian Brown, President of NOM, referring to the Justice Department's brief which described DOMA as discriminatory. Despite the explicit language in DOMA that the law was designed to protect children's right to their mothers and fathers, the judge disavowed that DOMA has anything to do with responsible procreation. "With only Obama to defend DOMA, this federal judge has taken the extraordinary step of overturning a law passed by huge bipartisan majorities and signed into law by Pres. Clinton in 1996. A single federal judge in Boston has no moral right to decide the definition of marriage for the people of the United States," Brown continued.

"Does this federal judge want to start another culture war?" asked Maggie Gallagher, Chairman of NOM. "Does he really want another Roe. v. Wade? The simple fact is that the right of the federal government to define marriage for the purposes of its federal law and federal territories has been clear since the late 19th century, when Congress banned polygamy. Only an incompetent defense could have lost this case. We expect to win in a higher court."

http://rubyurl.com/JAzl

The culture war moves on then.  Soon we can have a viewpoint of a minority that will be forced on everybody in the name of intolerance of intolerance.

[Whitney]

The culture war moves on then.  Soon we can have a viewpoint of a minority that will be forced on everybody in the name of intolerance of intolerance.

No one is going to make you marry a gay person....get real.

[freeservant]

The culture war moves on then.  Soon we can have a viewpoint of a minority that will be forced on everybody in the name of intolerance of intolerance.

No one is going to make you marry a gay person....get real.

Ahh but think of the possibles for any and all sexual orientations.  And I rather favor a means to let two people bond for life in a monogamous way so only have a problem with the semantics of calling it marriage.  THE most important thing should be that we all should bond for life so that children are raised in the most healthy known environment.

It is true that no one is going to force me but then in the intolerance of intolerance culture war there is a definite possibility that religious liberty could be taken away in the effort to make everyone have a forced tolerance of what I see is against God's laws.

So if the effort to secure the lifetime monogamous bonding of two people is really a means to attack something else like religious liberty then you can see that there may be an agenda here that speaks more to imposing upon everybody what only a few now accept.

I think if a more long term effort to change hearts and minds about lifetime bonding of two individuals in a monogamous contract would be more appropriate then calling everybody who disagrees a bigot and force some action by judicial fiat.

[Whitney]

Do you legally have to allow black people into your private church?  No, you don't.

Equal marriage laws will no more affect your religious rights than racial equality laws.

So...what is REALLY your problem with marriage equality?

[Sophus]

It left the marriage debate to the States, instead of to the federal government. Notice that it says "No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) NEEDS to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state." Basically its saying that if the state government decides to recognize gay marriage it can, but it isn't necessary.

The wording of the first part made since. It was the "federal government defines it between a man and a woman" that threw me off. I guess that's more of a default law though.

The culture war moves on then. Soon we can have a viewpoint of a minority that will be forced on everybody in the name of intolerance of intolerance.

YES! Soon you will have to actually tolerate the lifestyles of others whose actions affect you in no way, shape or form whatsoever. Oh, the horror! What is society coming to?! Next thing you know they'll allow inter-racial marriage!  

[Sophus]

THE most important thing should be that we all should bond for life so that children are raised in the most healthy known environment.

http://www.hrc.org/issues/parenting/adoptions/adoption_laws.asp

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/djglp2&div=15&id=&page

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/200811/why-not-allow-gay-marriage

Any questions?

[freeservant]

Do you legally have to allow black people into your private church?  No, you don't.

Equal marriage laws will no more affect your religious rights than racial equality laws.

So...what is REALLY your problem with marriage equality?

Yes I think there would be a method to force private churches with here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

You will not find a sexual orientation in that law.  I have asked in another thread but where is there federal or judicial sources I could study that raises one's sexual orientation to the same level as Gender, Religion, or Race.  Remember that Lawrence v Texas is about privacy and not at the level of Civil Rights.

[Whitney]

Do you legally have to allow black people into your private church?  No, you don't.

Equal marriage laws will no more affect your religious rights than racial equality laws.

So...what is REALLY your problem with marriage equality?

Yes I think there would be a method to force private churches with here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

You will not find a sexual orientation in that law.  I have asked in another thread but where is there federal or judicial sources I could study that raises one's sexual orientation to the same level as Gender, Religion, or Race.  Remember that Lawrence v Texas is about privacy and not at the level of Civil Rights.

The act could only apply to a church that accepts federal funding (ie, don't like the law don't take federal funding..how do you think the KKK can't get sued for not allowing in blacks and jews?)....I also never said the law said anything bout sexual orientation.  Are you not even trying to think about this?  I was drawing a comparison between how you don't have to let black people into your church now just as if sexual equality laws were passed you would not have to allow lgbts into your church.

[Sophus]

Do you legally have to allow black people into your private church?  No, you don't.

Equal marriage laws will no more affect your religious rights than racial equality laws.

So...what is REALLY your problem with marriage equality?

Yes I think there would be a method to force private churches with here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

You will not find a sexual orientation in that law.  I have asked in another thread but where is there federal or judicial sources I could study that raises one's sexual orientation to the same level as Gender, Religion, or Race.  Remember that Lawrence v Texas is about privacy and not at the level of Civil Rights.

Oh please. Churches kick people out for pointless reasons all the time. But if they were forced not to... I still don't see a valid point. You constantly seem to be supporting prejudice.

It is possible though preachers will not be able to refuse to marry a couple on the grounds of orientation. There was a case in Florida not too long ago where one guy refused to do an inter-racial marriage. Do you think he has the right to do that?

[freeservant]

THE most important thing should be that we all should bond for life so that children are raised in the most healthy known environment.

http://www.hrc.org/issues/parenting/adoptions/adoption_laws.asp

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/djglp2&div=15&id=&page

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/200811/why-not-allow-gay-marriage

Any questions?

All good stuff as long as no-fault divorce is also eliminated for all civil unions and marriages that have children.  My parents divorced when I was 7 years old and I have been harmed as a consequence.  Children are the most important thing to any life long monogamous relationship so we need to protect children in any union and I also think it would make acceptance of LGBT unions more appealing if the elimination of no-fault is a plank of any effort.  This is important to preserving the institution of marriage and I think same sex unions are inevitable but not by means of culture war and judicial fiat.