Although passed with all Republicans and some Democrats and signed by Clinton, DOMA has been attacked from the Left since it's passage. Apparently, the Federal Appeals court agrees. BOSTON — An appeals court ruled Thursday that the heart of a law that denies a host of federal benefits to gay married couples is unconstitutional. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against married same-sex 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. The appeals court agreed with a lower court judge who ruled in 2010 that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns. The court didn't rule on the law's other provision, which said states without same-sex marriage cannot be forced to recognize gay unions performed in other states. During arguments before the court last month, a lawyer for gay married couples said the law amounts to "across-the-board disrespect." The couples argued that the power to define and regulate marriage had been left to the states for more than 200 years before Congress passed DOMA. An attorney defending the law argued that Congress had a rational basis for passing it in 1996, when opponents worried that states would be forced to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. The group said Congress wanted to preserve a traditional and uniform definition of marriage and has the power to define terms used to federal statutes to distribute federal benefits. Since DOMA was passed in 1996, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, including Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Washington state and the District of Columbia. Maryland and Washington's laws are not yet in effect and may be subject to referendums. Last year, President Barack Obama announced the U.S. Department of Justice would no longer defend the constitutionality of the law. After that, House Speaker John Boehner convened the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend it.
Yeah, the appeal to tradition fallacy is kind of cute. Personally I just can't ever see myself getting worked up over two adults consensually entering into a contract. Same sex marriage isn't a big deal.
The legal aspects of marriage is one of the issues. Another is culture, our "traditions". Add religion into the mix and viola...instant headache lol Personally, I have little interest in legalities, I'm not wealthy ...but I can see how not having those protections offered by marriage is discrimination. I see that over 1,000 federal statutory provisions are contingent upon the factor of marital status for benefits, right, or privileges. That makes the legal aspect pretty important. But the real battle is more of a cultural one. One side wants to preserve the tradition of keeping gays "underground" and the other side wants to be respected as equals. As for me, as long as no one comes over to my home and attempts to give me a "makeover" or "bling" me out or whatever, I'll give 'em that respect. I like my ratty t-shirts, dirty jeans and stinky tennis shoes, thank you very much.
May come as a shock to some, but I appluad this decision. Get the F'ing government out of our bedrooms. Side note: I also could not support Bachmann and Santorum for this very same reason.
And they were ALL Democrats. The Republican support was unanimous and still is. Kind of out of touch still.
