Category: LGBT Discussion
Normally, I don't follow American news or politics but this is definitely an exception and I simply had to post out of happiness! Way to go MA! Hopefully, this will pave the way for similar rulings. My only fear is that this might cause problems when it comes to making gay marriage federally accepted. That said, it could also lead to people in civil unions finally getting more rights and benefits, which is a very good thing.
I've gotten rid of the links and things in between the story and have made the formatting easier to read.
Federal gay marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/07/federal_gay_marriage_ban_is_ru.html#incart_mce
"A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage.
Eugene Tanner, The Associated Press
In Hawaii, advocates of same-sex civil unions made their views known in Honolulu on Tuesday. Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed the bill.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA.
The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.
Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens. The act "plainly encroaches" upon the right of the state to determine marriage, Tauro said in his ruling on a lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley.
In a ruling in a separate case filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled the act violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
"Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification the Constitution clearly will not permit," Tauro wrote.
His rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications for other states where gay marriage is legal if it's upheld on appeal.
The Justice Department argued the federal government has the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits -- including requiring that those benefits go only to couples in marriages between a man and a woman.
Opponents of gay marriage said they were certain the rulings would be overturned on appeal.
Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, called Tauro's ruling "judicial activism" and said Tauro was a "rogue judge." Gay marriage advocates will keep pushing their agenda in the courts, she said, but noted voters often reject gay marriage at the ballot box, including in a recent California vote.
"We can't allow the lowest common denominator states, like Massachusetts, to set standards for the country," Lafferty said.
The law was enacted by Congress in 1996 when it appeared Hawaii would soon legalize same-sex marriage and opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize such marriages. The lawsuit challenges only the portion of the law that prevents the federal government from affording pension and other benefits to same-sex couples.
Since then, five states and the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage.
Denise Lavoie of The Associated Press wrote this report. Jay Lindsay contributed."
Sounds promising! Hopefully other states will get on board soon!
Of course people should soon also be able to marry multiple partners and goats.
Multiple partners is one thing. But goats? Let's stay within our own species okay? lol
LOL, WB, but let's not blow things out of proportion? There is a difference between same sex and multiple partners, and, goats? LOL.
Oh, come on, they are cute and produce quality cheese, how can a goat be a bad thing?
Seriously though, live and let live and all that, but I am just getting a bit tired of the gay rights this and lesbian that and somehow you are special if you like to have intercourse with someone your own gender.
I don't find it cool and find it weird, but if it makes people happy that is fine with me and I have nothing against it. It just seems to me it is uncool to be straight these days, and I also, since we are changin the definition of marriage, do not see how it is different to want other types of marital arrangements where all parties want to be a part of it, how is a marriage of 3 different, really, from any two people getting together, why shouldn't 3 have similar rights?
Mind you, I am not tempted by either idea myself, I am so freaking traditional I guess, but nevertheless, I do like goat cheese, lol.
LOL, marriage is a relationship where people wish to commit themselves to the other(s) for the rest of their lives and take responsibility for any children that comes of it. IMO. Here's from a book; (if not exact), marriage is a social commitment made for the future of the children/assets. Society dictates; (or tries to), what is acceptable in marriage; (for that matter every aspect of our lives). Our job is to change society to dictate what we want to be acceptable. And, no, I'm not interested in same sex or multiple partners either, but if it makes others happy I don't see how it hurts me; (or anyone else for that matter), so, why not let them be happy. *grin* Had to pick WB. LOL.
I'm straight and think that we're not the minority at all. If people in general would give them the same rights as we have, then it wouldn't be an issue and it wouldn't matter whether you're gay, straight, by or whatever. The only reason why we keep hearing about gay rights is because they're still trying to get them and to become accepted. Personally, I agree with you about multiple partners. But I think that has an even longer time before it's accepted.
May this be the beginning of a tidal wave of progression toward equality. Not special rights but equal rights.
I second that! Bravo!
Why should "marriage" be recognized by the government at all? I believe that "marriage" is a religious saramoni and should only be performed in churches. If a church is willing to marry a same sex couple then they can be "married" Being married in a church should not provide any change in legal status, tax breaks, etc. That should be handled by civil unions which should be managed by the government. Civil unions should have no religious context, and be open to same sex as well as heterosexual couples.