DOMA GOES DOWN…AGAIN
A FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULED TODAY THAT THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. ABOUT TIME. ANY LAW WRITTEN TO PROTECT THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE AGAINST PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GET MARRIED DESERVES AT LEAST TO BE called UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SILLY, RIDICULOUS, DISCRIMINATORY AND BAD FOR AMERICA ARE ALSO TERMS THAT COME TO MIND.
A JUNE 6 CNN POLL SHOWED THAT 54% OF AMERICANS SUPPORT SAME SEX MARRIAGE BEING LEGALIZED. OTHER POLLS SHOW SIMILAR MAJORITY SUPPORT FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN OUR NATION.
NOW I UNDERSTAND THAT THOSE SAME POLLS SHOW A LARGE NUMBER OF AMERICANS DO NOT APPROVE OF MARRIAGE EQUALITY – as much as 42% – AND THAT IS THEir RIGHT. WHAT IS NOT THEIR RIGHT – AND THE COURT SAID IS NOT THEIR RIGHT – IS TO IMPOSE THEIR RELIGIOUS-BASED VIEWS ON THE REST OF US. IF YOU DON’T LIKE GAY MARRIAGE – DON’T MARRY ONE – but don’t gay people they can’t.
I KNOW THAT SOUNDS FLIPPANT, BUT IT ISN’T. AMERICA IS BUILT ON INDIVIDUAL CHOICE AND THE PRINCIPLE THAT ALL AMERICAS HAVE A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO PURSE LIFE LIBERTY AND HAPPINESS. MARRYING THE PERSON YOU LOVE IS ONE OF THE MOST BASIC OF THE PURSUITS OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND HAPPINESS.
OPPONENTS SAY IT UNDERMINES MARRIAGE, BUT THEY OFFER NO PROOF, NO EXPLANATION OF - TO PICK A Revelevant CASE – HOW VICE PRESIDENT CHENY’S MARRIAGE WOULD BE THREATENED BY a MARRIAGE OF HIS GAY DAUGHTER TO ANOTHER WOMAN,
AND THEY HAVE NO ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF WHY ALMOST HALF OF ALL STRAIGHT MARRIAGES END OF UP IN DIVORCES AND THE NUMBER IS HIGHER IN MORE RELIGIOUS STATES THAT BAN MARRIAGE EQUALITY AND WHY THE NUMBERS ARE SLIGHTLY LOWER FOR GAY COUPLES.
THEY SAY CHILDREN HAVE TO BE RAISED BY A MOM AND DAD TO BE HEALTHY. BUT THEY HAVE NO ANSWER FOR the MANY STUDIES THAT HAVE FOUND THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN the CHILD RAISING OUTCOMES OF GAY AND STRAIGHT FAMILIES.
SO WHAT DID THE COURT actually say? yesterday’s decision came from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a lower court judge who ruled that the 1996 law that defines marriage as involving a man and a woman was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. tht decision isn’t out yet, but a similar boston decision is. in that case, The three-judge panel said the following:.
“For 150 years, this desire to maintain tradition would alone have been justification enough for almost any statute, But Supreme Court decisions in the last fifty years call for closer scrutiny of government action touching upon minority group interests and of federal action in areas of traditional state concern.”
THEY WENT ON TO SAY THAT THAT CONGRESS CANNOT PUT ITS THUMB ON the SCALES TO INFLUENCE A STATE’S DECISION AS TO HOW TO SHAPE ITS OWN MARRIAGE LAWS because THE federal government had no permissible federal interest in denying benefits to same-sex couples under the Defense of Marriage Act.
THE COURT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT “many Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman,”but it ruled that one of the virtues of federalism is that “it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice.” Congress’ denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts, the court said, “has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest.”
I AM SORRY THAT NEITHER COURT ALSO NOTED THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT PREVENTS THE INTRUSION OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS INTO LAW, WHICH DOMA UNDENIABLY IS, BUT WITH TWO FEDERAL APPEALS COURTS ON RECORD, IF THE SUPREME COURT DOES TAKE UP THE CASE, WHICH IS LIKELY, hopefully IT WILL WEIGH IN FAVOR OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. THAT IS TEH AMERICAN WAY.
(pardon the ALL CAPS- it came directly from my radio prompter which is all caps)