Defense Of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional By Second Federal Judge

[Sexyeccentric1]

Looks like this is headed to the Supreme court and may be overturned..


I am hopeful!
------------------



OAKLAND, Calif. -- A second federal judge in California has struck down a law denying benefits to partners in a gay marriage.
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken says the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act violated constitutional standards when it denied federal benefits to same-sex spouses married under California law and barred domestic partners of state workers from long-term health coverage.
Wilken says both laws were based on what she calls "moral condemnation" of same-sex couples.
A San Francisco judge also declared the federal law unconstitutional in February in a separate case. That ruling is under appeal and will go before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in September.


News Link

[Whirlaway]

Can't win at the ballot box, so you jam your Utopian Statist ideas down our throats with the court system.

How many times has DOMA (and similar laws) been overwhelmingly approved by vast majorities of Americans in more than 38 states.

Tyranny of the minority is alive and well in the left coast.

[Iaintliein]

Good. Why should homosexuals get special protection from making stupid mistakes?

[LovingKayla]

You know, what if I wasn't gay but I trusted my best girlfriend more than a guy and wanted to have all the legal stuff done with her. I have no issue with civil union. But you damn well aren't American married unless it's a guy and girl. You HAVE to call it something else. "It's just one more way to show we are different." NEWS FLASH You ARE different. If the results are the same, what do you care what it's called?

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by LovingKayla

You know, what if I wasn't gay but I trusted my best girlfriend more than a guy and wanted to have all the legal stuff done with her. I have no issue with civil union. But you damn well aren't American married unless it's a guy and girl. You HAVE to call it something else. "It's just one more way to show we are different." NEWS FLASH You ARE different. If the results are the same, what do you care what it's called?

Kayla, for once I agree with you.

[Whirlaway]

+1

Originally Posted by LovingKayla

You know, what if I wasn't gay but I trusted my best girlfriend more than a guy and wanted to have all the legal stuff done with her. I have no issue with civil union. But you damn well aren't American married unless it's a guy and girl. You HAVE to call it something else. "It's just one more way to show we are different." NEWS FLASH You ARE different. If the results are the same, what do you care what it's called?

[Laz]

Get the government out of the marriage business. At their core all marriages are a type of civil unions. Let the government create civil unions and leave the marriage ceremonies to the church to do as they please. The government just sees it as a civil union. Solves the issue of church beliefs vs civil laws.

[Whirlaway]

That is like saying "get the govenment out of the (insert name here) business" ...

Don't have the government determine what constitutes handicapp, convicted felon, native american, retired, active servivce military, any number of labels that we use to distinguish one group from another ! None of which label is discriminatory in it's definition.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Good. Why should homosexuals get special protection from making stupid mistakes?

Agreed!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LovingKayla

You know, what if I wasn't gay but I trusted my best girlfriend more than a guy and wanted to have all the legal stuff done with her. I have no issue with civil union. But you damn well aren't American married unless it's a guy and girl. You HAVE to call it something else. "It's just one more way to show we are different." NEWS FLASH You ARE different. If the results are the same, what do you care what it's called?

You have no issue with civil unions???... yet civil unions do not offer the same benifits that marriage do.

That is like saying you have no problem with seperate but equal or
saying that women can vote but their vote does not count but you are ok with that. Or that it is ok to pay providers with Monolopy money. What fucking good is it to vote if your vote will not count or to be paid with phoney money or to be married if you do not recieve the same benifits?

Look, call it Gay Marriage (that is different from say traditional marriage) or anything else but until you give the the same benifits/responsibilities, you are for discrimination , even if you say you are not.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Laz

Get the government out of the marriage business. At their core all marriages are a type of civil unions. Let the government create civil unions and leave the marriage ceremonies to the church to do as they please. The government just sees it as a civil union. Solves the issue of church beliefs vs civil laws.

Agreed whole heartly.

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

That is like saying "get the govenment out of the (insert name here) business" ...

Don't have the government determine what constitutes handicapp, convicted felon, native american, retired, active servivce military, any number of labels that we use to distinguish one group from another ! None of which label is discriminatory in it's definition.

The discrimination incurs when you deny them the same benifits for their choice in partners! Damn.

[CuteOldGuy]

I have to agree with WTF on this one, except I'd spell "benefits" correctly.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I have to agree with WTF on this one, except I'd spell "benefits" correctly.

+1 & +1

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I have to agree with WTF on this one, except I'd spell "benefits" correctly.

LOL, don't forget that you'd change do to does!

Originally Posted by WTF

You have no issue with civil unions???... yet civil unions do not offer the same benifits that marriage do.

.