For the second time in five months, the courts have endorsed marriage equality. A federal appeals court in New York voted 2-to-1 to rule that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and violates the rights of same-sex married couples.
Under the Defense of Marriage Act – known as DOMA – marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, and no state has to recognize same-sex marriages from different states. DOMA forbids same-sex couples from receiving the same federal benefits that heterosexual couples receive. The Obama Administration has stopped even trying to defend DOMA in the courts, so now Republicans in Congress are using taxpayer dollars to continue defending the discriminatory law. There are currently six appeals related to marriage equality pending before the Supreme Court making it very likely that the court will take up this issue at some point during their current term. Stay tuned – for equal rights hang in the balance.
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman for thousands of years. it has nothing to do with equal rights or benefits. it has everything to do with a very small percentage of the population trying to shove this down the throats of those who believe in the sanctity of marriage. i am sick and tired of listening to this
ReplyDelete10:54 Just practice what you preach and worry about the sanctity of your own marriage not dictating what others can or cannot do.
ReplyDelete@11:12
ReplyDeleteOthers are attempting to dictate to us a redefinition of a social and/or religious precept accepted and honored for eons.
Enough of the PC.
Slavery existed for thousands of years also. Does it make it right?
ReplyDeleteAlex, you want to compare slavery to same sex marriage? You can't be serious.
ReplyDeleteCompared to slavery? Maybe not. Compared to civil rights issues of the past? Pretty damn close.
ReplyDeleteYou don't agree with some people getting the same rights that you do. Sounds iffy to me.
11:18,
ReplyDeleteYou can continue to define marriage however you want to, and so can your church. Nothing in the proposal says you have to change your personal definition. What it does do is give all tax paying Americans the same rights. It gives all churches the same rights (some churches do want the right to marry same sex couples).
Oh come on now! Civil Rights? Are gays asked to sit in the back of the bus? Are they told to eat somewhere else or use another bathroom? Are they not allowed to attend certain schools?
ReplyDeleteYou people are so screwed up today it isn't funny. Heck, you even have the right to be Mayor today. Give me a break.
You act like spoiled little brats who have been told no and you just won't accept it.
Leave it to a liberal to change the world in whatever way they see fit.
Let the voters of America decide.
For centuries it would have been impossible to recognize your present marriage. Does that make it right.
ReplyDeleteCan we vote on multiple marriages too? Many don't believe that is right either.
ReplyDeleteThat's the 'pretty damned close' part I was referring to. No, it's not as bad as the civil rights issues of the 50s/60s, but it's still denying rights to people.
ReplyDeleteYou can't hide the color of your skin, you can hide the fact that you're LBGT.
And standing up for what I think is right is being a spoiled little brat? Funny because that's all I see from you and the other posters here about Obama. I guess we're all little brats.
You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. I completely agree to let the voters of America decide.
This is one of those "Be Careful What You Wish For" scenarios.
ReplyDeleteEven the most liberal state in the union passed Prop 8 which provides that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in CA."
Most people have no problem excepting homosexuals but when the issue of them being able to marry people think its freaky unless they are hard core leftists.
This whole issue has done and will continue to turn more heterosexuals against gays and discrimination will proliferate like never before.
Some see it as the gay community being used as pawns to distract away from the issues most important to voters and the politicians knowing full well it will be tied up in courts for years.
The gay community needs to wake up and realize that if they want equality in marriage this was not the way to do it. They need to stand firm and tell the politicians they will not be used as political pawns. No one respects or likes political pawns. They are weak in the eyes of the public.
There are ways for them to get these types of laws passed and the first step would have been to go on their own campaign to win over the majority of the public.
While I'll agree that gays are discriminated against in certain areas, for example. I disagree with Hospitals NOT allowing a gay partner to visit the other because they are not immediate family is complete BS. However, that just means some rules and laws need to change. Allowing same sex couples to marry simply to fix this problem is ridiculous though.
ReplyDelete"Hospitals NOT allowing a gay partner to visit the other because they are not immediate family"
ReplyDeleteJoe, there is already a fed law in place for this what amounted to a nonexistant problem to begin with.
I am addressing the notion that just because something existed unchanged for thousands of years does not make it right.
ReplyDeleteFunny, haven't seen a single one of you pocket constitution carrying conservatives come up with a constitution-based argument for not allowing gays to marry. No wonder gays have been winning in court. Can we all just cut the crud. Let gays do whatever they want since they are consenting adults you know. Last I check, debating this crud hasn't gotten us anywhere close to bringing down the national debt, stopping Iran from getting nukes, or bringing down the cost of healthcare.
ReplyDeleteI also do not believe in the fact that we need to vote issues such as gay marriage or slots or any other "question" on the ballot.
ReplyDeleteWe have representative democracy and court systems. If you don't like your reps stance on the law vote him/her out next time. Or let the law go throught proper legal channels and be upheld or thrown out by the courts.
The idea of referendum on something that has already been passed by the legislature and signed by the governor is ludacris.
Perhaps, we should have voted on the issues of civil right or women's rights? That's called tyrany by majority and it should have no place in the representative democracy.
I pay the same taxes as anyone reading this (probably more than most, I would guess), and do not get the same benefits from my government. That is just flat-out discrimination and is not what this country should be about. For better or worse, many benefits in this country have been tied to legal marriage, so the only fair thing to do is to allow churches that wish to marry gay people the right to marry gay people. I will never understand why people are agianst this basic idea of fairness--you do not have to get married to a gay person, your church does not have to marry gay people. You can continue to not like gay people, or you can continue to pray for them. In the meantime, though, they should get equal rights as any other American.
ReplyDeleteif a church decides to marry a couple that is its choice, if you want a civil union no one is stopping you gay or not the problem is now courts, ballots etc are deciding what churches must do. now lgbt supporters are telling me that if i don't belive in it that i am the one with a problem it is ironic that for almost 3000 years no one questioned what a marriage was, it has only begun in the last 40 years. you want to be gay fine with me just don't shove it down my throat. the new normal is intergenerational intamacy. look it up and then think about this slope we are on
ReplyDelete2:50 Absolutely no one is telling any church who they can or cannot marry. You are spreading false information to make your case.
ReplyDelete