Saturday, July 10, 2010

Defense of Marriage Act - #1932- Boston Massacre of Marriage - Family Research Council

Four hundred twenty-seven. That's how many members of Congress voted to pass the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. One. The number of activist judges it took to strike the law down. Yesterday, a U.S. District Court did its best to preserve Massachusetts's reputation as the most liberal state in America on marriage. In Boston, a federal judge used his gavel to shatter the one law preventing a complete capitulation to same-sex "marriage" at the federal level: DOMA. Claiming that "it is only irrational prejudice that motivates" the law (p. 38), he sided with the ultra-Left on two separate cases. Although the couples who sued are considered "married" in the eyes of their state, they complained that DOMA kept them from getting federal perks like Social Security survivor payments or joint tax filings. So what did Judge Joseph Tauro do? He ruled that the government doesn't have the right to set its own benefit policies--suggesting that he knows better than a supermajority of Congress what's best for American taxpayers.
Tauro's rationale for toppling DOMA was so absurd that even liberal Yale law professors like Jack Balkin said, "No chance they'll be held up on appeal." The two opinions are so convoluted that they even contract themselves. As Balkin said, the judge's rulings are "at war with each other." Judge Tauro also claimed that there's no precedent for a federal definition of marriage. The people of Utah might disagree--seeing as it wouldn't be a state today if the Supreme Court hadn't ruled that it must outlaw polygamy first. In 1878, the Supreme Court declared that polygamy wasn't protected by the Constitution (Reynolds v. United States). In fact, that ruling was even stronger than DOMA, because it was a blanket rejection of polygamy. Unlike DOMA, it didn't leave the question up to states.

Judge Says U.S. Must Recognize 'gay marriage.' - Baptist Press -  In a landmark decision that could force the United States to recognize "gay marriage," a U.S. district judge July 8 overturned part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that the government cannot constitutionally distinguish between traditional marriage and same-sex "marriage."  Judge Joseph L. Tauro's ruling on a pair of lawsuits out of Massachusetts invalidates Section 3 of the act, which says that for the purpose of federal law, marriage "means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

It is the first ruling of its kind; if upheld, it will place the United States alongside the 10 or so other countries worldwide that recognize homosexual "marriage." It would force the government to recognize "gay marriages" from Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa and Massachusetts, and by extension grant federal benefits, such as tax breaks and federal employee spousal insurance, to same-sex couples.

1 comment:

  1. Roger SchweikertJuly 13, 2010 at 6:48 AM

    Maybe the threat or actual call for a national boycott of any business headquartered in Massachusetts (Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, California or New Hampshire) and similar states with sanctuary cities will send an unmistakeable message to the people of these states. If our own state legislature, governor, attorney general or judiciary do not lead us in doing so local governments and citizen's groups can do so to pass a law or statute to specifically not recognize any contract made in Massachusetts and other state or federally imposed initiative to specifically recognize any gay/lesbian marriage. At the very least lets call on our Senators to impeach this and somilar federal Judges like Tauro for "irrational judicial judgment", thwarting the will of the people and Congress, undemocratic judicial despotism and tyranny. For the words of Thomas Jefferson in our recently celebrated Declaration of Independence, when one more "evil and sufferable act"... "in a long train of abuses and usurpations"... evinces a design to reduce (the American people) under absolute despotism," it provides the American people "the RIGHT and DUTY to PROVIDE NEW GUARDS FOR THEIR (PRESENT) AND FUTURE SECURITY."