Federal court rules centerpiece of gay marriage law unconstitutional

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Fox News:

A federal appeals court ruled Thursday against a central provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, a groundbreaking decision that tees up a potential battle before the Supreme Court.

The three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled that the provision defining marriage as between a man and woman is unconstitutional in that it denies gay couples the rights granted to heterosexual couples.

The unanimous decision once again brings the issue of gay marriage to the fore of the nation's political debate. It comes just a few weeks after President Obama announced his support for gay marriage -- in the wake of that announcement, some gay advocacy groups have stepped up pressure on Washington to fight DOMA.

Considering the potential Supreme Court battle ahead, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked Thursday whether the Obama administration would actively fight for overturning the law, which was originally signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton.

Carney noted that the Obama administration has concluded the section in question is unconstitutional and will no longer defend it in court. Without commenting on what steps the administration might take in the future, he described the Justice Department as an "active participant" in the case.

"There's no question that this is in concert with the president's views," he said. "I can't predict what the next steps will be in handling cases of this nature."

Gay marriage advocates hailed Thursday's decision, while its opponents condemned it.

"Society should protect and strengthen marriage, not undermine it. The federal Defense of Marriage Act provides that type of protection, and we trust the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse the 1st Circuit's erroneous decision," said a statement from Alliance Defense Fund Legal Counsel Dale Schowengerdt.

The court didn't rule on the law's more politically combustible provision, which said states without same-sex marriage cannot be forced to recognize gay unions performed in states where it's legal. It also wasn't asked to address whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry.

________

 

This is one area where I agree with the court. I really don't see marriage as being the government's business one way or the other except to recognize it legally.

[Argyle58]

This is one area where I agree with the court. I really don't see marriage as being the government's business one way or the other except to recognize it legally.

 

6,000 years of legal and societal precedent defines marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman. Some of the earliest known written documents address this issue. Even in those cultures that accepted homosexual behavior and even condoned open same sex relationships, still legally defined marriage in the same way. It is a vehicle that supports the concept of Family, and thereby perpetuates our species and our culture.

 

Further, once you take this step, where do you end it? Oh, I agree that the arguments about inter-species marriages and pedophilic unions are banal, if for no other reason than it takes consent of both parties to enter into the contractual union that is marriage, but, consider the case of polygamists. Would you legally allow it, unfettered, even if families grow so large and economically unsustainable as to create a burden on social services?

 

I agree that homosexual couples deserve equal rights under the law, and I support the concept of Civil Unions which would provide them with those same rights. However, the insistence that these unions be defined as "Marriage" is an assault on the legal, moral and religious rights of the 93% of the population that is NOT homosexual. Is this not equally as valuable as the rights of the 7% of the population that define themselves as such?