Faith

Fed Appeals Court Rules that the Defense of Marriage Act Is Unconstitutional

U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston Calls DOMA Unconstitutional

BOSTON (The Blaze/AP) — The debate over the federal government’s role in marriage continues to be debated. On Thursday, an appeals court ruled that the heart of a law that denies a host of federal benefits to gay married couples is unconstitutional.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against married same-sex couples by denying them federal benefits.

The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004.

U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston Calls DOMA Unconstitutional

The appeals court agreed with a lower court judge who ruled in 2010 that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.

The court didn‘t rule on the law’s other provision, which said states without same-sex marriage cannot be forced to recognize gay unions performed in other states.

During arguments before the court last month, a lawyer for gay married couples said the law amounts to “across-the-board disrespect.” The couples argued that the power to define and regulate marriage had been left to the states for more than 200 years before Congress passed DOMA.

An attorney defending the law argued that Congress had a rational basis for passing it in 1996, when opponents worried that states would be forced to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. The group said Congress wanted to preserve a traditional and uniform definition of marriage and has the power to define terms used to federal statutes to distribute federal benefits.

U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston Calls DOMA Unconstitutional

Since DOMA was passed in 1996, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, including Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Washington state and the District of Columbia. Maryland and Washington’s laws are not yet in effect and may be subject to referendums.

Last year, President Barack Obama announced the U.S. Department of Justice would no longer defend the constitutionality of the law. After that, House Speaker John Boehner convened the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend it.

Comments (208)

1 2 3
  • DomingoCafe
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:43am

    Bravo! Homosexuality is now both unconstitutional and ungodly. The “un’s” have it.

    Report Post »  
    • 3monkeysmomma
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:00pm

      My fellow conservatives: Please read the tenth amendment.

      I am NOT a proponent of gay marriage but the federal government should have NO SAY in the matter one way ot the other….and that goes for environmental protection, education, health and nutrion, the art public broadcasting, ect etc etc.

      As conservatives we should be all about CONSERVING the rights granted to individuals and the states and everytime we pass a federal law outside the federal goverenments 10th amdt. responsibilities, it chips away at that just a bit more.

      Report Post » 3monkeysmomma  
    • Gold Coin & Economic News
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:07pm

      Head for the hills because it’s over, done, finished! America is a festering mound of pus just waiting to explode. Let everyone do what they want, let Wall Street rape the economy, let the government steal our money and call it fair and let homosexuals marry, adopt kids and do whatever they friggin want. Take the Bible out of every public square and insert vile perversity everywhere.

      That’s okay because King Jesus is coming soon to clean up this mess. Hope you know your Savior.

      Report Post » Gold Coin & Economic News  
    • Matt
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:14pm

      Did you actually read the article? The court ruled that same sex marriage is protected by the constitution.

      In reality, gay marriage is neither protected nor not protected because there are two conflicting rights in play that each negate each other and make for a very difficult situation.

      On the one hand, gay people should have the right to call themselves whatever they want to call themselves, therefore, if they want to call themselves married there should be nothing wrong with that. In fact, since their “marriage” in and of itself does not affect directly a third party it would be constitutionally protected. UNLESS it DOES affect a third party, which brings about the problem.

      On the other hand, allowing for gay marriage will require people with marriage licenses to marry any gay couple that asks them. Most churches in this country believe that homosexuality is a sin, so forcing them to recognize marriage is unconstitutional.

      So not allowing gays to call themselves married is unconstitutional, but forcing churches to marry gays is restricting religious freedom and is also unconstitutional.

      The blindingly obvious solution is to pass a law that both allows gays to get married AND allows churches to refuse to marry gays and to refuse to recognize a gay persons marriage.

      The fact that our politicians have not passed such a law, is to me evidence that they would rather divide us against each other to keep us weak then actually legislate productively.

      Report Post »  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:19pm

      I’m with you 3 monkeys, fact is even the state issuing license is unconstitutional Marriage is a Religious institute that was established long before gvernment ever existed and thus no government should be involved in it in any way.

      Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:24pm

      @Matt
      “On the other hand, allowing for gay marriage will require people with marriage licenses to marry any gay couple that asks them. Most churches in this country believe that homosexuality is a sin, so forcing them to recognize marriage is unconstitutional.”

      No one is forcing Churches to marry gays anymore than a Catholic Church is forced to marry atheists or Jews or Lutherans. Yours is not even a strawman argument, its just a falsehood and a lie.

      Report Post »  
    • gooeylewie
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:43pm

      @ENCINOM

      funny I didn’t see your comments under the story from Canada from earlier today:
      ONTARIO OFFICIALS MAY FORCE CATHOLIC SCHOOLS TO ACCEPT GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCES
      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ontario-officials-may-force-catholic-schools-to-accept-gay-straight-alliances/

      stop hiding behind “gay marriage” as a right. Just admit that you disagree with the first amendment and the entirety of the Constitution – then we can have a civil grown up discussion

      Report Post »  
    • gperky
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:45pm

      @Encinom
      Not yet, but if they pass a law that allows gay marriage, the next step is to force churches to marrry gays or lose their tax exempt status, then take away their license as a church altogether. It is not about marriage of gay couples. Gays are not after just acceptance. They are after destroying anyone that does not agree with their lifestyle. Look at what they are trying to do now with Obamacare! It was so simple starting out, now they are forcing churches to go against all moral code.

      Report Post » gperky  
    • paperpushermj
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 1:09pm

      So are they saying that a Community Can Not Create requirements for who gets a Marriage LICENSE?
      Are they inferring that Requiring certain conditions in order to qualify for a License from the State is… what unfair. If thats the case what about a Drivers License or Barbers License is Community input to be disallowed.

      Report Post » paperpushermj  
    • lukerw
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 1:41pm

      Discrimination & Civil Rights Laws… addressing Benefits for Minorities… are evil… and Immoral… rejecting the Declaration of Independence… in favor of Political Votes!

      Report Post » lukerw  
    • toto
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 3:00pm

      My, how far we have come, and not in a good way. I still have our old VDRL receipts required to get a marriage license. The state made you prove that you were not going to transmit a sexually transmitted disease to an unsuspecting partner. Now we are free to transmit anything we like, even AIDS. How’s that for progress?

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 3:50pm

      In the 1885 Utah Territory case of Murphy v. Ramsey, the United States Supreme Court recognized the fundamental importance of the traditional institution of marriage:

      “For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.”

      Report Post »  
    • KStret
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 6:11pm

      3Monkeys,
      The problem is the states are not passing same sex marriage laws. The judiciary is legislating same sex marriage into law. Same-sex marriage was rejected in CA and they wouldn’t even put it up for a vote in MA. People do not want it but it is being passed by judicial tyranny.

      Report Post » KStret  
    • db321
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 8:13pm

      DomingoCafe – Bravo! Homosexuality is now both unconstitutional and ungodly. The “un’s” have it.

      Well put Domingo – As we speak, Millions of Black Christians will cast their vote for Obama – they are voting for their God and they are spitting in the Face of the Real God! Non Support of Israel, Abortion, and Gay Marriage is the biggest 3 warnings God can give someone – Go against God on these 3 things and you might not like what you get.

      Report Post » db321  
    • black9897
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 9:04pm

      As much as I do not approve of gay marriage, it’s true it is unconstitutional. Government can not have any say in marriage. In fact, it should not be involved in marriage at all!

      Report Post » black9897  
    • BigPawz
      Posted on June 1, 2012 at 12:20pm

      homosexuality should be a constitutional and ungodly… Not to mention unlawful and unnatural. And all you ******** is a that homos should have the same rights as anybody else, obviously, if you are being tolerant of it means that you agree with it. This really speaks well for our society when we appear to the rest of the world not to have any standards whatsoever.

      Report Post »  
    • binge_thinker
      Posted on June 2, 2012 at 4:38pm

      These judges are NOT doing their job — they are exceeding it by venturing from interpreting the law into judicial DESPOTISM. “Equal protection” would only be an issue if there was some prohibition against any man being able to marry a woman. Even more so, there are even some prohibitions within the states bounding that — a brother cannot marry his sister, or a mother her son.

      Neither the homosexual movement nor some activist judges have the right to redefine society into the bizarre construct that this radical movement seeks. Such questions have always been settled by the elected branches of Government, but such things are considered antithetical to the agendas of fringe radical groups that have no use for the workings of democracy or the Constitution.

      Report Post » binge_thinker  
  • Mathchopper
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:40am

    Where in the Constitution does it say married heterosexuals deserve federal benefits?

    Report Post »  
    • Texas Chris
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:49am

      EXACTLY!

      But, following that logic (and it IS logic) the federal governmen thas no authority over marriage of any kind!

      Separation of church and state, marriage is a religious institution, therefore get the government our of the marriage business. Period.

      Report Post »  
    • shakedowncrews
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:00pm

      Texas Chris, EXACTLY what I’ve been saying.
      I do think the Federal Govt has it wiithin their purvue to try to cut out tax benefits for industries that are good for the nation (energy and agriculture, for example), and in the same way, supporting families by cutting their taxes so they can save more money to educate and raise children is obviously a good thing.
      But this whole travesty of the govt defining marriage began, to my knowledge, when the Christian majority was appalled by the polygamy of the Mormons, and began to outlaw it nationally.
      Your point is spot on: marriage, by definition, is a HOLY UNION between two individuals before God (whatever God that may be) and the community.
      Therefore, for the Govt to define a limited scope of “acceptable” marriage, based upon one religion’s beliefs, is tantamount to religious discrimination.
      My solution, should anyone care, would be simple: the Federal govt should immediately cease to define “marriage” or provide any benefit for it. Instead, it should recognize a civil union between two consenting adults.
      That would mean that heterosexual couples and homosexual couples could apply for a civil union license from their state (if that state allows homosexual unions). We would all be treated equally, and the govt would stop defining marriage.
      If a religion accepted polyamy, fine. The first union is recognized, the others are not, and no one should go to jail for having multiple wives, what a stupid concept.

      Report Post » shakedowncrews  
    • SimpleTruths
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:45pm

      Where in the Constitution does it say we can have speed limits, stoplights, parking meters, etc. Stupid comment.

      Report Post » SimpleTruths  
    • Texas Chris
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 2:00pm

      It doesn’t. that‘s why we should’t have the federal government meddlingin those areas, and for the most part we don’t.

      Report Post »  
    • Spqr1
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 2:41pm

      Equal Protection Clause! 14th Amendment! You can’t pick and choose the bits of the Constitution you do and do not like, save that for the Bible…..

      Report Post »  
    • KStret
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 6:00pm

      Match,
      I agree with you 100%. Couldn’t a single person also file a lawsuit because they are being discriminated against? Why does a single person have to pay a higher tax rate simply because they are not married and do not have children?

      Report Post » KStret  
    • JGraham III
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 6:01pm

      @Texas Chris:
      Excellent point made! Marriage is a covenant established by God for the benefit of Mankind. People have for generations entered into “civil relationships” that are far away from marriage as defined by scripture. Man has and does redefine God-given concepts to suit his own perverse pleasure and purposes but that doesn‘t mean God has to or will ’legitimize’ what man wants to do. Ecclesiastes says of marriage that “a threefold cord is not easily broken”, meaning Man-God-Woman entwined in the marriage covenant. Just because two men or two women want to be “married” doesn’t mean that God is involved; to the contrary. The ‘marriage’ will never quite work because it is like the proverbial square peg in the round hole. So go ahead and redefine marriage O Wise Human Court! You might as well rip the label off a jar of pickles and relabel it peaches: sorry the pickle doesn’t become a peach just because you say it is.

      Report Post »  
    • binge_thinker
      Posted on June 2, 2012 at 4:41pm

      @ Sqpr
      Have you even READ the 14th Amendment? Here it is for you:

      1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

      2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

      Just what does that have to do with Gay Marriage? Nothing if you ask me.

      Report Post » binge_thinker  
  • Runeback
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:40am

    The issue at hand remains that if you redefine marriage from it’s “traditional” sense and give into one group then you have to give into every group. If gays can be married, then why can’t polygamists have multiple wives? Why can’t a bi person have a wife and a husband? Government should not involved in marriage, but is simply because of taxes and benefits. So marriage for gays tends to be more about the benefits then the definition. If two people love each other then what does it matter what it is called. If you want the same benefits then get with a lawyer to draft your intentions and make sure the other person gets the benefits of a “traditional”: marriage but don’t try to change that everyone else.

    Report Post » Runeback  
    • Texas Chris
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:50am

      Awesome post. Thanks you for that.

      Report Post »  
    • Numismatist
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:06pm

      Really? There are people who still think the slippery slope argument is valid?? LOL. This was the same argument some morons put forth when interracial marriage became legal. Blacks have been marrying whites for quite some time now, and I still don’t see alot of farmers marrying their pigs. No, each case is decided based on its own merits, not based on the merits of completely unrelated issues. Gay marriage should be decided on based on its own issue of equality, humanity, and equal rights, not based on bigoted fear of unrelated situations. Thats what our country is about.

      Report Post »  
    • hatchetjob
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:29pm

      I’m with you RUNEBACK!!

      Report Post » hatchetjob  
    • Dale
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:30pm

      Numismatist;

      What? How do you define marriage? Forbidding interracial marriage was based on race, not sex (gender for those who don’t know what it means). Farmers, generally, are not picketing to marry pigs. Marriage was instituted to further families. Show me the product from a ‘gay’ marriage and I will reconsider my position.

      Report Post » Dale  
    • Todd P
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:32pm

      Perhaps one solution is for the government to cease any and all benefits based on being married or single. Then, whatever they choose to consider themselves is irrelevant. They can have a gay ol’ time (pardon the pun) and the Christians can shrug their shoulders and look the other way. And think of the money the government would save, which could be mandated to go to pay off the national debt!

      Report Post »  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:49pm

      Why shouldn’t two or more consenting adults be able to sign a contract of the unionazation of their partnership. I say remove all spousal benefits and tax breaks from all government agencies. And let people be free. Religious people can still be married and others can be civil unionized. If one man can handle 8 wives at one time I say more power to him. One drives me nuts enough.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:52pm

      Numismatist

      Blacks & whites have been marrying since the dawn of history & before. They married in Spain for example. Where do you think Shakespeare got his material for the play Othello (1603 Italian novel)?

      But do we have widespread gay marriage in history? Lets cite rich Greek & Roman elites who are bored & behaving badly as support shall we? Those people could bugger almost anyone so long they weren’t from another powerful family. That is so gay!

      Report Post »  
    • KStret
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 6:35pm

      Num,
      You are committing a category error by comparing same sex marriage to interracial marriage. The definition of marriage is the union between one man and one woman. Telling a man he can not marry any woman who he wants would be a violation of the constitution. That is totally different than same sex marriage.

      Your own argument to allow same sex marriage dictates that every has the right to call any arrangement they want a marriage. Why?

      The definition of marriage is the union between one man and one woman. To say that same sex couples want to get married is a false statement. Same sex couples want to redefine marriage and believe same sex is a fundamental right.

      If redefining marriage is a right for gays, your own argument dictates that redefining marriage is a right for everyone. Do you think polygamists are being discriminated against because they can’t get married?

      On top of that, this ruling is self contradictory. One one hand, states can not define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman because that is discriminatory but on the other DOMA prevents individuals states from defining marriage how they want.

      Report Post » KStret  
  • barber2
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:38am

    Would someone please discuss what special rights are granted to relationship “unions ?” Perhaps, we need to separate unions, like we do church and state, and just define what rights an individual is entitled to . No more of this legalese “ it depends upon what the meaning of marriage is” verbal gamesmanship ( a la lawyer / Clinton speak ) This mess is getting too complicated even for the “ how many angels can dance on the top of a pin” legal crowd. Have always thought that a functioning democracy is only capable when it is peopled by citizens with common, functional, moral beliefs.

    Report Post »  
    • Texas Chris
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:53am

      It comes down to benefits.

      If you’re gay, and you want your “partner” to be covered by your emplyee benefits, then negotiate it with your employer, or work elsewhere.

      If you’re a government employee, you negotiate with me and 315 million other taxpayers for your “partner” to be covered. If we say no, then work elsewhere.

      Report Post »  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:33am

    Great, more gay news. America can’t enough gay news..

    Report Post » Gonzo  
    • HorseCrazy
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:48am

      amazing isn’t it queer news day. I’m not feeling so merry and gay at this news, funny how the law was fine from 1996 but under obama not so much. sure lets ruin a tradition thousands of years old for the fraction of those here with a deviancy and whining problem.

      Report Post »  
    • brntout
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:03pm

      Must be generated out of Caulifornia.Yet topic wise,it is a grand distraction. Remember the “tell a lie enough” routine? Focus America lest we cease to exist.

      Report Post »  
  • Alex
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:31am

    Well, I guess that means that we’ll need a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

    Report Post »  
    • Texas Chris
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:54am

      Or a constitutional amendment forbidding the government from interfereing in a religious institution like marriage.

      Report Post »  
    • SimpleTruths
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:15pm

      TEXAS CHRIS
      So by your standards a civil marriage ceremony is not really a marriage? Tell that to the dozens of legally married people I performed the civil marriage ceremony for as a Mayor.

      Report Post » SimpleTruths  
    • goahead.makemyday
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 1:51pm

      SIMPLETROUTHS,
      The act of “Marriage” is a religious ceremony, and a religious institution. A civil union is not a religious institution, by that definition they are indeed different. What people get caught up over are the government decided benefits, and people telling them NO to something. All too often people use marriage to mean a civil union, remember marriage is a religious institution. Technically it should be a civil union license, not marriage license. The wedding license is called that because very few people would go to a justice, or a clerk, or another person besides the traditional marriage. If we took away all state and federal benefits for either marriages and civil unions it would just leave the fact people don’t like being told NO. Unfortunately there would still be most of this consternation and furor over gay “marriage”.

      Report Post » goahead.makemyday  
    • Texas Chris
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 1:59pm

      No, you misunderstand.

      If two people come to you to get married, and you perform whatever ritual they desire to mark the event, then they are married according to their terms and subject to their limitations. Nowhere in such a religious compact, a contract if you will, does the government have any say. It’s between them, and you their chosen arbiter.

      The power to license is the power to control. I lean toward limiting the government’s power in all things, and therefore lean towards government not being in the business of sanctioning or prohibiting any form of civil union, whatver the involved parties want to call it.

      Report Post »  
  • VanceUppercut
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:30am

    It always frustrates me when people complain that gays want special treatment. The ability to get married, or to visit your loved one in a hospital is special treatment?

    Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:57am

      Yes it is special treatment. You don’t need to get married to make medical decisions. Ever heard of a Power or Attorney or a Living Will? Secondly, it is not legal for two men to marry in the eyes of the Federal government. I as a straight man cannot marry another straight man. I have no more rights than a gay man who wants to marry another gay man. The only difference between the two is the desire too. Sexual desire is not a basis on which we recognize a race or sex of people.

      Thus, it is special rights that gays want. Not equal rights because they already have them. And I’m all for leaving marriages to the states as long as one state is not forced to recognize another states marriage laws.

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • encinom
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:12pm

      @SquidVetOhio
      Sorry you post makes zero sense and repeats the racist arguments used against inter-racial marraiges.

      Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:17pm

      Christians have no problem with inter-racial marriages since we believe we are all the decendants of Noah genius. I think we can look to the athiests of times past to see what racism looks like.

      Calculus makes no sense to the kid just learning how to divide. Wait a few days and you’ll get that.

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • hatchetjob
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:35pm

      SWQIDVETOHIO, Your comment is awesome, and I understand it very well. Encinom can’t understand your comment with his low IQ and all.

      Report Post » hatchetjob  
    • gperky
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:50pm

      @ Squidvetohio
      Very well put. It can’t get much simpler than that except you might have to draw a picture for Encinom, but of course he doesn’t get much. He droppe dout of school in the 4th grade so pictures are required.

      Report Post » gperky  
    • tmarends
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 3:34pm

      @SquidVetOhio
      If two straight men want to get “married” for the tax breaks and automatic legal benefits it allows, why should we stop them? Whether or not they have sexual intercourse is, in my opinion, moot.

      I keep hearing that gay couples can get those rights by filling out separate forms (and paying extra fees)… but HOW is that EQUAL??

      Report Post » tmarends  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 3:45pm

      SquidVetOhio
      You have the right to marry someone you can love and desire and don’t have the right to marry someone you can’t. How the hell can you convince yourself that’s equal to someone who can marry someone he can’t want and can’t marry one he does?

      Report Post »  
  • G-WHIZ
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:29am

    The court is right…the fed-govt should stay out of it. The fed-govt should also stay out of abortion and thousands of other RIGHTS-KILLING-LEGISLATION. THE MANY sould NOT be MADE to payfor THE FEW!! Say-it with me now….S O C I A L I S M !!

    Report Post »  
  • Daveed
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:29am

    What God has given, no Fed can take away. Isn’t it just like the Leftist Revoluntary to want to push their sins onto other people to make them stumble? Because Christians, stand up for the sanctity of life, the Leftist’s hate it, because Christians defend our faith, the Leftist hate it, because Christians defend marriage, the Leftist’s hate marriage and so forth. I am beginning to think because just the intolerance and anger from the Leftist towards Godly things, it is really that they hate God and the thought of God makes them rage and they have become abased. I have always seen with leftist I have come into contact with, that if I choose to live my life the way I see fit, they get angry, defensive , offended and always start defending their choices, of which I said nothing about or even thought of, as I was asked an honest question and gave an honest answer. I love Babies, the more the better. I defended Terri Schaivo and her family who loved her and wanted to care for her, I hate abortion, I stand up for marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, My stance on homosexuality is the same as my Christ’s as he is the Creator of mankind and HE should know. We are to love God with everything we have and are and we should love our neighbor like we love ourselves. I love my country and my Lord put me here. I am forgiven and I mess up, not even close to being perfect, and that only shows me how much I need Christ.

    Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:45am

      Great you oppose gay marriage, don’t have one. But don‘t let your superstitions limit the rights and freedoms of others that don’t agree with your small minded views.

      Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:01pm

      And just to tweek ENCINOM. Don’t let the ungodly dissuade you from standing for righteousness. When you are called “small minded” by self righteous athiests, you are winning the argument.

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • Dale
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:17pm

      encinom;

      “Great you oppose gay marriage, don’t have one. But don‘t let your superstitions limit the rights and freedoms of others that don’t agree with your small minded views.”

      You are free to live with your ‘special’ friend, just don‘t ask me to recognize your ’special’ marriage. It does not exist, as evidenced by your effort to redefine marriage. Good luck with that one.

      Report Post » Dale  
  • Apple Bite
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:21am

    Marriage is a religious doctrine. End of discussion.

    Follow the religion as intended or not at all, meaning, you can’t pick and chose what you please to get the result you desire. Nobody following religion should stand by and watch another religion become bastardized by a small segment of society and a government gone astray. If it happened to their religion, it’s sure to happen to yours.

    Report Post » Apple Bite  
    • encinom
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:29am

      Ban all non-christian weddings…

      Basically, you guys are spitting into a hurricane and can’t realize that the tide of history is about to drown you.

      Report Post »  
    • Uncurable wound
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:34am

      enicom sorry little troll,you are very wrong.There is a storm coming,and you have no idea.
      While you have your little parades we train.
      We will see you Very soon!

      Report Post »  
    • Dale
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:08pm

      encinom;

      “Basically, you guys are spitting into a hurricane and can’t realize that the tide of history is about to drown you.” I guess you are looking the wrong direction. I am amazed that so many (particularly the progressives) accuse others of the evil they perpetuate. Have you noticed that everything the left is throwing right now is a boomerang – coming back and hitting you in the head. I guess with that tremendous head ache, you don’t.

      Report Post » Dale  
    • Texas Chris
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:09pm

      Religion doesn’t equal christianity. ALL religions accept marriage. They all do it differently. Some even perform gay marriages, or polygamist union, or whatever. Look hard enough and you can find a shaman that will wed you to a Buffalo, if that’s your thing.

      And you know what? That deviation from God‘s plan doesn’t diminish YOUR union in the slightest.

      But no way should someone who disagrees with gay marriage be forced to pay for the benefits of a gay union, and that’s what this is really about. Benefits.

      Report Post »  
    • tmarends
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 3:40pm

      So if my religion allows two men, or two women to get married, and blesses that union, should the government be allowed to stop it??

      Where is the line on government intrusion over religious institutions? Why does your religion get preference over mine??

      Report Post » tmarends  
    • binge_thinker
      Posted on June 2, 2012 at 4:51pm

      @ Tmare

      Why don’y you show us what religion in modern day America allows for two men to lawfully marry two women. We’ll be waiting.
      Otherwise, your comparison is idiotic and not worth a reply.

      Report Post » binge_thinker  
    • tmarends
      Posted on June 3, 2012 at 1:44am

      @binge_thinker
      You obviously did not read what I said… I never argued for polygamy… I said 2 men OR 2 women… the Presbyterian Church blesses same-gender unions… and marries them in states where it is legal… some Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) churches do too. You may not like it, but some churches DO marry gay couples.

      Report Post » tmarends  
  • LittleMac
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:19am

    During arguments before the court last month, a lawyer for gay married couples said the law amounts to “across-the-board disrespect.”

    Disrespect is not against the law. You would think it is, the way people are carrying on lately.

    I was taught from the young age “no one can intimidate or disrespect you, unless you let them.”

    Report Post » LittleMac  
    • TRUTHSENSE
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:35am

      Will Pandora’s box be opened? It also discriminates and disrespects polygamists and brothers and sisters, brother and brother, father and daughter and any other marriages one could think of. Once we have “freed” ourselves from the religious principles this country was founded on it’s anything goes, for who is to make judgements on what is right and wrong?

      Report Post » TRUTHSENSE  
    • Texas Chris
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:56am

      While I believe ALL of those things to be wrong, I do not think they should be illegal.

      It‘s not the government’s business who is married to who, or how many. That’s a religious issue.

      Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:03pm

      Agree totally and LOVE the avatar. Little Mac from Mike Tyson’s punch out. Classic.

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
  • NOBALONEY
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:17am

    1st and 9th districts are far left leaning activists courts. 9th district has yet to rule on it‘s stay of the vote aganist ’gay marriage’.

    Report Post » NOBALONEY  
  • Just in time
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:16am

    The amount of judicial activism is astounding these days.

    Report Post »  
  • thegreatcarnac
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:15am

    When a nation cannot even realize that same-sex marriage is NOT marriage and that marriage is between a man and a woman…..then there is no hope for it’s future. Lawyers have shaded even the obvious and have argued the insensible. Cursed be those who have played with words to affect a unsacred marriage upon the land.

    Report Post »  
    • dragonsrightwing
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 6:02pm

      Allow me to translate for those of us whose language skills surpass grunts and squeals —
      “There is no hope for the future of any nation whose citizenry don’t think *just like me*! My prejudices and opinions are *obviously* the only possible correct way of thinking.”

      Regardless of the validity (or not) of your opinion, you just lost any chance of *making* your arguments …

      Report Post »  
  • majasdad
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:12am

    Excellent!!

    Report Post »  
  • discus02
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:10am

    Banging someone in the rear isn’t sex it is perverse! Plain and Simple SCOTUS has been giving it to America for four years. Time to clean out the White House!

    Report Post »  
  • cessna152
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:09am

    First off, government should not be involved in marriage..period.

    Second: the article states “discriminates against married same-sex couples ..”
    No, this discriminates against me and my beliefs. This country is based on one premise..equal FREEDOM. NOT equal rights… Once “rights” are granted by government, equal freedoms are lost.

    Report Post » cessna152  
    • encinom
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:17am

      What freedom are you being deprived of? How does two people in a committed relationship affected your rights? Don’t quote the bible, that old book of myths has nothing to do with our laws.

      Report Post »  
    • Dale
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:31am

      encinom;

      You obviously are oblivious to our history and founding. You should spend time learning about what you are saying before spending (and wasting) time here. Have you heard of Moses? Government usurped regulatory authority, it did not invent it!

      Report Post » Dale  
    • majasdad
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:41am

      Don’t worry buudy…you can continue with your precious beliefs and your hobbies such as watching a dog lick another in the butt (if your profile pic is any indication). It’s a free country, in fact freer now than ever before. Carpe diem!!

      Report Post »  
    • flipper1073
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:42am

      @ ENCINOM
      Two Commited Adults can be in any kind of a relationship
      that they want. I DON”T CARE !
      What they can’t do is call it a MARRIAGE.
      Marriage already has a definition.
      It’s ONE Man an ONE Woman Period.
      Make up your own new word an define it
      any way you choose.
      but the Word Marriage is already Taken.
      an DEFINED.

      Report Post » flipper1073  
    • GeorgeWashingtonslept here
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:45am

      Cessna152….thank you. And encinom, what the hell? You are so stupid it’s beyond words. Why does anyone respond to this moron…….go away troll baby.

      Report Post »  
    • cessna152
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:48am

      encidope,

      Instead of simply slandering and throwing out baseless facts how about you answer what I posted… equal freedoms and equal rights. Do you know the difference? Do you realize once government grants “rights” we are no longer equal and granting rights from government is a “plank of communism”? A right from God (which this country was FOUNDED on) can never be taken away. So you’re okay with God given rights being taken away? You’re okay with tens of thousands of man made, anti-freedom laws but hate the 2 basic laws from God? Really? Communism, Is that what you support? Because communism has killed hundreds of millions of innocent people in about 100 years time. So which one are you for?

      Report Post » cessna152  
    • Optimist4now
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:57am

      encinom

      In case you hadn’t noticed, our laws are founded in that book of “myths” you speak of. I‘m guessing you’re waiting for the okay to marry your sheep.

      Report Post »  
    • Texas Chris
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:06pm

      This is about benefits, not gay marriage.

      People have the freedom of religion, and association. That’s a marriage, a religious agreement between two people who agree to associate with one another in a certain way, defined by the couple (or group, if that’s your thing). Marriage is whatever the involved parties decide it is.

      Employees should be negotiating for benefits with their employer, not with a court. If the majority of Americans don’t want to pay the benefits, then the employee can go elsewhere for work.

      Report Post »  
    • brntout
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:11pm

      @ MAJASDAD Huh ,What? Really? What sex is your wife? Political correctness is damned so tell me,where are you coming from? Marriage has always been with an opposite sex…. Or can you not distinguish it…Even in the phylum and sub-phylums this known to be true ,you idiot.

      Report Post »  
    • majasdad
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 6:23pm

      @BRNTOUT
      My wife and I are good friends with a lesbian couple who have two wonderful beautiful kids, a son and a daughter 8 and 13 who are the warmest mellowest kids around. The younger kid has just received a clean bill of health after a horrendous 4 year struggle with lukemia. They’re a tight loving harmonious family and a model to all. I love them dearly. So it ****** the crap out of me no end when sh’theads like 90% of the people here believe they have the right to deny gay couples the “freedom”, as CESSNA put it, to pursue their happiness. And as I said to cessna, ruling DOMA unconstitutional does not hinder in anyway his right worship as he sees fit or watch, as his own profile pic indicates, dogs licking each others butts, or anything else for that matter as long as he’s not bothering anyone.

      Report Post »  
  • sbenard
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:08am

    Marriage was instituted by God in the days of Abraham as a covenant between man, woman, and God. Satan has usurped marriage and transformed it into a contract between a man, another man, and government. God will not preserve and protect a nation that continues to degrade itself this way.
    Homosexual activists will use this as a way to compel all states to honor gay marriages through the contract clause of the Constitution, which requires that contracts executed in one state must be honored in all states. America’s destruction and self-immolation continues!

    Report Post » sbenard  
    • encinom
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:18am

      Marraige was a business arrangement between men to trade daughters for goats or other live stock. We have already redefined marriage since the days of Abraham.

      Report Post »  
    • VanceUppercut
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:29am

      @sbenard

      You seem to forget, not everyone believes the same fairy tales (sorry, I mean bible stories) that you do, so why should the rules set forth in those fairy tales be codified into law so that all must follow them?

      Report Post »  
    • Texas Chris
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:13pm

      That’s CHRISTIAN marriage. Other people do it different. And that’s GREAT.

      Don’t agree with gay marriage? Don’t marry another dude. If Bill and Fred want to pack fudge in the privacy of their own home, then go right on ahead. Just don’t expect the taxpayer to provide insurance.

      (For the record, hetero-married couples shouldn’t get those benefits either! It discriminates against SINGLE people!)

      Report Post »  
    • SquidVetOhio
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:14pm

      Because there are more of us than there are of you. Christians (pilgrims) started this country and laid the foundations. Ironically, we wanted to be tolerant of other religions and that is becoming our downfall. The (historically proven) “myths” in the Bible is what that foundation is laid upon. You should thank whatever you believe in for the christian foundation of this country. Go live in a country with any other foundation be it, athiesm, islam, buddhist, etc and see the quality of life and freedom. Go start your own country of Godlessinfidelistan and see how it works out. Since nearly 90% of Americans claim to believe the “myth”, you’re just gonna have to suck it up and deal with us “supersticious fools”.

      The hubris of athiests would make Muhammed Ali envious.

      Report Post » SquidVetOhio  
    • tmarends
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 3:46pm

      Is that why Solomon had 600 wives, plus cocubines?? Jacob had 2 wives, and children from each. The Bible is full of examples of people who were legally married that was NOT just one man and one woman.

      Report Post » tmarends  
  • ReynMansson
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:08am

    Do you see clearly now the inevitable path same-sex marriage will follow to universal legal recognition?

    Do you really want to make your stand on the wrong side of history? Feeling a bit like Custer?

    All this for a superstition based on a myth from an ancient middle eastern legend? Just like Sharia law, isn’t it?

    Report Post » ReynMansson  
    • majasdad
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:11am

      Well put!

      Report Post »  
    • Texas Chris
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 12:14pm

      The issue is not if two dude ahould be allowed to marry. It’s if we, the taxpayers, must be forced to pay for the non-federal-employee’s insurance.

      Report Post »  
    • binge_thinker
      Posted on June 2, 2012 at 4:58pm

      It is not unfounded. Marriage is not an institution that can be arbitrarily redefined by some judge. This is an institution that the American people themselves define for how they want their society to be run.

      There is no so-called “equal protection” issue here. Your premise behind is based on a lie — that men and women are exactly the same, and that they relate to one another exactly the same as they do same gender; therefore, that there is no difference between a male-female relationship, a male-male one, or a female-female one. That is not borne out by any sociological, anthropological, or psychological studies on relationships.

      Oh, and as for the right side of history. Plenty of young people rightfully recoil from the concept of gay ‘marriage’. Common sense has no age limit.

      Report Post » binge_thinker  
  • Uncurable wound
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:07am

    Marriage is about religion!
    what religion allows gays to marry?
    None-because it is an abomination to God!

    Report Post »  
    • ReynMansson
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:14am

      Can atheists marry?

      Answer: Legal in all 50 states

      ReynMansson  
    • encinom
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:21am

      Is marriage only allowed for Christians, do Budhist or Hindu wedding ceremonies count?

      Report Post »  
    • Uncurable wound
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:26am

      Really what churches do the atheists use?

      Report Post »  
    • SimpleTruths
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 1:03pm

      UNCURABLE WOUND
      In case you’re not aware of it, there is something called a CIVIL CEREMONY. I have performed dozens of non-religious civil marriage ceremonies as a Mayor where the State has provided me the legal authority to do so. Are your really that unaware of laws in this country?

      Report Post » SimpleTruths  
    • barber2
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 2:00pm

      UN: Our Lefty atheists all belong to the Church of the Holy Big Brother…comrades all.

      Report Post »  
    • goahead.makemyday
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 2:06pm

      Encinom,
      Wedding is an english word connected directly to the Christian faith. So a Hindu doesn’t have a wedding they have what ever word they use for their ceremony. Your trying to apply a religious precept to a different religion. To be honest I don’t think there should be any benefits for marriages or civil unions or whatever you choose to call it. Just cut this topic off at the knees and say no benefits, then we can discuss people forcing others to go against their beliefs.

      Report Post » goahead.makemyday  
    • barber2
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 2:41pm

      GOAHEAD: I’m with you: take this entire subject out of the hands of our Lefty lawyers who are using our legal protections to “ change” America into their No Rules / Anything Goes Third World Atheist Land of the Left !

      Report Post »  
    • majasdad
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 6:44pm

      I’m an atheist and I got married in a really cool church from the 1600s. Why you might ask? Because I like the atmosphere really cool old churches.

      Report Post »  
    • tmarends
      Posted on June 3, 2012 at 2:01am

      The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and the Presbyterian Church marry gay couples in states where it is currently legal.

      Report Post » tmarends  
  • Uncurable wound
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:04am

    Oh satan must be so happy.It must be time for a bump and grind parade

    26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. romans 1

    Report Post »  
  • Big Media Bias
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:04am

    Quote, “The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said…”

    Judges living in one of the most liberally biased states and cities in the nation wouldn‘t dare offend homosexual militants in their home town for fear of retribution in public and be left off guest lists to summer cocktail parties in Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket.

    Report Post »  
  • starman70
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:03am

    AAAH! the ruminations of our liberal leftist judiciary!

    Report Post »  
  • encinom
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:03am

    At least some understand the meaning of Equal Protection, even if others are still blinded by the bigotry and hatered found in the ancient books of myths and fairytales.

    Report Post »  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:09am

      So much like the majority of both parties that signed the bill, and Bill Clinton whose signature passed the bill into law in ‘96? Right, that hateful Bill Clinton?

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
    • Uncurable wound
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:10am

      Where is marriage outside those ancient books?
      Where is the genetic proof on homosexuality?
      How is it passed on? Fool
      It is a SICK choice!!!

      Report Post »  
    • barber2
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 1:58pm

      Always a thrill to hear from our resident Lefty atheists….

      Report Post »  
    • KStret
      Posted on May 31, 2012 at 6:56pm

      encinom,
      In other words, believing redefining marriage is not a right is bigoted. If that is the case, why are you not also whining, crying, and filing lawsuits for polygamists?

      If same sex couples have the fundamental right to redefine marriage the equal protection clause dictates everyone has that same right right. Polygamists are also being discriminated against too. It must also be bigoted to be against polygamy.

      Do you believe that being against polygamy is bigoted?

      Report Post » KStret  
    • binge_thinker
      Posted on June 2, 2012 at 5:00pm

      The “Equal Protection Clause” isn’t even an Amendment. It is Section 2, Article 4, of the Constitution. It refers to how people will be treated when charged with a crime and who have fled to another State. Read it sometime.

      Every time you refer to the 14th Amendment, which, if you actually read it, refers to a poll tax, you look like an ignorant fool. I suggest that you actually look it up.

      Report Post » binge_thinker  
  • Daniel4
    Posted on May 31, 2012 at 11:02am

    Gee… I‘m surprised that the 9th Circuit didn’t get here first. We’ll just have to wait to see what the SCOTUS has to say.

    Report Post »  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love