Obama administration on defense of marriage

[Forever Sunshine]

In a preview of a major constitutional showdown at the Supreme Court over same-sex marriage, the Obama administration said on Friday that a federal law denying financial benefits to legally wed gay and lesbian couples is unconstitutional.

The Justice Department filed the first of a series of briefs in a pair of cases dealing with the multilayered issue, outlining the executive branch's positions.

The high court will hear oral arguments next month on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 congressional law that says for federal purposes, marriage is defined as only between one man and one woman.

That means federal tax, Social Security, pension, and bankruptcy benefits, and family medical leave protections -- do not apply to gay and lesbian couples.

www.cnn.com/2013/02/22/politics/supreme-court-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[beags]

I see no reason why two married people cannot get these benefits. Or for that matter two people who would qualify as a common law marriage . . . meaning they weren't married but have been living together for long enough that they are considered married. (that could legally apply to the gay community, a very small part, but it could apply)

One of the arguements of gay marriage is that they make a mockery of marriage. Well they can't possibly F it up more than the heterosexuals have done.

The other one is that the church will be forced to marry them if it is legal. Well the church does not have to be forced into anything. If it is against their belief, than so be it. . . . . there's always the Justice of the Peace. Many hetrosexuals get married by the JP. Why would you want to be married by a place that preaches against your lifestyle? I don't understand some people. I mean what goes through their head? Gee, I want to get married in a place that will ridicule me and not accept my lifestyle. Why? so they feel they won something? They didn't win anything ... . . I don't get it.

[robinpa]

One of the arguements of gay marriage is that they make a mockery of marriage. Well they can't possibly F it up more than the heterosexuals have done.

There's a lot of truth in that statement of yours beags. As a point of fact the homosexual couples I have known have tended to stay together longer and have been more faithful to each other than a lot of hetero couples I have known.

[Shirina]

This is just one more example of how unconstitutional laws can stay in the books (and be enforced) for years, decades, even centuries until someone brings it to the attention of the Supreme Court. Fortunately, Obama has done so.

All 31 anti-gay state amendments defining marriage as one man, one woman are inherently unconstitutional.

Those amendments violate the 1st Amendment twice:

Congress shall make no law with respect to an establishment of religion.

And

Congress shall make no law ... abridging freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech also includes freedom of expression.

Those amendments violate the 14th Amendment:

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Marriage, while not officially listed as a right, is treated as a right by federal, state, and local governments. The reason for this assessment is because privileges can be taken away - such as the privilege to drive.

To the best of my knowledge, no federal, state, or local government has EVER recinded a LEGAL marriage license. Even those who abuse and beat their spouses have not had their marriages annulled by the State. This says to me that the government views marriage as a right rather than a privilege.

Therefore, de facto if not de jure, marriage is a right and thus cannot be abridged by these ridiculous anti-gay amendments.

Finally, they violate the Supremacy Clause found in Article VI, clause 2: "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme law of the land."

One can only hope the Supreme Court sees it the same way.

The federal government HAS to obey the US Constitution, and never in our history since slavery has the Constitution - or even state constitutions - been amended to ostracize a particular group of people. It is despicable.