Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional

[SalvIsWin]

The Defense of Marriage Act was a bigoted 1996 law that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. However today, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals decided that this was constitutional, that it infringed upon gay individuals rights and privileges.

So while this law was outrageous just on principle, the same way a law would be ridiculously outrageous if it deemed Whites superior than non-Whites, it also has some tangible adverse effects for gay people. There are benefits given to married couples, but this law made it so that even in states where gay marriage is legal, like Massachusetts, they weren't entitled to federal benefits.

Now, this decision isn't going to go into effect until the Supreme court rules on the issue, and you know that bigots and some religious people are going to have be dragged kicking and screaming into the age of less discrimination, but this is most definitely a victory for the gay rights coalition.

Other information worth noting is that the law also stated that states which do not recognize gay marriage, like North Carolina for example, do not have to recognize gay couples who were married in other states. So if gay couple X marries in Massachusetts and then moves to North Carolina, as far as NC is concerned they aren't married at all. The Court of Appeals didn't rule on this provision, but considering that none of their decisions actually affect anything right now, that's not really that important.

A federal lawyer hired by John Boehner to defend the law said that the law is both practical and proper - what a tremendous argument if I do say so myself.

--------

The trend is that the Supreme Court is going to have to make a ruling that is either going to be pro-gay or anti-gay. Prop 8 from California still has to be taken up by the Supreme Court, and that ruling would affect North Carolina's recent state vote as well. So there's multiple courts and judges finding that these anti-gay laws aren't constitutional and all this leads one to believe a big argument ultimately decided by the Supreme Court.

Questions

1. Thoughts? Opinions?

2. What do you ultimately think is going to happen with the Supreme Court?

3. Can anyone deny that the current trend is for gay marriage to eventually be legal everywhere? With growing national support, more states legalizing, anti-gay laws being found constitutional, is there any hope for the anti-gay people?

 

[H33LTurn]

This is a great step forward. Not a huge one, but gays can sleep a little more comfortable tonight. I hope that gay people dont let the bigoted politicians and religious leaders get to them, as there are others out there who have exposed the secret gay lifestyles of these "christian conservatives". From Ted Haggard, to that senator's name who I cant remember, to Richard Nixon's own words describing Bohemian Grove, a meeting between some of the world's most elite leaders as "the most faggy thing" (his words not mine). The world is run by a bunch of sadistic hypocrites alright, but we have to continue to work towards achieving equality for all.

 

[LigerBomb]

All laws are bigoted. By their very functional definition they hold that the opinion and belief of the law is the only valid interpretation. All other views are believed to be erroneous with little to no room for tolerance. Similarly, definition of a concept is not an act of displayed superiority nor implied inferiority. Were I to define the concept of 'red' as being a specif range of the visible light spectrum, that in no way makes it better or worse than that of another color. Blue, for example, is still a color just like red is a color. It just can't be red. But then again red can't be blue either. It simply defines what the color red is and what it isn't. Sadly definition is exclusion. And that speaks to the silly idea of equality anyway.
Equality simply doesn't exist.. Not naturally anyway. We force it into being with social convention, cultural mores and pleas of emotional rhetoric but it's a false premise. Not to mention that there's no such thing as inalienable human rights. Making it all a moot point indeed. If there were it probably wouldn't have taken so long to get them down in writing and we probably would have globally agreed upon them a lot sooner. Probably. *shrug* They're concepts; ideas; thought experiments we've constructed –like the "institution" of marriage. Currently we say one thing when we used to say another. Next we'll say something else entirely and then eventually this too shall pass. I wonder when pederasty and bisexuality (as long as your topping) will be back en vogue.
Ultimately I'm just selfish. But I think we all are to one degree or another. Then again, making others feel bad tends to make me feel bad (gee, thanks Catholicism). Since I don't particularly like to feel bad I most often abstain or contribute rather than negate. In this way at least, I fully support gay marriage as I don't really care about what others do when it doesn't impact my life and believe that making others happy will in turn make me feel happy –at least until I need my next fix to augment my self esteem. But I usually don't fool myself into believing I'm doing it in response to the idea of human rights and the truth of basic equality. Well, sometimes I do, when I really want to pat myself on the back and feel good. But then… I just feel naturally superior to others, like I'm just plain better than them or something. It's as If my opinion was the only right viewpoint and I wouldn't allow myself to tolerate an opposing belief. Strange, that.