- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 55,002,238
Suspects are on the loose after a police officer was shot and killed near Baltimore, officials saytwitter.com/i/web/status/9…KK
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 55,002,238
A monkey that escaped its cage while being transported at San Antonio International Airport has been caught after rtwitter.com/i/web/status/9…aB
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 55,002,238
A teen was ordered to pay $36 million in restitution for setting the Eagle Creek wildfire last year in Oregon whentwitter.com/i/web/status/9…Mc
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 55,002,238
A 62-year-old man intentionally drove his vehicle into a North Carolina restaurant where his family was eating, kiltwitter.com/i/web/status/9…qP
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 55,002,238
The Tesla Model 3 is exciting to drive with good handling and acceleration, Consumer Reports says, but the car's wetwitter.com/i/web/status/9…jv
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 55,002,238
Barack and Michelle Obama will be both in front of and behind the camera in a multi-year production deal with Netfltwitter.com/i/web/status/9…te
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 55,002,238
RT @CNNPolitics: Gina Haspel is sworn-in as the new CIA director. She is the first female director to lead the agency https://t.co/eGiz87DW…
CNN POLITICS ON FACEBOOK » | CNN POLITICS ON TWITTER »
Boston appeals court rules Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has ruled the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.
In the unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel agreed with a decision made by a lower court in 2010 that DOMA is unconstitutional on the basis that it interferes with an individual state's right to define marriage.
“Invalidating a federal statute is an unwelcome responsibility for federal judges; the elected Congress speaks for the entire nation, its judgment and good faith being entitled to utmost respect,’’ the ruling said. “But a lower federal court such as ours must follow its best understanding of governing precedent, knowing that in large matters the Supreme Court will correct mis-readings.”
At issue is whether the federal government can deny tax, health and pension benefits to same-sex couples in states where they can legally marry.
"If we are right in thinking that disparate impact on minority interests and federalism concerns both require somewhat more in this case than almost automatic deference to Congress' will, this statute fails that test," said the three-judge panel.
In the ruling, the judges said that they weighed various factors. While they noted that the law does discriminate against a group that has, like many others, faced oppression, they did not view the federal law as something fueled by anti-homosexual sentiment.
“As with the women, the poor and the mentally impaired, gays and lesbians have long been the subject of discrimination,’’ the ruling said. “In reaching our judgment, we do not rely upon the charge that DOMA’s hidden but dominant purpose was hostility to homosexuality. The many legislators who supported DOMA acted from a variety of motives, one central and expressed aim being to preserve the heritage of marriage as traditionally defined over centuries of Western civilization.’’
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley hailed the ruling by the appeals court.
“Today’s landmark ruling makes clear once again that DOMA is a discriminatory law for which there is no justification," she said in a press release. "It is unconstitutional for the federal government to create a system of first- and second-class marriages, and it does harm to families in Massachusetts every day. All Massachusetts couples should be afforded the same rights and protections under the law, and we hope that this decision will be the final step toward ensuring that equality for all.”
Last year President Obama announced that the Justice Department would no longer argue for the constitutionality of the ban on same-sex marriage.
"My Justice Department has said to the courts, we don't think the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional," the president said on "The View" earlier this month. "This is something that historically had been determined at the state level and part of my believing ultimately that civil unions weren't sufficient."
In an interview with ABC this month, Obama also officially expressed support for members of the same gender to legally wed.
"I've just concluded that for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married," Obama said in the interview.
By the numbers: Same-sex marriage | Read the full opinion
On Twitter
The article says "Defense of marrige act" discriminated against gay couples. well I guess you could say the the law against stealing discriminates against thieves and laws against killing discriminates against murderes. It seems to me that a law permitting gay marrige is discriminating against NATURE.
I always find it amusing that the bigots against gay marriage always have the worst grammar/spelling.
Buddy, if you want to talk intelligently about marriage learn how to spell it.
Putting gays in the same group with thieves and murderers? Where's the victim in a gay relationship?
What nature, are there laws of nature being broken?
Where do Gays come from? Hmm... oh yeah, GOD. Got a problem? Take it up with him.
LOL What?
lol Agreed Bill
If you read the article again, you'll notice it doesn't say anything about DOMA discriminating against gays. It says DOMA interferes with a state's right to define marriage. It's more of a states' rights issue than a LGBT issue.
Marriage is not natural. it is completely man made.
Oh Bill who are you to say it is against nature. How dare you pit murders, theives with Gays no even in the same scope. I hate to say it but we are here to stay and we will have the legal right to Marry who we want. HAHA
Well, now you're just being silly.
Where in NATURE is there a marriage, other than in humans?
Just like everyone else before you who opposed voting rights for women, civil rights and opposed to ending slavery, you too will end up on the wrong side of history. Like it or not the world is moving forward, with or without you, like it or not it's going to happen. You may be able to delay it for a few years, maybe a decade or two, but in the end you will loose this battle and the world will be a better more tolerant place.
Mr. Miller, impulse stealing and murder are hardly good examples to argue against here. Are you perfect?
Sounds like Billy sorely misses the c*ck.
There is nothing "natural" about marriage. Marriage is a human construction.
You've got a lot to learn, because marriage in general isn't seen in nature.
It seems to me you should learn more about nature.
I agree. I attempted to terminate a gay employee who was hitting on three of my married male employees, causing one of them to quit, and found that gay employees have far more rights than stright employees.
Notabigot is right, Bill. Your grammar and spelling erode what little wisdom there may be in your argument.
You are a flat out bigot. Anyone who can compare decent loving hard working people equal rights based on who they love is nothing more than a backwards low life who should be put down like a dog. You are FILTH!!!!!!!
You COULD say that, if you wanted to sound like a total moron with no ability to compare things with commonality.
What the law does is say that two people that are in a committed relationship cannot receive the same benefits as others simply because they happen to be the same gender. This is not a matter of legislating a crime since criminal activity has a negative effect on individuals or society and the only effect on the individual associated with this law is the negative effect on individuals in a relationship. To say that couples of the same gender are the same as thieves is hateful and to say that it goes against nature ignores the huge amount of evidence to the contrary.
Ultimately, you're just an id10t.
What the law does is say that two people that are in a committed relationship cannot receive the same benefits as others simply because they happen to be the same gender. This is not a matter of legislating a crime since criminal activity has a negative effect on individuals or society and the only effect on the individual associated with this law is the negative effect on individuals in a relationship. To say that couples of the same gender are the same as thieves is hateful and to say that it goes against nature ignores the huge amount of evidence to the contrary.
I am gay and I am not a thief or a murder. Being gay is not a crime. I don't hurt anybody by being gay. I was in a straight marriage for 10 years. Had 3 kids. Love them and they love me back. Didn't much care for the marriage though. Nothing to do with my desire for men. It was just a contentious, unhappy marriage. Got divorced and never went back to women. Won't go back to marriage either. But as a human I deserve the rights of other humans and that includes marriage.
Now, here's a political way of looking at it.
Republican ideals include a limiting of the government's power for the sake of individual freedoms. But the law in question, drafted and passed by Republicans, limits individual freedoms through government regulation.
Republican's need to make a choice. Are you inclined to limit government power over individual freedoms? Or are you inclined to limit freedoms in order to impose your own moral structure on others? These are two totally opposing viewpoints, however they are both parts of the core platform of Republican ideals.
Bill Miller: You just violated the Laws of Reasoning. You recklessly took your cerebral cortex and employed it to generate a message that is inconsistent with reality. Please respect your evolved or God-given (as you prefer) brain.
"I attempted to terminate a gay employee who was hitting on three of my married male employees, causing one of them to quit, and found that gay employees have far more rights than stright employees."
I suspect you're lying. What rights in particular are you talking about?
I don't recall seeing ANY marriages on Wild Kingdom. Marriage itself (not pair bonding, but commitment ceremonies and legalities, etc.) is not "natural"–it is a man-made convention. And guess what? Mankind can change its conventions anytime we want to. Especially when those conventions are antiquated, bigoted, and unfair.
bigots always use illogical things to try and find logical reasons to be bigots.
george wmd bush pushed that hate law through....
marriage is not about man and woman. It is about legalities that come with marriage
Only one thing with that argument Bill... Stealing and murdering both hurt OTHER PEOPLE and infringe upon THEIR rights to hold property/maintain their lives. What in your God's name does having two men (or two women) get married do to YOU that infringes upon YOUR rights as a human being?
Megan,
So do we now define what is good by what simply doesn't harm other people? Can we possibly drop the standard of good or right any lower than that?
+1000 for Megan's comment! Gay marriage is between two consenting adults. It does NOT affect anyone else so why do people have such a problem with it?
He's a bigot because he missed a letter?
If YOU want to speak intelligently, don't be so defensive. Sheesh!
No, he is incompetent because he struggles to spell words correctly. He is a bigot because he is against gay marriage. Crystal clear?
An uncontested battle- Hardly a fair fight. We'll see what SCOTUS says....
look man – i cannot wrap my mind around it – America was founded on religious freedom – therefore why cannot all these religious opponents of gay marriage make space for those who religiously desire it – in other words why cannot we have like tens of thousands of different religious interpretations of life living side by side – even if they disagree
Keep christians OUT of all decisions! They are simply NOT rational. They are trying to force their ways onto everyone else. DON'T LET THEM!
We've heard that before, right before they started burning us alive. Huh. I guess everyone discriminates against someone.
Er, what? The majority of the Christians I know may or may not be particularly rational, but are generally of the opinion that their personal beliefs guide them as to how they should live.
... That said, I think the majority of the Christians I know are actively campaigning for legal recognition of gay marriages, because we're from the old-school traditional branches of the faith, and believe that our duty is to speak up for the downtrodden, the outcast, and the strangers in our land.
funny how christians and all other religious nutcases somehow claim their 'god' is a bigot by expressing bigotry it supposedly taught them....
why is this a bigger issue than priests enjoying altar boi juices? I jsut dont get how all these bigots hate on gays so much but are ok with their almighty christian taliban clerics doing gay acts with under age altar bois.
Sad Day in America. This is part of the reason we have become such an unruly people. We have no morals. Think about it. Everyone only cares about what someone can do for them and not what they can do to help.
A sad day in America? I guess you must have been really bummed out when black people didn't have to sit in the back of the bus or drink from seperate water fountains, huh?
If you can't handle equality, then YOU are the problem. not those seeking equal rights under the law.
Robert, Kindly tell me what is immoral about 2 people getting married...
What are you talking about? I've thought a lot about what I can do to help. What I can do to help is campaign for people to be given the same rights and privileges everyone else gets.
There is a lot more to morality than worrying about what consenting adults do with the areas the bathing suit covers. Try starting with compassion and justice. Go feed some hungry people or something. Seriously, try it! It works.
On the contrary, as a straight person who supports gay marriage I think we can definitively say this is not about me.
the sad day is how bigotry is thriving in the USA u know the land of the FREE as long as u r not a muslim or gay.
people with Morals arent bigots.
who cares about grammar to talk on a blog? You're to funny... Oh guess you are so use to being judged that you worry about every little thing "Notabigot". U are stupid when you don't have the since to know and understand what the person attempted to spell/say and move on. People like you normally think you're more than you are and annoying to people.
@mslisac363 "who cares about grammar to talk on a blog? You're to funny..." Umm....obviously, you don't. And it shows.
i most vehemently AGREE
No, he's a bigot because he wants the law to discriminate and take away rights he enjoys from another group of people because of his personal beliefs. The fact he can't spell just makes it easier to show his stupidity.
Religion should not be tax exempt until all have equal rights
Honestly, I think religions shouldn't be tax-exempt period, because tax exemptions make it legally bad if religious groups advocate politically. Meaning that the honest churches aren't speaking openly on topics where they have considered opinions, while the sleazeballs overlook the rules and hope the government overlooks them.
Better for everyone if the churches just pay their taxes. Render unto caesar...
Megan,
Don't let common sense and reason push you to arguing with idiots like Mr. Bill
LOL, this is a good point... 🙂
Inherent worth and dignity of all people, GBLTT and Straight, intellgent and dumb, encompassing and xenophobic
Well, Bill, then let "Nature" file a law suit or write a letter to Congress since "Nature" is the victim. Until "Nature" is ready to hire an attorney, perhaps you should take a little time off to work on your anger issues.
Question? Why does anyone care whom marries whom? I was married to a man who was abusive to both my children and myself...does this make the marriage perfect because he was a man? I know a lady who is with another lady in the most loving respectful relationship and have children together that are just fine. So question, why do you care? what is it anyone else/s busy?
Mostly because a lot o people are just ignorant bigots who don't have the capacity to empathize with others they don't understand. I'm tired of trying to reason with these folks myself, at some point the walls go up and if they try to climb over they do so at their own peril. I hate to say this but I'm done talking to brick walls about this. You are exactly right.
I don't care if gay people want to say they are married to each other. I do care if they want to force me to recognize their marriage as being valid. This is not simply a question of live and let live, this is a question of I live and you will validate, not merely tolerate the way I live my life.
That doesn't even make sense, Bill Miller. If a law states that a specific group of people are not allowed to have the same rights as all other Americans, then yes, it is discriminating. Laws against stealing and killing apply to EVERYONE. It doesn't say that only white people may not steal or only black people may not kill. EVERYONE is held accountable. Therefore, EVERYONE should be allowed to marry whomever they please. And saying that allowing gay marriage is against nature reveals you know absolutely nothing. Because of course gay people choose to be that way. There's no way that could possibly happen naturally, right? Open your eyes and open your mind. This is America. This is a country founded for the sake of freedom. Allowing a gay couple to marry has zero effect on you personally, buddy. Just like every man-woman marriage out there. They don't effect you. It has nothing to do with you. So let it go. Kudos to the appeals court for seeing the truth!
I appreciate your arguments, however, there is no choice in the matter, other than to live your life honestly. Being Gay is a lot like being left handed. Yes, a left handed person can learn to do everything with their right hand, but that doesn't make them right handed. The court's argument is a good one. It has been a historic tradition in the United States that marriage is a state's rights issue and for the federal government to step in and say "only if you do it our way", isn't right.