Beliefnet News

Beliefnet News


Suit Seeks Overturn of Federal Gay Marriage Law

posted by nsymmonds

WASHINGTON (RNS) Religious groups are divided over a lawsuit filed Tuesday (March 3) to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which gay groups claim unconstitutionally denies them the rights and responsibilities given to straight married couples.
The Clinton-era law prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages or providing federal benefits to same-sex couples. It also says states are not required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
The Center for American Progress (CAP), a progressive Washington think tank, estimates that the surviving member of a same-sex couple would be denied more than $8,000 a year in Social Security survivor death benefits.
“This discrimination also clashes with the basic call for love and inclusion that is a cornerstone value across faith traditions,” CAP said in a statement.
The suit, filed in federal court in Boston, comes as the California Supreme Courts hears oral arguments Thursday (March 5) in a challenge to last year’s Proposition 8, which overturned same-sex marriage rights in California.
Religious groups that support the challenge to DOMA include the California Council of Churches, the United Church of Christ, the Progressive Jewish Alliance, Unitarian Universalists and Quakers, according to CAP.
More conservative religious groups, however, remain opposed to nearly all government recognition of same-sex marriages, and say DOMA is needed to protect states from being forced to recognize gay and lesbian
unions.
“Public policy should be decided by the public, not by one judge and a very small number of radical activists,” said Brian Raum, senior legal counsel of Alliance Defense Fund Statement, in a statement. “America continues to overwhelmingly reaffirm that marriage is one man and one woman. Does the democratic process mean anything anymore?”
By Karin Hamilton
Copyright 2009 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.



  • nnmns

    Good for the UCC and other caring churches.

  • Henrietta22

    The Alliance Defense Fund lawyer seems to only see a few activists, and one judge that want DOMA to go away. The Churches mentioned are not just incidental, they are full of members, and there are other Churches members who are not mentioned here that feel the same; and religion aside, GLBT are part of the United States Citizens who should have the same rights as Heterosexual people, and the Judge knows this and all other American Judges know this so when are we all going to be equal in America????

  • Mordred08

    “Does the democratic process mean anything anymore?”
    Freedom of religion in this country is a joke (unless you’re a conservative Christian). Why shouldn’t the democratic process be?

  • pagansister

    It certainly would be a giant plus if DOMA would be overturned….a great way to get EQUALITY for all citizens in this country. Thumbs up to the churches that are supporting this suit. Those conservative churches who disapprove? They don’t have to perform the ceremony…no loss.

  • JohnQ

    From the article:
    More conservative religious groups, however, remain opposed to nearly all government recognition of same-sex marriages, and say DOMA is needed to protect states from being forced to recognize gay and lesbian unions.
    So, states need to be protected from doing what is right? What an interesting POV!
    Peace!

  • cknuck

    Public policy should be decided by the public, hmmm sounds like America to me, change that and then you change what is American.

  • nnmns

    You want the public in charge when you think the public is with you (though the way things are changing, in just a few years it won’t be on that) and you want the Constitution in charge when it works better for you.
    The Constitution has worked amazingly well these many years; let’s stick with it.

  • JohnQ

    nnmns-
    I agree!
    If we let public policy decide the rights of groups of people…..blacks would still be slaves.
    Peace!

  • Husband

    “”Public policy should be decided by the public, not by one judge and a very small number of radical activists,” said Brian Raum, senior legal counsel of Alliance Defense Fund”
    Tell that to the Lovings, Mr Raum.

  • Your Name

    “Does the democratic process mean anything anymore?”
    It never does or did – to the religionists.

  • Sacramento Bea

    “DOMA is needed to protect states from being forced to recognize gay and lesbian unions.”
    Hmmm, I wonder what statute “protected” states from being “forced” to recognize inter-racial marriages? Or, should that be inter-racial “marriages” – you know, the way they diminish our relationships with scare quotes?

  • cknuck

    inter-racial marriages has nothing to do with with same sex marriages. A small group of people wanted to make inter-racial marriages illegal but the larger group overturned the effort. In the case of homosexual marriages a large group wants one man one woman marriages to remain the standard for marriage and a small group wants to change it, just the opposite.

  • pagansister

    At one time the reason given for opposing inter-racial marriages was the Bible. Now the reason for opposing homosexual marriages is the Bible. Poor excuse. Not valid in either case, IMO.

  • cknuck

    But there are intterracial marriages in the Bible although there are no homosexual marriages there.

  • cknuck

    Ah but there are interracial marriages in the Bible but no homosexual marriages

  • cknuck

    boy these codes make it difficult sorry for the double post

  • Your Name

    ck,
    “Public policy should be decided by the public, hmmm sounds like America to me, change that and then you change what is American.”
    Hmmm, the “American public” (TM) certainny was not in favor of inter-racial marriages. Would you have been happy to “let the public decide” on that issue?
    Thought not.

  • Husband

    ck said,
    “inter-racial marriages has nothing to do with with same sex marriages”
    Actually, ck, they have a lot in common. They are both about being allowed to legally marry the person of your mutual choosinng. One is regardless of race, the other is regardless of gender – both immutable, unchangeable, innate characteristics.
    “A small group of people wanted to make inter-racial marriages illegal but the larger group overturned the effort.”
    This is blatantly false. First, inter-racial marriages were illegal to begin with, not the reverse where a supposedly “small group of people wanted to make them illegal. Next, it was the SCOTUS that changed that law, despite the ‘will’ of the avst majority of people. In fact, by 1970, twelve states, mostly Bible Belt states, still had these unenforceable miscenegation laws on their books. They were very stubborn and fundmentalist. The last one to be removed wasnt removed until November of 2000 in Alabama. Strange indeed was it was done by ballot referendum. And 40% of Alabamans still voted against taking the laws off the books.
    You often tout the “history” of black Americans, but you seem to get it wrong so often, we’ve begun to think of you as pretty unreliable in the matter.

  • Husband

    I’m curious, ck, are you also in favor of not allowing gay American citizens to serve their country in the military? We know you support DOMA; do you support DADT as well? Yet another example of legislated discrimination in America that you seem to ‘think’ doesn’t happen to gay people.

  • Your Name

    IF YOU DONT LIKE THE IDEA OF GAY MARRIAGE THEN JUST MAKE SURE YOU DONT MARRY SOMONE OF THE SAME SEX OTHER WISE MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS AND WORRY ABOUT THE DIVORCE RATE OR SOMTHING THAT ACTUALLY WILL DESTROY YOUR PRECIOUS MARRIAGE

Previous Posts

Hispanics turning evangelical, Jews secular
Worship service attendance is up in New York City, but down among young adult Jews, according to recent studies. On the other hand, fewer Spanish-speaking teens are attending Catholic mass, but more are showing up at Evangelical churches. [caption id="attachment_12343" align="alignleft" width="48

posted 3:10:30pm Nov. 05, 2013 | read full post »

Billy Graham: I know where I'm going
“Daddy thinks the Lord will allow him to live to 95,” said Franklin Graham recently. It was not a prophecy but a hope, Franklin explained, that he would live to see the beginning of a Christian re

posted 10:02:01am Oct. 24, 2013 | read full post »

Are All These Christians' Complaints of Persecution Just So Much Empty Whining?
The headlines are alarming: “Catholic-Owned Company Wins Religious Freedom Court Decision,” “Death Toll Rises to 65 in Boko Haram Attack on Students,” “Little Sisters Catholic Charity Victimized By Obamacare,” “Christians Sought Out, Murdered in the Kenyan Mall Massacre,” “Judicial

posted 2:41:26am Oct. 07, 2013 | read full post »

How can Christians defend themselves against today's random violence?
So, a crazed gunman opens fire and you’re caught in the middle. How can you survive? Heroes come in all sorts of packages. And they wield all sorts of defensive weapons. Such as guns and Jesus. Sometimes both at the same time. [caption id="attachment_12246" align="alignleft" width="480"] Ant

posted 2:53:48pm Sep. 27, 2013 | read full post »

Does Sunday Morning Church Really Need All This Glitter, Showmanship and Gimmickry?
What’s wrong with church today? Are we in danger of turning worship into a flashy concert? Of watering down the message so nobody is offended? Of forgetting the simplicity of the Gospel? I grew up with a preacher’s kid. He was a fake following in the footsteps of his flimflamming father who d

posted 11:26:20am Sep. 20, 2013 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.