Religion & Public Life With Mark Silk

Religion & Public Life With Mark Silk


DOMA Unconstitutional!

posted by Mark Silk

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro’s peroration in Gill v. Personnel Management:

To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, “there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects” from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification.149 As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Plaintiffs sued for federal marriage-based benefits, and a federal judge says they’re entitled to them. I presume the Obama Justice Department will appeal, but imagine if it didn’t…



Advertisement
Comments read comments(9)
post a comment
cUrioUs gUUrl

posted July 8, 2010 at 6:34 pm


About friggin’ time! I’m proud to belong to a church that rallied for the right to gay marriage years ago, before MA became the first state in the Union to pass a law protecting it. As Unitarian Universalists, we believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every person and I know we’ll be celebrating this Sunday!



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted July 8, 2010 at 8:36 pm


I’m very happy with this decision. As a gay man, It is my hope to marry at some time and want the same guaranteed protections that a heterosexual couple has on life, life insurance, property inheritance…etc.
From what I see, most of the ‘protect marriage’ farce is based on peoples religious beliefs. So, why in this country, should one religious belief be give the say over all people in this country…it shouldn’t.
Some will argue that gays can not have children, which is crazy as they can reproduce but with the attraction to someone of the same sex, they will either adopt or already come with children from a previous marriage. To use the argument that marriage is for the purpose of having and raising a family is shallow and untrue. If, as so many conservative religious individuals want to claim, having a family is the sole purpose of being married, then what do they do with those heterosexual couples who choose not to have a family or can not have a family. If by their rules, this straight couple shouldn’t be allowed to be married but that won’t happen because they’re straight. HYPOCRITES! Take one step further, since we all grow old, there is no reason to allow older couples the right to be married as they’re no longer producing children.
The logic and reason of conservative religious reasons are full of holes and have no substance other than the basic belief of “they don’t like it and it goes against how they ‘interpret’ they’re religious books”
Religious beliefs have no place in the laws of this land. Our laws are based upon reason and should not be based on ANY ONES religious beliefs. Because, should the religious majority change at some future date, all laws can be changed to fit those of the majority and I can hear conservative Christians wailing now.
The law is about equality and protection. The sheer number of homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples will always be in the minority so I serious doubt that there will ever be a lack of children in this country.
Hopefully, this will be the first of many substantial pillars to come tumbling down and then as Americans we can all honestly say, “with liberty and justice for all” rather than some tongue-in-cheek statement that is a lie.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted July 13, 2010 at 11:48 am


“I presume the Obama Justice Department will appeal, but imagine if it didn’t…”
I’m imagining it already and I don’t foresee any catastrophic results.
Care to finish the ‘thought’ that ended with “. . .”?
Or would you prefer to just try to scare people into ‘imagining’ all kinds of horrendous things happeninng to American society?
Meanwhile, there IS that pesky Equal Protections Clause. (Not to mention the Full Faith & Credit Clause – care to explain why you believe LGBT Americans shouldn’t be fully protected by the Constitution?)
What’s a “Christian” to do, eh?
“Plaintiffs sued for federal marriage-based benefits, and a federal judge says they’re entitled to them.”
Again, care to explain why legally married couples SHOULDN’T get “marriage-based benefits” just because you don’t happen to like them?



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted July 14, 2010 at 9:39 am


“Care to finish the ‘thought’ that ended with “. . .”?
. . .
Thought not. You and Dreher make a perfect pair.
What is it with the scare-mongering ‘right’, anyway? Didn’t Jesus tell us to “Fear not”?



report abuse
 

Mark Silk

posted July 14, 2010 at 11:49 am


Jeez, Grumpy. The way that thought would have finished was, “…wouldn’t that be cool.” On second thought, it would undoubtedly open a can of worms or two–ones that both of us might regret having been opened. But still…



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted July 14, 2010 at 4:27 pm


I’m shocked – though, I admit, somewhat pleasantly – that you seem now to be in favor of same-sex marriage (in that it would be “cool” if the DOJ didn’t appeal this ruling).
I’m somewhat new here. Is this a change on your part? (‘Cuz if it is, it shure doesn’t come across in most of your posts.)



report abuse
 

Mark Silk

posted July 14, 2010 at 7:10 pm


Grumps, it’s not a change on my part. A person can favor same-sex marriage while having doubts about a court decision in its behalf. The end doesn’t always justify the means.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted July 20, 2010 at 5:16 pm


Sorry Mr. Silk, but what you write is very confusing. Now you sort of say you “favor same-sex marriage” and at the same time you disagree with the decision.
‘Splain me why you disagree with it, ‘cuz it shure is not explained in either your original post nor in you subsequent comments.
Is a puzzlement, to be sure.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted July 20, 2010 at 5:24 pm


And, while you’re at it, could you please try and unify the terms you “File under”?
This piece is “filed under” Defense of Marriage Act, while “DOMA should survive” is filed under DOMA. Neither of them come up if you search for either “same-sex marriage” or “gay marriage”, but the two articles about ‘graduating in a church’ DO come up when you use those terms!?!?!
And how about using the tag “gay”? Or better yet, “equal rights”?



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Religion and Public Life. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Latest News Story on Beliefnet Happy Reading!  

posted 3:10:11pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

The Ayn Rand Republicans
I confess to feeling a little bit queasy about the American Values Network's new video hoisting Rep. Paul Ryan, Sen. Rand Paul, Rush Limbaugh, and other GOP luminaries on the petard of Ayn Rand and her atheistic philosophy of objectivism. Take a look. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TxCW

posted 7:13:30pm May. 24, 2011 | read full post »

Whither evangelicals?
I'm fully prepared to believe that Mitch Daniels' family proved to be the unleapable hurdle in his abortive run-up to the GOP presidential race. Imagine yourself as wife Cheri, having split for the coast to marry on old flame, your husband and young daughters left behind in Boone County, Indiana,

posted 9:19:56am May. 23, 2011 | read full post »

No more "social conservatives"
With the presidential election cycle getting up to speed, it's time for reporters and yakkers like me to stop writing about "social conservatives" as if they were an identifiable segment of the voting population. I say this as someone who has happily been using the term since late 2008, when it

posted 8:25:11am May. 20, 2011 | read full post »

So clerical celibacy was not the problem?
Those on the Catholic left are not very happy that the Jay Report declines in no uncertain terms to blame clerical celibacy for the sexual abuse crisis. As the report puts it: Factors that remained consistent over this time period, such as celibacy, do not explain the sexual abuse "crisis." Celib

posted 9:50:34am May. 19, 2011 | 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.