New York appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act

[Reader]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/justice/new-york-appeals-court-doma/index.html

New York (CNN) -- A federal appeals court in New York became the nation's second to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, finding that the Clinton-era law's denial of federal benefits to married same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

The divisive act, which was passed in 1996, bars federal recognition of such marriages and says other states cannot be forced to recognize them.

Read the ruling (PDF)

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined Thursday that the federal law violates the Constitution's equal protection clause,............more at link.....

 

[Nova]

I hope people will read some of the personal testaments at Reader's link and its sub-links.

To some the issue of marriage equality may be a matter of preferring tradition or obeying a handful of (debatable) prescriptions found in ancient scripture. But to others, it is the difference between full and second-class citizenship, between having a home and homelessness, between solvency and bankruptcy (especially in old age), and even between life and death (if your partner isn't allowed to speak for you in an emergency).

 

[Gardenlady]

About time, too! :woohoo:

 

[Nova]

About time, too! :woohoo:

I'd be more excited if I had more confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yesterday, my husband and I flew home from Massachusetts, where we were visiting our daughter, SIL and three grandchildren. We were married while we were there, then "not married" during our layover in Dallas, then married again when we touched down in California.

Some people should walk a mile in our shoes before they tell us marriage equality should be left to the states.

 

[Steely Dan]

I hope people will read some of the personal testaments at Reader's link and its sub-links.

To some the issue of marriage equality may be a matter of preferring tradition or obeying a handful of (debatable) prescriptions found in ancient scripture. But to others, it is the difference between full and second-class citizenship, between having a home and homelessness, between solvency and bankruptcy (especially in old age), and even between life and death (if your partner isn't allowed to speak for you in an emergency).

I think I pointed out before, but it bears repeating. The scriptures cited against gay marriage are really about not divorcing, but nobody wants put that in DOMA law.

I can take a woman and get a marriage license and get married by a judge, captain of a ship or clergyman. Marriage is not a sacrament to God in the law. It's a contract. So why shouldn't two gay people be able to enter into a contract together, just like heterosexuals. Marriage can be a religious union, but by law it doesn't have to be.

Here's a NYT article on this; http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/us/appeals-court-rules-against-defense-of-marriage-act.html?_r=0

U.S. Marriage Act Is Unfair to Gays, Court Panel Says
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
Published: October 18, 2012

... The new case was brought on behalf of Edith Windsor of New York City, who married her longtime partner, Thea Clara Spyer, in 2007 in Canada. When Ms. Spyer died in 2009, Ms. Windsor inherited her property. Because the Internal Revenue Service was not allowed, under the Defense of Marriage Act, to consider her a surviving spouse, she faced a tax bill of $363,053 that she would not have had to pay if the marriage had been recognized.

Because the Supreme Court now has disagreement among circuits on a major issue of law involving the Defense of Marriage act, “this makes it more likely” that the Supreme Court will take up the cases, said Douglas NeJaime, an associate professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. He said the most important justice in consideration of marriage cases was likely to be Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has sided with the liberal majority on such cases as Lawrence v. Texas, in which he wrote the opinion that struck down state sodomy laws....

 

[BritsKate]

It's a step...I'm (probably too) optimistic about the Supreme Court and with 3 justices in their 70's I believe who is elected in November may play a pivotal role in this decision. Just thought I'd add this link here as well. My fave political pundit conducted an hour long interview with attorneys who (successfully) litigated against Prop 8 (among a ton of other very high profile cases) about the future of marriage equality at NYU Law. It's amusing, insightful, and at times inspiring...course I am biased.

http://www.law.nyu.edu/news/RACHEL_...D_BOIES_AND_TED_OLSON_AT_LAW_SCHOOL_SYMPOSIUM

 

[Nova]

Steely Dan put this so well:

I can take a woman and get a marriage license and get married by a judge, captain of a ship or clergyman. Marriage is not a sacrament to God in the law. It's a contract. So why shouldn't two gay people be able to enter into a contract together, just like heterosexuals. Marriage can be a religious union, but by law it doesn't have to be.

...I thought it should be repeated. (Emphasis added.)

 

[Steely Dan]

This is really from the Gettysburg College website;


ALLies House
Bregenzer House

ALLies House is closely tied with the ALLies Club and the campus Safe Zone training program, and hosts most of the organizations meetings and events. ALLies raises awareness about social justice issues, queer life on campus, and LGBTQ issues at Gettysburg and in the world at large. In order to create an atmosphere not only of equality, but also one of safety, ALLies House maintains an open room for any student who may feel threatened because of their perceived gender/sexual orientation/identity, race, faith or lack thereof, or any other reason.

BBM

:what: