Court Rules Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional, Irrational

Here is some great news that should be no surprise to anyone really paying attention — after the Proposition 8 kerfluffle, this was inevitable: A federal court ruling was just issued that is based upon the notion — one held by decent and intelligent people all along — that the un-American, anti-equality, anti-LGBT Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and irrational.

‘Bout damned time.

Interestingly, the story comes from right-wing site OneNewsNow:

Two administrative judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California have ruled the U.S. government must pay health benefits to the same-sex partners of two federal lawyers — one of whom is on the 9th Circuit’s staff.

In one of the rulings, Judge Stephen Reinhardt stated that the government’s refusal to grant those benefits amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. Neither a “distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage” justifies denial of federal benefits, Reinhardt stated. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski issued the ruling in the other case.

According to Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), there is another interesting part of the rulings. “The 9th Circuit judges in that administrative matter ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] was unconstitutional and that it had no rational basis,” he explains.

So great to see jurists talking sense. The only basis for banning marriage for all consenting adult couples is a certain religious viewpoint. How is that rational in a pluralistic, diverse nation supposedly governed by secular laws separate from church?

People are free to hate gays or anyone based on their deity of choice’s alleged dictates or their own opinions. If marriage equality becomes a reality for the entire US, it will have no effect on anti-gay churches or schools, whatever the bigots tell you. Codifying these divisive and punitive views into law to harm citizens — and yes, the institutionalized discrimination and stigmatization of same-gender couples causes untold harm to way too many American families — is evil that must be stopped. If it takes judges to do it, so be it.

[ad#travelocity-468x60]

natalie-davis.gifIf Loving v. Virginia had been put up to a popular vote, it likely would have lost. Same for Brown v. Board of Education. Same for the Civil Rights Act. Same for too many decisions that had to fix flaws in the nation’s founding documents. Equality and citizens’ rights cannot and should not be put up to a popular vote — that may work for American Idol, but it is not the American way. That this irrational tyranny goes on, as in the hateful Prop 8 situation, makes the US evil and hypocritical and deceitful.

Kudos, kudos, kudos to California’s 9th Circuit Court for doing their job by attempting to protect a minority of citizens from the tyranny of the majority.

Natalie Davis
http://gratefuldread.net
.

Articles by Natalie:

Published by the LA Progressive on February 7, 2009
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Comments

  1. Willie Oyston says:

    Do you mind if I quote a couple of your posts as long as I provide credit and sources back to your site? My blog site is in the very same niche as yours and my users would definitely benefit from a lot of the information you provide here. Please let me know if this alright with you. Regards!

  2. The vitriol is your response says it all …

  3. Sounds like “some of my best friends are gay, so I can’t be a homophobe.”

    Screw that.

    Let’s just agree that you are un-American and opposed to legal equality for all citizens and save the rest.

    Brown v. Board of Education. Separate but equal is NOT equal. Separate but equal is UNconstitutional. And immoral.

    Period.

    Your religious views are yours. Period. They don’t belong in civil law. Period.

    And if you expect people to accept inequality peacefully or quietly and to continue to endure the secular government punishing us because of your religious views, think again, pal.

    Why should I pay taxes if I am unequal under law???

    Why should I accept it — for *your* sake?

    Think again.

    Until the philosophy that holds one group superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned, it’s war.

    Period.

    You’re in my prayers. No one wants to withhold equality from you, but not only do YOU wish to do that to ME, you want me to accept it. Which means that in addition to being un-American, your position is INSANE.

    If what you say is so — it patently is not — then hets who marry in courthouses should be limited to civil union. And church weddings should hold NO legal status.

    If you get civil marriage, so should I. That’s the American way. Otherwise, America is a vile, mendacious construct.

    And let’s be honest: You don’t want equality; you want SUPREMACY. And that is just evil on every level. Shame on you.

    Do I sound rude? I am not taking anything from you, buster. And I refuse to kowtow to your ilk anymore. I’ve had it.

  4. Marshall says:

    I support marriage as a religious union and I also support civil unions. I am far from anti gay, I had a gay organist play the music at my wedding. I have had dinners at a gay club. I have a child who has a same sex partner and while they are of the same sex, they are not of the same ethnicity, which causes an additional problem in our current social order. Both of them feel as I do, that marriage is a “religious term”. This couple and their parents agree that strong civil unions, a secular joining outside the church is needed to provide equal rights. Civil unions should have the same legal privileges as marriages but not the same name. I also contacted a gay cousin for an opinion and got the same answers.

    My family supports marriage as a religious term that declares that one man and one woman have joined as one before God and their church membership. If the term marriage is used outside of it’s original religious intent, then government is diluting a religious act.

    All of my family members feel that some gays want the term “marriage” so much that they do not pursue the much more attainable solution of social unions performed under state law and outside of the church. Such a union could quickly be available in all states where as “gay marriage” is going to take a lot longer in places like the south.

    I have another minority group in my family, Quakers. I have an observation about the minority members of my family, one group invites an invasion and the other group would require some converts in order to repopulate itself. How do gays become parents? If one or both would agree to carry a fetus to term I would have more warm feelings towards gays. What would happen to a country composed of only gays or Quakers? One group can not replace the population of the country and the other group can not defend it, yet my family has done both. My family members agree that a country could not survive if it were composed of only either of these two minorities.
    Viel Gluck to all

  5. Your article is full of faulty premise and propaganda. Virtually all of our founding fathers believed in a higher morality, but not all of them were “religious.” This demonstrates a fundamental ignorance that is appalling, but no doubt shared by the jurists in the ninth circuit. Once again, to say that people should not have a viewpoint on this issue, and that their voice should not be heard because it is “religious” by nature is fundamental ignorance. There are many, many behaviors that are a matter of conscience and thereby could be argued as having a “religious” component. This is simply a bold-faced attempt to demonize people of faith, and I for one am sick of this low-life, lying garbage.

    The only precedent being established here by this abomination of a court is that the will of the people can evidently be easily overturned. This is why judges should be elected, and why judicial nominees should have terms associated with their position.

    You have also foolishly and ignorantly assumed that “hate” is the motivating premise of those against a societal sanctioning of “marriage” between homosexual couples. Nice try. It is the opinion of many that such sanctioning weakens the foundational structure of society, and sanctions behavior that, although people in a free society are free, is in itself fundamentally destructive to society as a whole. There is no serious person who believes “pursuit of happiness” to be without condition.

  6. Never met a doctor who couldn’t spell.

  7. Thanks for making my case, dude. You remain in my prayers.

  8. Dr. Jim Hamilton says:

    History to repeat itself !
    There are those of us that is willing to destroy this great country of our at any cost. They take the constitution and twist it as many time as they see fit ! I am certain that when the statement was made ” we the people” they never knew what they were setting this country up for.. If there is any one that believes there is no backlash to what we allow to take place we are highly mis-staking.
    I am not going to repeat the stories from the Bible ! But those of us that know the truth can only pray for thoses that will not except the truth.

Speak Your Mind

*

Visit us on Google+