The U.S. Supreme Court today has agreed to hear a challenge to the "Defense of Marriage Act,” which provides that same-sex marriages are not recognized for purposes of federal law.
New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman filed a brief in this case with Vermont and Connecticut arguing that "DOMA" violates same-sex couples’ right to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. He contends the act should be more closely scrutinized because it constitutes a sweeping intrusion into the states’ regulation of marriage.
On Oct. 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York ruled that Section 3 of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” is unconstitutional because it discriminates against married same-sex couples.
“I am pleased that the Court has decided to hear this case and I am hopeful that we will prevail," Schneiderman said. "The Second Circuit agreed with our argument that the proposed justifications for the Defense of Marriage Act should be subjected to special scrutiny, both because the statute burdens gay and lesbian married couples, and because it intrudes on the traditional role of states in defining marriage. The State of New York has long recognized out-of-state, same-sex marriages, and the enactment of the Marriage Equality Act further cements our state’s position on this critical civil rights issue. The Supreme Court should affirm the ruling of the Second Circuit and declare DOMA to be unconstitutional.”
Who are we to decide who has civil rights? Who are we to decide that a segment of our population is somehow not entitled to all the rights that others are entitled to? Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Tran-sexual citizens are citizens first. If we can decide that they are only entitled to certain rights and not others, what prevents us from picking out another group and doing the same thing. Who among you, believe that the only right way is your way and are willing to punish others who don't agree with you? Finally, if you are not gay, how does a gay couple being married impact on you in any way, shape or form. I just don't get why some of you are so incensed about who someone loves. It truly is none of your business. I can only hope and pray that the Supreme Court does the right thing and gets rid of the bigotry that is written into the law. In the end, if you don't approve of gay marriage, the answer is simple. Don't marry a homosexual.
I don't get why some of you are so intent on forcing others to feel as you do. It's truly none of their business.
Murder, rape and robbery are also as old as the human race.
I don't think anybody here has said that anyone doesn't have the "right" to expound any ignorant biased views they want. Jill and others have besmirched people simply for who they are, I believe most of the "leftists" here have been commenting of Jill and others comments, not on who they are. We are ALL equal under the constitution since the 13th amendment, I believe that even includes gay people. Do you disagree? Oh, and don't forget that the Declaration had that glaring contradiction of "all men are created equal" Which at the time clearly left out black and women.
As I pointed out above neither, the writers of the Declaration and the Constitution did not believe that all Gods children had rights. It is a warm and fuzzy thought but just not true. It is unfortunate that the founding fathers felt impelled to "make man-made ones that are contrary to the laws of Nature or of Nature's God" You arguments like anti=sodomy laws, as you say, are invalid.
I don't -when they marry for love like most if not all heteros do. with the rising cost of healthcare and the easy coverage by way of marriage it will only go up. gays seeking very expensive medical treatment can simply go down to town hall and get married then spend the honeymoon in the hospital--one sick and one with insurance.we pay-they play. i fully realize they could get treatment with no insurance but who wants the bills you can't or won't pay hounding you for the rest of your life please quote me if you accuse me of "hate"
What I object strenously to is you trying to make your prejudiced codified into the law. Gays deserve the same rights as Jill, you or me. That is assuming that we are all heterosexual.
"Clearly the words "we", "men" , "himself" were understood then as they are today to be all inclusive." Really! How old are you. Do a little reading and get back to me. It will be hard to have a meaningful discussion if you have so little understanding of history. Key words 3/5 person, sufferage. "Which rights outlined in either document would not apply to women at the time they were written?" Uhm...................................... Voting? See above. Don't embarrass yourself any further.
BTW you have exactly the same rights as I do. In most states you cannot marry a man and neither can I. Thats about as equal as it gets.
Eli, That is a fascinating theory about the Rockefellers funding the women's movement to weaken the nuclear. Don't think I have ever heard that one. Do you know what their motive was for doing that? And why is gay marriage a key part to losing sovereignty?
I'm sure you believe you have a personal relationship with God, However, I have a special relationship with Reality and in my world everyone is created equal. .
You do know that the constitution had to be amended to give women the right to vote, don't you? Are you saying they should have just explained that the government misunderstood what the founders meant when they wrote the constitution? Boy, that sure would have been easier, instead of all that ratifying and stuff. What a bunch of dumb women, huh, I have no idea why we let them vote in the first place.
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/09/george-will-opposition-gay-marriage-dying_n_2267475.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics During ABC "This Week," conservative panelist George Will weighed in on what he called the "growing consensus" of public opinion regarding same-sex marriage. On Friday, the Supreme Court decided to take up two big cases. The court will hear one case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, and a case on Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. He continued, "On the other hand, they could say it's now safe to look at this because there is something like an emerging consensus. Quite literally, the opposition to gay marriage is dying. It's old people."