U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Same-Sex Marriage Case

New York contends "Defense of Marriage Act” violates rights of same-sex couples.

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.”

Mike December 08, 2012 at 03:38 PM
You have to laugh when you read the comments from the so called enlightened letftists here. They claim that all should have "rights" to act and behave as they wish but yet bemoan and besmirch others who express a differing opinion. And they continually point to the Constitution but never go back to the source document, the Declaration of Independence.
Aidan December 08, 2012 at 03:48 PM
Agreed. Stop forcing people to believe what you believe. You have no right to require that.
Abby Normal December 08, 2012 at 03:58 PM
I can see that again we've chosen sides on an issue and if you don't agree with me you're obviously insane. However, I think the real tragedy here is that the supreme court even needs to rule on this and that others think it should go to a vote. Civil Rights are not something to be voted on. They are inalienable and should be treated as such. If the Civil Rights Act was voted on, it would still not be the law. I would suggest that if slavery were put to a vote in 1860, slavery would have remained legal. 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.
Aidan December 08, 2012 at 04:05 PM
"I just don't get why some of you are so incensed about who someone loves. It truly is none of your business." 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.
Mike December 08, 2012 at 04:12 PM
"Who are we to decide who has civil rights?" We are the people and we give our consent to a government to bestow rights. But those rights are not granted by a government nor even ultimately by the people. The rights are natural and innate because they are endowed to us by The Creator. The rights come from God. When we alter those rights or make man-made ones that are contrary to the laws of Nature or of Nature's God, then they are not valid. You see, ultimately, all rights, our laws and our current Constitution (that has been bastardized) flow back to the source document, The Declaration.
Son of Liberty December 08, 2012 at 04:21 PM
Homosexuality is as old as the human race. It has always been there and always will be. As an American you have the freedom to be in favor of it or not in favor it (or even hateful), though the ones who usually are super hateful of it turn out to be closeted homosexuals themselves (see toe tapping in the airport bathroom). That's the fear aspect, fear reflected as hate. Anyway, who cares who marries who? More marriage equals more divorce. I say TAX marriage and TAX divorce. Fix the economy! If you are really that freaked out about an outbreak of disease, lock yourself in your house and never come out. No one will care. Next you'll be saying gay marriage will lead to the Zombie Apocolypse. (Fine with me, I'm prepared.) I kid. In the end, we have much bigger problems facing us right now. This issue is minor.
Jill Gertz December 08, 2012 at 04:39 PM
"Homosexuality is as old as the human race." Murder, rape and robbery are also as old as the human race.
Son of Liberty December 08, 2012 at 04:45 PM
Jill, you've got problems. That's all you got out of my post?
Jill Gertz December 08, 2012 at 04:46 PM
Different races aren't the same as different sexes. If everyone has to marry interracially tomorrow the world would go on. If everyone had to marry homosexually the human race would end. Its revolting that homosexuals try hijacking the experience of black people and equate slavery and Jim Crow (both Democratic institutions btw) with homosexuality.
SRT December 08, 2012 at 04:51 PM
Mike, 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.
SRT December 08, 2012 at 04:57 PM
Mike 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.
stephany December 08, 2012 at 05:04 PM
"Anyway, who cares who marries who? " 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"
Son of Liberty December 08, 2012 at 05:32 PM
"We pay-they play"? Define play. Do mean the system? Plenty of people play the system. Health care is going to go up regardless (thank Obama). People get married everyday for benefits, health care, citizenship, etc. How is this different? I just want it taxed. That in an of itself may be a deterrent. Same with divorce. Let us make some serious money here. Maybe that will then ease your mind of the horrible increase in health care that you foresee as a result of two people of the same sex agreeing to a financial and mutually beneficial monogamous lifelong relationship. Stephany, I don't think you're a hater, but you must understand that until we fix our economy you will be paying more and more as a result of our governments dealings. You can't possibly think that this one issue will change that one way or the other.
Tom Murphy December 08, 2012 at 05:33 PM
Hey Watchdog, do you really believe that you can post stuff anonmously and then sue for libel? How does that work? I don't care that folks like you and Jill hold bigotted ignorant and homophobic views, that is your right. It is also my right to point out your prejudice. 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.
Mike December 08, 2012 at 05:35 PM
Thanks for your reply SRT. You need to remember when these documents were witten and the use of language at the time. Clearly the words "we", "men" , "himself" were understood then as they are today to be all inclusive. Which rights outlined in either document would not apply to women at the time they were written? Were the FFs or the documents they wrote perfect? No, in fact they wrote "in order to form a more perfect Union...."
SRT December 08, 2012 at 06:00 PM
Mike, "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.
Mike December 08, 2012 at 06:13 PM
Thank you SRT for proving my earlier point about hypocritical leftist. Where in any of the documents I referenced does it indicate woman were precluded from voting? SRT, when you grow up and gain some knowledge and can provide cogent and rationale thoughts rather than insults, maybe we can converse. I want hold my breath for that based upon the numerous venomous and ineffective comments you have already written. If you chose to be civil and do some research maybe I will grace you with my intelligient replies.
Watchdog December 08, 2012 at 06:31 PM
Mike, you seem to have no other position than to call people who disagree with you bigots etc. Is that a way to get people on your side? It sort of makes people you have no real case. Jilll has pointed out real facts and your inability to confront them head on makes your position very weak and suspect. 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.
James Adnaraf December 08, 2012 at 06:53 PM
Question to all: If you favor civil unions, but not same sex marriage, are you a homophobe?
Teleman December 08, 2012 at 08:30 PM
I would care less about gays getting most of the same benefits as hetero couples if it wasn't for the fact that they feel the need to take ownership of the word marriage. They just can't leave it alone- they have to fundamentally make that word their own- and for that reason I would like to see it shot down. I'm sick of constantly having their sexuality thrown in my face.
Eli W December 08, 2012 at 08:55 PM
The dismantling of the culture of this country began long ago. The women's movement was back and funded by the Rockefellers, it was all about weakening the nuclear family. The pervasive P.C. (how things should be) generations which followed created a sanitized, generic culture in which the corporation is king, and true individuals are few and far between. This country's sovereignty is no longer a priority, in fact, it's a determent to the objective of globalization. Gay marriage is a shoe in to be entered into law by the highest court. For myself personally, it's so far down the list of what's wrong with this world, it's a non issue
Tom Murphy December 08, 2012 at 09:21 PM
Whoa Jenga, gay are throwing their sexuality in your face? I can see how that could be disconcerting. But chill out J they just want the same civil rights that we all enjoy.
SRT December 08, 2012 at 09:55 PM
I think Jenga has been going to gay lap dance clubs, lot of sexuality being thrown into faces during those dances. 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?
Abby Normal December 08, 2012 at 10:04 PM
Jill, I am honored. It is not every day that one can communicate directly with someone who knows what God wants. I know that others have come before you. Charles Manson spoke for God and so did David Karesh and of course Jim Jones 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. .
SRT December 08, 2012 at 10:22 PM
Mike, you think the suffragettes just wasted their time for 50 years advocating for a constitutional amendment to allow women to vote? 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.
Eli W December 08, 2012 at 11:51 PM
Gay marriage is not key to loss of sovereignty. The motive for destroying the nuclear family is control.
Teleman December 09, 2012 at 12:55 AM
Typical Lib, resorting to the immature comments. The goal of the feminist, gay and liberal movements all along has been to dissolve the nuclear family structure.
Teleman December 09, 2012 at 12:58 AM
Less than 2% of the American population is estimated to be gay- so we're going to change the definition of the word marriage for them? Just stupid
Teleman December 09, 2012 at 01:06 AM
Just my opinions on what I consider an unimportant topic- the country is going down the road of unsustainable debt, spending and tax increases- and the next 4 years this will be accelerated. These are the real things I worry about.
Len Martello December 09, 2012 at 09:40 PM
George Will, conservative commentator today on the gay marriage issue... 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."


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »