Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Ruled Unconstitutional

[Scarecrow]

"BOSTON — The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38155762/ns/us_news-life/

My first thought was "What right does a State actually have to define marriage in the first place, and why does it have any right to do so?"

Seeing that different religions have different marriage practices I don't understand how a State can decide what marriage is and therefore define it, which would obviously violate the rights of some of the individuals of that State forcing them to follow a definition of marriage that is not supported by their religious doctrine. The Constitution specifically guarantees protection of the free practice of religion, and different religions have different definitions of marriage, therefore how is it possible for a State to definition marriage without forcing some of its residents to follow a religious doctrine different than what their religion allows.

As I thought about it, I wondered what the implications might be for "Biblical Marriage" because of the ruling. Most assuredly it is a blow to the ultra right wing "Christians" wanting marriage to be legally defined as one man and one woman only.

Your thoughts?

 

[Tlaloc]

Rough, but its happening everywhere. Governments are fickle, once they defend marriage and they believe they own it and proceed to destroy it... its the same with any topic.

 

[Mark C]

Hearing a federal judge in Boston rule something "unconstitutional" because it "interferes with the right [sic] of a state" to redefine an "institution" ordained by YHVH is a bit like hearing Satan proclaim something is "unBiblical".

Given so little evidence that they have ever actually READ the document...how would they know?

Does anyone with a pulse still not understand what has happened to the Rule of Law in this FORMER 'Constitutional Republic"? (which was at one time actually plural, besides)

 

[Tlaloc]

When will we start calling all these democracies and republics empires? The shift is happening, ever so slowly.

 

[Scarecrow]

I'm going to start a new topic on this, but thought since it is directly related I would add a comment here as well.

An interesting thought just occurred to me.

This ruling should be applied in Utah to argue that the Federal Government has interfered with the right of the State to define marriage, forcing it to comply with the unconstitutional bigamy and anti-polygamy laws and sentiment held by other States and the Federal Government.

Considering the intent of this ruling (to keep the Federal Government from usurping State’s rights), Federal bigamy and anti-polygamy laws seem to actually be unconstitutional and illegal in that they force a state to adhere to a marriage doctrine as dictated by the Federal Government!

When the State of Utah was applying to be added to the Union it was forced to adhere to the bigamy and anti-polygamy laws of the time. It can easily be argued that the Federal Government had overstepped its authority in that the Federal Government does NOT have the authority to define or regulate marriage.

I would gladly establish a residence in a State where the State’s Marriage laws allow me to freely practice marriage within the guidelines of my religion.

 

[rubicon]

Most assuredly it is a blow to the ultra right wing "Christians" wanting marriage to be legally defined as one man and one woman only.

Is it not a blow to the normal "Christians" wanting marriage to be legally defined as one man and one woman?

 

[Scarecrow]

Well yes...for those that feel it is the responsibility of the government to define and regulate marriage. I personally feel that the government should not be involved in defining marriage whatsoever. Marriage is a religious institution pure and simple, and when government gets involved in anything you are asking for it to become corrupt and perverted.

Joseph and Mary went to be registered for the purposes of taxation. The government does have the right and responsibility of keeping accurate demographics and to accurately tax the population to provide the services needed. But that is where it should stop, at registration.

It would be up to the government if it wants to recognize a civil union between same sex individuals and register them as well. They should have no different treatment under the secular law than religious unions in my opinion. The government does have the responsibility to protect individuals from abuse of any nature whether in monogamous or plural marriage, or in any other type of contractual arrangement or union.I personally don't have a problem with what individuals outside of the church do, the scriptures tell me to leave them to God anyway. If they want to form a "gay" church and somehow come to the conclusion that they are married in the eyes of God that is their business and God will judge them accordingly. Should they decide they want to be married in my church I would refuse and have good theological grounds on which to base that decision.

1 Corinthians 5:12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."

I believe that the scriptures I call the Holy Bible allow a man to have more than one wife, therefore the government should not dictate to me that I can have only one wife. I live in a country where the Constitution grants me the free practice of my religion, but then turns and declares what religious doctrine of marriage I must follow. This is repression. If you read the language used in these "decisions" at a Federal level you would be aghast.

"1878 opinion in Reynolds vs. United States, the court refused to recognize polygamy as a legitimate religious practice, dismissing it in racist and anti-Mormon terms as "almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people." In later decisions, the court declared polygamy to be "a blot on our civilization" and compared it to human sacrifice and "a return to barbarism." Most tellingly, the court found that the practice is "contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western World.""

Those are incredibly bigoted statements! The "Spirit" they should be referencing is that of Satan not Christianity! I truly believe that we will soon see these antiquated and prejudiced laws modified or simply removed from the books. I hope at the same time they decide to back away from defining and regulating marriage all together.

 

[Shimon]

When the State of Utah was applying to be added to the Union it was forced to adhere to the bigamy and anti-polygamy laws of the time

Although it's not well known, the same requirement was imposed on several other states as well - including Oklahoma where I live.

Dave

 

[steve]

all very logical, fellows
but do we have a government who has even a passing acquaintance with logic?

more like "Just say no to christianity and give the muslims an exemption"