In a groundbreaking ruling on gay rights, a US appeals court in Boston on Thursday struck down the heart of a federal act that defines marriage as a union solely of a man and a woman.
The decision would grant equal federal benefits to same-sex couples in Massachusetts and could set up a showdown over the rights of same-sex married couples before the US Supreme Court.
Comments
Well, well, that's TWO Federal appeals Courts (1st & 9th Circuits) that have ruled this way. On to SCOTUS where Justice Kennedy holds the key to true equality...
Seriously - they expected a different result in a Boston based court room? Let the Supreme Court decide.
You do realize that two of the judges are Republican/Conservative appointees?
Gays should have the same federal laws.
It's too early to declare victory, but according to public opinion polls, the courts are now following, not leading, on this issue. What a difference a few years and some soul-searching has made for so many of us.
?
The defense of marriage act still stands. Nobody won anything. Hopefully no court in its right mind will seriously make gay marriage legal with all the rights of real heterosexual marriages.
Two of the judges were Republican appointees yet the right wing screams about liberal, activist judges! I guess that must apply when you disagree with the decision...
Kris Mineau and the American Family Institute are just laughable at this point. Any idiot can pick a name that sounds like they have support even though not one reasonable person acknowledges them. Isn't Mississippi or Utah more your speed, Kris?
It's going to be fun heads explode at the Supreme Court when Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas try to throw out a ruling by Republican judges who based their ruling on state's rights.
Gay marriage is already equal in several states. What this ruling says is that the federal government can't treat certain LEGAL marriages differently from others. If first cousins can marry in some states but not others, does the federal government withhold benefits from such couples in the states where it's allowed? Nope.
****AGAIN I SAY(knowing that BOTH sides of this discussion get NASTY to those who disagree with their view)**********I have a concern about changing the definition of marriage for ANY reason. Currently in the United States LEGAL marriage is between a male and female. This was not always true. In certain states males could have multiple female partners. This is now against the law. ****This is not true in other countries. The countries in the Arab world support multiple partner marriages. The recent history of the Middle East has sent refugees throughout Europe and the United States. If the United States legally changes the definition of marriage for one group what is to prevent the next group from wanting the legal system to recognize them? Should we recognize other groupings? Is marriage a moving target?********
Simple answer to your question is YES. Marriage IS a moving target. As you yourself said, polygamy used to be legal, and it's not any longer. Women used to be their husband's property...they are not any longer. Interracial marriage used to be illegal, and it's not any longer. So, if marriage ends up evolving (I'm sure my use of that word will annoy you as well) into a civil contract between parties who agree to share their lives together, then so be it.
More importantly, if my neighbor is legally married to his wife, and I am legally married to my husband, why does my neighbor get to file joint federal income taxes while I need to file FOUR Separate tax forms...a single Federal for each of us, a FAKED federal joint form, and a joint MA tax form. Why does my neighbor get to include his wife on his health insurance for free, while I have to pay taxes on "Imputed Income" for the increased amount of money my company pays for my family plan, over what a single plan costs? Answer me that...
WOW****There it is. The NASTY I was talking about. You could not resist.*****EVOLVE(annoy me?)*******Civility??????