FA+
Shop
On my soapbox, not that that is unusual.
13 years ago
Don't expect this to make one lick o' sense. I would hate to dash your dreams from your mind and throw them to the fishes in the lake. But, hey! That's what expectations do.
Since I see so many, and talk to so many, people on both sides of the "Gay Marriage" debate. ("Gay Marriage" being a bit of a misnomer in the first place, but that is an argument for another time.) I felt like I should just go ahead and say my piece and let it fall where it may from there.
This is a nation founded on the principles of Freedoms and Rights. A secular nation that specifically endeavored to limit the influences of religion on law and the law on religion, while maintaining equality of rights to all people within the nation by this. The ability of states to decide the legal outcomes of certain rights and circumstances is the very basis for this freedom through a federalist system - that the federal government supports and grants those rights and decisions made by the states: where the Constitution leaves them to be decided. The rights of marriage definition should be left to the states, as it was until 1996.
The Defense of Marriage Act attacks both the ability of the states to decide the law (not defined by the Constitution and therefore a given issue to the states) and the Full Faith and Credit Clause enforcing the neutral acceptance of each state's decisions within the Union, as well as a religious imposition on the law of the nation - as no reasonable argument exists outside religious objection to deny a legal contract between two consenting adults.
I, therefore, agree with the most recent ruling by the panel of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, Mass., to wit [from the ruling summary from Judge Boudin]:
"One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage. Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest."
The act should be overturned and the rights of states to decide the issue should be returned, as they were until the act was passed under Clinton in 1996.
And though I doubt anyone is following it, this is cross-posted with my blog: http://afoxinthought.wordpress.com/
This is a nation founded on the principles of Freedoms and Rights. A secular nation that specifically endeavored to limit the influences of religion on law and the law on religion, while maintaining equality of rights to all people within the nation by this. The ability of states to decide the legal outcomes of certain rights and circumstances is the very basis for this freedom through a federalist system - that the federal government supports and grants those rights and decisions made by the states: where the Constitution leaves them to be decided. The rights of marriage definition should be left to the states, as it was until 1996.
The Defense of Marriage Act attacks both the ability of the states to decide the law (not defined by the Constitution and therefore a given issue to the states) and the Full Faith and Credit Clause enforcing the neutral acceptance of each state's decisions within the Union, as well as a religious imposition on the law of the nation - as no reasonable argument exists outside religious objection to deny a legal contract between two consenting adults.
I, therefore, agree with the most recent ruling by the panel of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, Mass., to wit [from the ruling summary from Judge Boudin]:
"One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage. Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest."
The act should be overturned and the rights of states to decide the issue should be returned, as they were until the act was passed under Clinton in 1996.
And though I doubt anyone is following it, this is cross-posted with my blog: http://afoxinthought.wordpress.com/
