Denying federal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional

[Nevada]

Hopefully this ruling will clarify things for the "gay is not a race" crowd. It's still discrimination, and it's still unconstitutional.

"A federal appeals court has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that denies a host of federal benefits to same-sex married couples, is unconstitutional."
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...itutional?lite

Any questions?

[emdeengee]

It places the decisions back into the hands of the states which means a long road still ahead. But it should make people happy since this is now one less interference by the federal government.

[Nevada]

Originally Posted by emdeengee

It places the decisions back into the hands of the states which means a long road still ahead.

On the contrary, the court ruling takes the decision out of the hands of the states. The ruling puts states on notice that if they create any law that discriminates against same-sex couples it will be overturned by federal courts.

[Ohio Rusty]

I believe it is best to keep the government out of this fight and let the states decide for themselves. That states taxpayers need to be responsible for the paying of rights/laws of those states.
Ohio rusty ><>

[Forerunner]

The fed is not constitutional.
Contractually applied-for, state-granted benefits are not constitutional.

There is nothing constitutional about this entire topic.

Now if gangs were going door-to-door to beat, rob or kill gay couples ?
That would be true, "constitutionally disallowable" discrimination.

[Nevada]

Originally Posted by Ohio Rusty

I believe it is best to keep the government out of this fight and let the states decide for themselves.

Let the states decide who gets federal benefits and who doesn't? Come on, you can't be serious.

[sirquack]

This will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS). Because there are currently laws on the books in all states that recognize marriage granted in other states. So lets say that someone comes to Iowa that is a same sex couple and gets married. They could move to another state that does not recognize same sex marriage and the federal mandate to recognize marriage from other states would over ride their state law.
So I am hoping the SCOTUS takes up the case sooner rather than later. There are currently two heading that direction. Once from California about Proposition 8's constitutionality. One from Massachusets was ruled on today.
The part that seems odd to me, is the opposition to overturning the ban was by an individual legislator, not the government. So it seems the government is washing their hands of the issue seeing that more than 50% of the nation is not opposed to same sex marriage.

[Nevada]

Originally Posted by sirquack

This will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS).

Yes, I'm sure this will go to the Supreme Court. But the handwriting is on the wall; you can't deny federal benefits on the basis of a moral judgement about what some people are doing.

Pushing this issue might be good though. It may set the stage for forcing the issue, and could even result in legislation making it illegal to discriminate against gays in the workplace & school, and may even give them general civil rights as if they were a race.

[Cornhusker]

Originally Posted by Nevada

Hopefully this ruling will clarify things for the "gay is not a race" crowd. It's still discrimination, and it's still unconstitutional.

"A federal appeals court has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that denies a host of federal benefits to same-sex married couples, is unconstitutional."
U.S. News - Appeals court: Denying federal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional

Any questions?

Congrats, you can now take advantage of your sex life

[Old Vet]

It is all about the money that may be awarded to all married people that is why it all became to a head. Many of the people here said it was not about money at all but they are fools. How long did it take them to file about money?

[SquashNut]

I'll stick up for gay people when they stick up for all the aborted babies.

[unregistered41671]

Originally Posted by SquashNut

I'll stick up for gay people when they stick up for all the aborted babies.

I don't think that you will be doing to much sticking up.

[Cornhusker]

I personally don't care if Nevada and others want to have a gay union
Don't call it marriage and give them the bad with the good, no special treatment.
Then maybe Obama will move his soapbox to something that actually matters.

[Nevada]

Originally Posted by Cornhusker

I personally don't care if Nevada and others want to have a gay union
Don't call it marriage and give them the bad with the good, no special treatment.
Then maybe Obama will move his soapbox to something that actually matters.

Are you suggesting that federal law should be changed to give gay unions the same rights & privileges as marriage? If that was don't I don't have a problem with gays not marrying, but I suspect we'll never see it. We either let gays marry or they will continue to be denied rights.

[JeffreyD]

Originally Posted by Nevada

Are you suggesting that federal law should be changed to give gay unions the same rights & privileges as marriage? If that was don't I don't have a problem with gays not marrying, but I suspect we'll never see it. We either let gays marry or they will continue to be denied rights.

So marriage is a right? Really? Say's who?

[Nevada]

Originally Posted by JeffreyD

So marriage is a right? Really? Say's who?

I did not say that marriage is a right, and you know it.

Married people have the right to inherit Social Security benefits. People in civil unions don't. I call that being denied a right.

[JeffreyD]

Originally Posted by Nevada

I did not say that marriage is a right, and you know it.

Married people have the right to inherit Social Security benefits. People in civil unions don't. I call that being denied a right.

It's not what you implied and you know it. You said they would be denied rights as in marriage rights, as that is what were talking about. Show me where the Constitutions says that ss is a right and who can collect it. What YOU say is irrelevant.

[Cornhusker]

Originally Posted by Nevada

Are you suggesting that federal law should be changed to give gay unions the same rights & privileges as marriage? If that was don't I don't have a problem with gays not marrying, but I suspect we'll never see it. We either let gays marry or they will continue to be denied rights.

What I said is that I don't care.
it's all smoke and mirrors to give you something to worry about besides what your idiot king is really up to.
Don't be so gullible, watch both hands.

[Nevada]

Originally Posted by Cornhusker

What I said is that I don't care.
it's all smoke and mirrors to give you something to worry about besides what your idiot king is really up to.
Don't be so gullible, watch both hands.

The problem is that opponents of gay marriage always stop short of giving the same rights & privileges to civil unions. This would be smoke & mirrors if you were willing to to that, but I've never even seen a proposal to give the same rights to civil unions. That kind of defeats your claim that it's all about the word "marriage".

[JeffreyD]

Originally Posted by Nevada

The problem is that opponents of gay marriage always stop short of giving the same rights & privileges to civil unions. This would be smoke & mirrors if you were willing to to that, but I've never even seen a proposal to give the same rights to civil unions. That kind of defeats your claim that it's all about the word "marriage".

You keep saying "these rights". What rights exactly would these be? Should these "rights" be extended to pedophilies too? If not why not? Do you think a convicted pedophile can be rehabilitated?