Gay Marriage, Civil Union, Domestic Partnership, Marriage and Civil Rights

What you’re about to read is NOT about religion.

For a brief moment – if you can – set aside a religious mindset (if you have one) about homosexuality.

As an ‘institution,’ marriage confers legal benefits to each spouse which are enforceable in courts of law in all 50 states.

For example, the following is a partial list of legal benefits

The Irony of the Death: The first nails in the coffin of DOMA were all done by Republicans.

The stinking irony of the whole matter is that the folks who are primarily responsible for the federal death of DOMA is that…

they’re REPUBLICAN.

So who’re your hypocrites?

Who’re your radicals now?

—

In Defense of Marriage

Editorial
Published: June 2, 2012

The federal appeals court ruling last week that struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act did not say whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, but the decision sets the stage for what will almost certainly be a Supreme Court showdown over the unfair treatment of gay people and their families.

The ruling on Thursday by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, based in Boston, marked the first time a federal appellate court had ruled against the 1996 law, which excludes same-sex couples from federal benefits accorded heterosexual married couples. (like being allowed to filed joint tax returns and to receive Social Security survivor payments).

The case was heard by two judges nominated by Republican presidents and one Democratic nominee. It involved married couples in Massachusetts, which is among the handful of states where gay couples may lawfully wed. The marriage law was being defended by lawyers hired by the Republican majority in the House after the Obama administration finally acknowledged that it was unconstitutional and decided to stop defending it in court.

The panel’s key finding was that there was no “demonstrated connection” between the law’s hurtful treatment of same-sex couples and “its asserted goal of strengthening the bonds and benefits” of heterosexual marriage. It also said another rationale for the law — that it preserves scarce federal resources — was simply not true.

We were disappointed that the panel declined to