Judge strikes down Defense of Marriage Act provision in state employees' case
Original post made on May 25, 2012
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, May 25, 2012, 6:53 AM
on May 25, 2012 at 10:09 am
Unmarried, same sex couples are entitled (by law) to benefits that opposite sex couples are not.
When I was living with my wife, I could not get health insurance coverage for her. However, if she was a man, my company would have covered her. Is that what we call equal protection these days?
on May 25, 2012 at 12:08 pm
A welcome decision! Fairness and equality are principles that we base our nation's identity on, it's wonderful to see the voice of reason overcoming prejudice.
"There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. Because the Defense of Marriage Act defines "marriage" as only a legal union between one man and one woman, same-sex couples - even if legally married in their state - will not be considered spouses for purposes of federal law."
It's an unreasonable process to change every federal law to redefine who it applies to regarding married couples and same-sex life partners. Let's call it what it is when two people commit to living sharing their lives and supporting each other - marriage.
As a Christian woman, married for 29 years, with children, I can't imagine how a same-sex couple's marriage is supposed to threaten my marriage or anything about me. That scare tactic is a pretty desperate attempt to formulate some argument against gay marriage that makes any sense. It fails.
Thanks to this judge for standing up to the hate and choosing reason.
on May 25, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Since the article makes a big deal about Republicans getting involved, it should at least try to balance the facts... IE The Obama administration refused to have Federal Attorney's defend DOMA, even though DOMA is existing Federal Law. This is why other Federally elected officials stepped into this matter.