Post by packerconvert on Jun 29, 2013 5:52:29 GMT -5
The Supreme Court made unconstitutional, the Defense of Marriage Act that President Clinton(the best President ever) signed into law in 1996. DOMA prohibited married gay couples from receiving Federal benefits.
Many in the press have touted this decision as the legalization of gay marriage. Of course they would, they're stupid.
The only thing that repealing DOMA did was for the Federal Government to recognize gay marriage in the states where it is legal and it never ruled that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.
Justice Kennedy, who is the usual swing vote framed his majority opinion in the context of State's rights; which pretty much tells you that SCOTUS believes that states should be able to handle this how they will and do not perceive the banning of gay marriage as discriminatory.
However, the Supreme Court struck down a law in Arizona that banned gay couples from receiving benefits. Gov. Jan Brewer framed it as a budget argument saying the state had the right to cut benefitts to shore up the budget. She did it, however, on the backs of State gay workers who were receiving benefits under the Domestic Partnership laws in Arizona.
Gov. Jan Brewer said it wasn't discriminatory to strip gay workers of their benefits as all unmarried workers did not receive those types of benefits.
So what the court is saying is, it isn't illegal to ban gay marriage, it is however illegal and inequitable to shower those who are married with benefits that an unmarried citizen should already be able to exercise.
History Lesson: The institution of marriage is a religious one. No where in any religious books does it mandate that those who are married receive special rights from a secular government.
If gay couples and straight couples(unmarried or otherwise) received the same treatment by their State and Federal governments that married couples receive, there would not be a march for "marriage" equality.
All of the marches have not been about marriage equality, they've been about benefit equality; period. And if you're pissed off about this, write your Congressman who muddled the lines between religion and secularism.
Many in the press have touted this decision as the legalization of gay marriage. Of course they would, they're stupid.
The only thing that repealing DOMA did was for the Federal Government to recognize gay marriage in the states where it is legal and it never ruled that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.
Justice Kennedy, who is the usual swing vote framed his majority opinion in the context of State's rights; which pretty much tells you that SCOTUS believes that states should be able to handle this how they will and do not perceive the banning of gay marriage as discriminatory.
However, the Supreme Court struck down a law in Arizona that banned gay couples from receiving benefits. Gov. Jan Brewer framed it as a budget argument saying the state had the right to cut benefitts to shore up the budget. She did it, however, on the backs of State gay workers who were receiving benefits under the Domestic Partnership laws in Arizona.
Gov. Jan Brewer said it wasn't discriminatory to strip gay workers of their benefits as all unmarried workers did not receive those types of benefits.
So what the court is saying is, it isn't illegal to ban gay marriage, it is however illegal and inequitable to shower those who are married with benefits that an unmarried citizen should already be able to exercise.
History Lesson: The institution of marriage is a religious one. No where in any religious books does it mandate that those who are married receive special rights from a secular government.
If gay couples and straight couples(unmarried or otherwise) received the same treatment by their State and Federal governments that married couples receive, there would not be a march for "marriage" equality.
All of the marches have not been about marriage equality, they've been about benefit equality; period. And if you're pissed off about this, write your Congressman who muddled the lines between religion and secularism.
