"United States v. Windsor" lawsuit succeeds in having part of
DOMA law ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court
Webmaster's reactions to the
ruling on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (Cont).
The acronym "SSM" refers to "same-sex marriage."
The acronym "DOMA" refers to the Defense of Marriage Act
"SCOTUS" refers to the Supreme Court of the United States
Webmaster's opinion about the U.S. Supreme Court's DOMA decision: (Bias alert):
I agree with one point that Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention raised. That is that that by being brought up in an intact family, watching intact opposite-sex marriages on TV, and because of other cultural influences:
"Boys and girls mostly assumed they had a wedding in their futures."
But, in the past, by the time that boys and girls become teens, the approximately 5% of the population who discovered that they have a homosexual orientation had lost this dream and expectation, because same-sex marriage was simply out of reach. As more progress is being made toward marriage equality, boys and girls of all sexual orientations should start assuming that they will marry in their future: those with a heterosexual orientation to a member of the opposite sex, and those with a homosexual orientation to a member of the same sex. Those with a bisexual orientation are the only ones with a choice. Most of them will probably continue to choose opposite-sex marriage partners because of the reduced level of physical, emotional and spiritual aggression against them.
I also agree with Dr. Mohler on a number of points:
It seems to me that:
We expect one or more lawsuits to be launched by same-sex couple(s) seeking to marry in a state that does not currently allow SSM. If it works its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court and is accepted for review, it would have a good chance of being decided in favor of marriage equality because the arguments incorporated into the 2013 DOMA ruling would also be excellent arguments in favor of permitting SSM. This future Supreme Court ruling may well be so broad that it would cover all of the states in the U.S. and the District of Columbia as in the famous Lawrence v. Virginia case in 1967.
- Senator Diane Feinstein (D) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D) promote the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that would repeal the entire Defense of Marriage Act. This bill was introduced by Nadler in 2009, but has never been voted upon. It currently has 162 cosponsors in the Senate and 42 in the Senate. Even if all of the Democrats in the House supported the bill, it probably would not be voted upon. The bill appears to be dead.
- Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R) has re-introduced a Federal Marriage Amendment which would write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution by defining marriage as a voluntary union of one woman and one man. Similar bills during 2004, 2006, and 2008 in the House either did not come up for a vote or failed to receive a two-thirds majority required in constitutional amendments. Even if it had been passed, it would be very unlikely to have been passed in a sufficient number of states to change the Constitution. This time, House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor are not listed as cosponsors. Other leading Republicans have also not backed the bill. The bill appears to be dead or dying.
Impact on same-sex couples and on lawsuits by the repeal of DOMA's Section 3 are covered in the next essay.
The following information source was used to prepare and update the above
essay. The hyperlink is not necessarily still active today.
- Ryan Beckwith et al., "Congress is unlikely to act on gay marriage soon," CDN Spundge, 2013-JUL-02, at: http://cdn.spundge.com/