Challenges to federal marriage act dropped

[Syrinx]

TAMPA, Fla. -- Three gay couples Tuesday dropped their lawsuits challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act, saying they do not want to risk having a conservative U.S. Supreme Court set precedent by rejecting their case.

The lawsuits were brought by gay couples who were wedded in Massachusetts and Canada and wanted Florida to recognize their marriages. Florida law recognizes only marriages between a man and a woman, and the Defense of Marriage Act allows states to disregard gay marriages performed in other states and foreign countries.

Their attorney Ellis Rubin said key to their decision was the Supreme Court's recent refusal to hear a challenge to a Florida law that bars gays from adopting children.

"That ruling strongly suggests that our case would not be favorably received," Rubin said.

The rest of the story.

[kypper]

1. Not a smart move

In 4 years, it's just going to get worse. At least here the judges MAY stick to the law and constitution...

[Bertha Venation]

2. Please forgive my vulgarity, but . . .

fuck.

[Q3JR4]

6. You are hereby excused,

I feel the same way.

[Warpy]

3. The precedent is that interracial marriages were not recognized

in former slave states until the Feds stepped in during the 60s.

It's always been hypocritical as hell, and the language has not changed since the days of Jim Crow. Only the targets are different.

I feel terrible for people who are caught up in this rubbish. I guess they'll have to restrict themselves to enlightened states in the north and west, thus depriving the former slave states once again of the vibrance and creativity they bring to any area.

Stupid fundies.

[jonolover]

4. But isn't that the way to the Federal Supreme Court?

If a state High Court rules against you, you could go to the Federal Supreme Court. They should have totally gone ahead with their case. It would be a long tedious battle, but it's totally worth it. I would.

[mudderfudder77]

5. Thats why they dropped it.

They didn't want the conservative Supreme Court setting precedent against gay marriage.

[Q3JR4]

7. Just like a

"conservative supreme court" set a precedent against same-sex sex in the 80s?

At least they'd have given us some idea of exactly where we stand in this "free" country of ours (and such a ruling would have caused the fervor to ban gay marriage in the constitution to die down).

We all know (and so do the fundies), that given enough time it has to come to us. It may take a few more years, but public opinion HAS to change. In fact it HAS changed a lot since even ten years ago.

[Redstone]

8. What? Homosexuals can't adopt kids

in Florida? I wasn't aware of that.

Whatta a bunch of redneck assholes. You know, I my ownself was considerably uncomfortable with the idea of kids having "two dads" or "two moms" for a long, long time. Though I was never homophobic, there was something about that kind of arrangement that I did not think was in the best interests of the kids involved.

But one day I bought myself a drink and discussed the idea with my rational side, and came to the conclusion that what's important is if the kids are loved, happy, and well-taken-care-of, and if that's the case, why should I give a damn if the parents are two of one, or one of each?

But I guess there are still a lot of people out there with the kind of blindered, dopey opinions like the one I used to have. Like the anti-gay-marriage neanderthals. For Christ's sake, if John and Joe or Suzy and Sally down the street want to get married, how the hell is that going to make my marriage any less great than it is?

Speaking of great marriages reminds me that my wife is in the other room waiting for me to hang out with her for a while. Gotta go.

Redstone

[FreepFryer]

9. Try bringing your kids to Florida as a gay couple. State custody, anyone?

(it could happen)

[StuckinKS]

11. Not to mention Oklahoma

I won't drive through that putrid state until they get rid of their law which doesn't recognize same-sex adoptions FROM OTHER STATES!

[iamjoy]

12. Oh, It's So Hypocritical

In Florida gays can be foster parents, but not adopt.
So, if homosexuals are so morally decadent we can't trust them to raise children, why would we put some of the most vulnerable children with them? Often foster children have been shuffled around or have no stability in their lives. Our state USES homosexuals when it suits their purpose and rejects them when it doesn't.

Personally, on the gay adoption issue, I don't think the government should be allowed to restrict gays from adopting, but agencies not receiving govt money should be able to choose who they will let adopt from them (and could discriminate based on religion, income, sexual orientation, etc.)

[Redstone]

13. iamjoy, I like you already...

for your logical and cogent comments.

And I couldn't agree more with your contention that "the government should not be allowed to restrict gays from adopting, but agencies not receiving govt money should be able to choose who they will let adopt from them (and could discriminate based on religion, income, sexual orientation, etc.)"

That's the way things ought to work in this country; a clear dividing line between what the government can or cannot do, and a different set of rules for organizations that do not get government funding.

I'm on your side.

Redstone

[David__77]

10. I agree with this move.

We must hold off an amendment at all costs. National marriage will come in time enough. We mustn't nationalize this issue at present. I'm gay, by the way...

[Redstone]

14. Please explain

OK, as a gay guy, I believe your opinion is more valid than my heterosexual one on issues like this (I'm not being sarcastic).

I understand what you mean by saying "We must hold off an amendment at all costs" and "National marriage will come in time enough."

But I'd like for you to elucidate what you mean by saying "We mustn't nationalize this issue." Are you saying that it's best to work for better laws on the state level, or that you think we're better off waiting for "regime change" on the national level before pushing for more rational laws?

I'd appreciate hearing your opinion.

Redstone

[dobegrrrl]

15. VA trying to pass law

against GLBT adopting in VA too -- also on the agenda - trying to keep gay clubs out of schools -- duhhh - haven't we been there before?:mad:

[ruggerson]

16. I agree with Dave

sad as it may seem, and here's why:

There is no overwhelming need right now for a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, despite Bush's lip service in support of it. There are at least 60 senators who oppose it, given the current dynamics. At least 20 of those have said they oppose it, however, say it's solely because they don't see the need *NOW*, since DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is already in place.

The Defense of Marriage Act is a statute already signed into law, which purports to let states disavow same sex marriages performed in other states. Many people think the statute is patently unconstitutional (including Clinton, who signed it into law), because it violates the full faith and credit clause of the constitution, which binds states automatically to recognize valid civil contracts from other states.

Follow so far?

Now comes full legalization of marriage in Massachussetts. For the first time, the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act can be tested by couples who marry in Mass, then return to their home state and sue their state to recognize their Mass marriage. This suit would basically call into question the very core of DOMA, and would work its way up the court system and could easily end up with DOMA being tossed out by the same Supreme Court Justices who threw out sodomy laws in Lawrence V Texas.

If DOMA was thrown out, it would effectively legalize same sex marriage nationwide, since one state (Mass), already has legalized it.

If that were to occur, the middle of the road Senators, who now OPPOSE a constitutional amendment, may very well see it as the only avenue to prevent same sex marriages. Thus any lawsuit which ends up with DOMA being declared unconstitutional, by the Supreme Court (or a lower court for that matter) might re-start the ball rolling for a constitutional amendment.

A constitutional amendment right now has almost zero chance of passage in the Senate. Why give them any reason to resurrect the issue?

[iamjoy]

17. We Need To Change The Language

Don't let them ever refer to it as "defending" or "protecting" marriage - they are restricting marriage.

But I agree that the Full Faith & Credit Act makes DOMA unconstitutional, I also think the Fourteenth Amendment makes state laws against same-sex marriage unconstitutional, but too many would say that homosexuals can marry, just some one of the opposite sex. Why on earth would they want to do that?