Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Catholic News

Home

Home
Catholic
Religion News
Family groups say anti-DOMA decision threatens marriage

Family groups say anti-DOMA decision threatens marriage

Last updated on: May 31, 2012 at 11:00 pm by CNA Daily News

Family groups say anti-DOMA decision threatens marriage 2012-05-31T23:00:00+00:00 CNA Daily News

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Washington D.C., May 31, 2012 / 05:00 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The legal definition of marriage nationwide is at risk because of a federal appeals court decision that declared part of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional for restricting federal benefits to married opposite-sex couples, pro-family leaders say.

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, asserted May 31 that the judges realized that legal precedent does not allow them to redefine marriage “so they are making up new standards to justify imposing their values on the rest of the nation.”

“They dismiss the centuries-old understanding of marriage as a critical social institution that exists for the benefit of couples and their children, and which has served society well for thousands of years. Instead, they want their own politically-correct views to be imposed, and they are making up new law to do so,” Brown said.

On May 31 a three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston unanimously ruled that the law deprives homosexual couples of the rights and privileges of heterosexual couples.

The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 by a Senate vote of 85-14 and by a House vote of 342-67. It defines marriage in federal law as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” It also defines a spouse as referring “only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

The court did not overturn provisions protecting states which do not recognize gay “marriage” from being forced to recognize same-sex unions contracted in other states.

However, the ruling agreed that the law interferes with a state’s right to define marriage and denies legally married same-sex couples the federal benefits given to married heterosexual couples, such as the ability to file joint tax returns.

The case will most likely proceed to the U.S. Supreme Court, a move that Brown said he hopes will happen.

“It’s time for the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and establish once and for all that preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman is not only completely constitutional, it is profoundly in the public good,” he said.

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, said the decision is “disappointing” but also saw cause for hope that the legislation will be upheld after Supreme Court review.

Dale Showengert, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, also criticized the decision.

“Society should protect and strengthen marriage, not undermine it,” he said May 31. “The federal Defense of Marriage Act provides that type of protection, and we trust the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse the 1st Circuit’s erroneous decision.”

The court ruling was the result of lawsuits from Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and another from the Boston-based legal group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.

Plaintiff Jonathan Knight, who is in a legal same-sex marriage, told the Associated Press the case is “about having equality and not having a system of first- and second-class marriages.”

He said the legislation costs him and his same-sex partner an extra $1,000 a year because they cannot file a joint federal tax return.

Perkins noted that the federal court’s decision did not rely upon the contention that the legislation’s dominant purpose was “hostility to homosexuality.”

At the same time, Perkins lamented how it has become “too common for courts to show great disrespect to the American people and their representatives in arguing that efforts to defend marriage have been motivated by bias, bigotry, or animus.”

Perkins then pointed out that voters in 32 states have voted to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Showengert said that the federal court’s decision allows one state to hold the federal government, and possibly other states, as a “hostage” to “redefine marriage.”

He questioned whether the court’s rationale means that if one state decided to accept polygamy, the federal government and perhaps other states would be forced to accept it as well.

Previous Post

May 31, 2012

Huge expectations in Latin America over 'For Greater Glory' opening

Next Post

June 1, 2012 Sex-selection abortion ban draws majority support but fails in House

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Americas Asia - Pacific Europe Middle East - Africa Uncategorized US Vatican

Select a Month November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How was Haman punished for his plot?

Select your answer to see how you score.

He was hanged on the gallows he built He was beheaded He was turned into a pillar of salt He was exiled