Supreme Court strikes down key section of Defense of Marriage Act


Tags: , , , ,

Submitted: Wed, 06/26/2013 - 2:06pm
Updated: Thu, 06/27/2013 - 1:12pm
By:

MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court says legally married same-sex couples should get the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples.

Read the full Supreme Court decision

The court invalidated a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act Wednesday that has prevented married gay couples from receiving a range of tax, health and retirement benefits that are generally available to married people. The vote was 5-4.

(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

52 Comments

  • Erlkoenig says:

    Obummer should be able to come out of the closet now.

  • Mr . America says:

    “Now Boys It’s Adam and Eve and Never Adam with Steve”
    God created the rainbow as a promise to never destroy mankind by way of flood ever again. However now it’s used to mock the one and only true God by using the rainbow as a banner to identify and scream out hey look at me im gay!!!!!!!
    !!!!!!! REPENT FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS NEAR!!!!!!

  • Beach Bum says:

    Good luck in finding someone to officate the wedding. Justice of the peace weddings is all this will result in.

    Still against the law in North Carolina.

  • Guest123123 says:

    The Rep’s will gain more seats in the house and probably the senate also on a national and state level. You obviously are not paying close attention. It will be hard to win national elections I agree due to the countless number of citizens on some type of government assistance and they would not want to cut off the hand that feeds them.

    Most Blacks and Hispanics would probably vote for Rep’s if it was not for the handouts. Believe it or not they are more in line with their thinking on social issues such as these. How do you think the vote to ban gay marriage passed in CA. It was just one issue with no candidate attached to that issue that’s why. the vote there speaks for itself

  • ANGRY says:

    Marriage is a part of religion. Last time I checked the CONSTITUTION states a separation of church and state. Therefore we are violating these peoples constitutional rights to have a legal marriage. I say as long as all parties are of legal age and are consenting let them get married and to as many people as they want. Have everyone sign the marriage license and to make the govt happy let them find some way to tax it. Otherwise we need to keep our predjudious, over religious noses out of other peoples bedrooms!

  • Great Name says:

    Obvious troll is obvious.

    Your screen name is quite fitting by the way.

  • WilmingtonMAJ says:

    That takes the cake in terms of idiotic comments!

  • GuestEvey says:

    It’s the right decision.

    “God is in the rain.” V for Vendetta

  • Monkey Junction says:

    Freedom wins today. A great day for all Americans that love freedom.

  • Guest Name says:

    If marriage is no longer defined as being between “a” man and “a” woman, but rather between any two consenting adults, then why stop at two adults? Is it not possible for 3 or more people to be every bit in love as a group with each other as 2 people are with each other? For that matter, why is the government even meddling in marriage or trying to define it? Why should there be tax or health benefits to married people that aren’t there for non-married people? If it’s to give working families a break so they can start/raise a family, well then why not single parents who need that assistance even more?

  • jj says:

    I guess they will be a lot of gays moving to other states. Have fun and enjoy the trip. NC law still bans gay marriage.

  • Guestllllllllllll says:

    is what this amounts to. Don’t over think it.

  • WX_Guy says:

    Once again, government meddling has created the problem. The solution is pretty simple. Bifurcate the process.

    Establish a legal civil contract for anyone wishing to formalize their union under law. That contract covers the secular recognition of the union.

    Then, each religious or other organization can perform and recognize whatever “marriage” ceremony and tenets that may be compatible with their beliefs. They should not be forced to recognize “marriage” outside of their beliefs. However, the legal civil contact endures.

    And just for the record, remember that it was beloved Democrat Bill Clinton that signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law.

  • Guest123123 says:

    I’m so tired of all these decisions and rulings from all branches of government. Everyday I just want to go out and run my business and have everyone just leave me the hell alone and I will leave you alone.

  • Burgerboy says:

    Them gay’s don’t even want to get married to begin with, they just want to party and have promiscious homosexual relations, all they are trying to do is stir up trouble with with the heterosexuol population, and cause a ruckus and make people angry, cause they are all drama queens and tooty froots, they should all go back to commiefornia, the land of froots and nuts if they want to have a gay marriage is what I think, ha!

  • GreatIdea says:

    This is the most rational solution. Again shows why religion and government are best kept separate.

  • Jenn says:

    Yes, they put up with rampant discrimination just to make stupid bigots angry. Not because their love is the same as everyone else’s love. Not because they are human beings and United States citizens who deserve equal rights and equal protection under the law. Not because they want YOU and your ridiculous religious beliefs out of their bedrooms and their lives.

  • Jennt says:

    Unfortunately not everyone feels the way you do and they want to legislate private lives and discriminate against citizens based on their religious beliefs. When this behavior stops, there can be less rulings.

  • Guest350 says:

    Wilmington Maj, you get my vote on that comment. I am 100% heterosexual but all I see is the straights harassing the gays. Not one time have I ever known of any gay group demonstrating against peoples right to be heterosexual.

  • WHO CARES says:

    Its not the people fault its that the Supreme Court has not read the BiBle not one of them. If they had it would have been NO.

  • truthseeker says:

    I pretty much hate the Supreme Court making decisions that overturn the will of the majority. I am glad am I getting older because this country is slowly but surely going down hill, economically, morally, ethically and militarily. My country as I fought and defended it to my own disdain and at a personal sacrifice to my health is not the country I loved. The liberal minority has won!.. When this country with liberal Obama at the helm loses its significance at least I know I have lived a majority of my life in real and great America. I am sad for my country and concerned for my Grandchildren because the glory of America will be gone for them. History books will be their only chance to know real America.

  • Charles Walters says:

    2014 is coming fast and all the Right Wing Religious, homophobic, racist, bigots, ie the Tea Party Republicans are going to be shown the door all over this country. The whole idea of legislating morality, because of your slanted religious beliefs is just CRAP!!!! You have no right to tell anyone who they can marry, because frankly it is none of your damn business!!!! You say gay people are evil, but look at your own leaders. Jim and Tammy Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, and all th Catholic Priest who have ripped off people, and worse targeted children for sex then tried to cover it up. Hey Tea Party Fools and Religious Freaks time is up, YOU ARE DONE FOR!!!!!!

  • Guest333 says:

    @ VOG, you have said some good things in the past and some good things here, But, You cannot be double minded. Choose one way or the other.

  • Vog46 says:

    Marriage is between a man and woman and all benefits derived from that marriage are not religiously based but based on secular law.
    So as much as I oppose same sex marriage I am also opposed to discrimination of any kind against any group.
    So I can’t endorse same sex marriage but nor can I endorse holding back benefits from those that do believe in it.

    Vog

  • GuestMan. says:

    That is like saying abortion is OK with rape and incest cases only. That it is alright to kill a fetus some of the time but not all of the time.

  • Vog46 says:

    “You are sitting astride the fence.”
    No I’m not I’m doing exactly what you suggest:
    “You either believe people have a right to live their lives as they want or not. It is not for us to condone or condemn some one else. What they do is their own business.”
    I neither condone or condemn – I said its not for me.

    “You either believe one way or the other”
    I stand by my position – its not for me nor is it for me to impose MY BELIEFS on you or anyone else.

    Vog

  • Vog46 says:

    Huh?
    No it means abortion is out for me. I have never believed in it but our nation is not comprised of people who all believe the same as I do.

    I will not impose my beliefs on you nor should anyone impose theirs on me.

    Vog

  • GuestMan. says:

    You are sitting astride the fence. You can’t have it both ways. You either believe one way or the other. I was comparing you position on DOMA to the people that want it both ways with abortion. You either believe people have a right to live their lives as they want or not. It is not for us to condone or condemn some one else. What they do is their own business.
    Judge not…..

  • Guest823238 says:

    So you are saying you decided to be straight? When did you decide to be straight?

  • robo says:

    You are incorrect. No one is born gay, and there is no scientific proof to support your statement. People choose their lifestyles. If you choose to be gay, so be it, that is a choice you must live with. But don’t try to justify your behavior by saying you were born that way.

  • Guest6858 says:

    You consider being compared to Obama an honor? Well, I must admit that you appear as arrogant as he. Please read MY post in response. You are being narrow-minded by not validating my statement. Or perhaps it’s too deep for you. I’m sorry for your obvious internal anger over this issue.

  • GuestMan. says:

    for comparing me to President Obama. I consider that a high honor. Read my post carefully if you will. If you want to be narrow minded and prejudiced it’s OK. That is what I said in my post. It is your right to be, just as it is their right to get married and have the same liberties as me or you. It is a great day for America in that we quit disenfranchising the rights of a growing segment of society.

  • Jenn says:

    If you wish to deny any segment of the population basic rights based on something they have no control over, such as skin color, sexual orientation, or gender, you are prejudiced. Period.

  • Vog46 says:

    A key conservative position struck down by the court.
    Interesting stuff….
    Vog

  • Wilmington Observer says:

    Just another step in the, moral, decline of this country.

    Wilmington Observer

  • GuestO'Day says:

    Yes Sir, Observer! For certain Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Creflo Dollar, Reverend Ike, Joe Paterno, Jerry Sandusky and Bernard Cardinal Law would agree with you too.

  • rightsawrong says:

    Moral decline??? Moral decline is when the federal government took this lady’s money who was legally married, and refused to give it back when the lower federal court ordered it returned. This ruling rights that wrong. I would say that is a step in turning around a moral decline.

  • GuestMan. says:

    SCOTUS should be applauded for not depriving a segment of society of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. I know that there are a lot of narrow-minded, prejudiced people that don’t agree, but, that is their right just like it is anyone’s right to get married to someone they love.

  • Guest6858 says:

    Why do you call people who disagree narrow-minded and prejudiced? They’re just people who don’t agree like me. You sound like someone in the Obama campaign. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you does not make them narrow-minded or prejudiced. It simply means they don’t agree with you. I think you may be the one who is prejudiced.

  • WilmingtonMAJ says:

    This is an ENORMOUS step in the right direction for this country. Finally, loving families who are legally married can be recognized and gain federal benefits that others enjoy. This does not hurt tradition marriage, it does not hurt anyone and only benefits those that it’s in place for. Almost every argument I hear is based on religious dogma that is outdated and frankly has no place in the creation of laws in this country. Thank you SCOTUS

  • Guest 10101 says:

    Looks like the Supreme Courts these days no longer feel the legislative branches of government are valid entities.

  • ChristCrusader says:

    This country is going to Hell.
    I DO believe that ‘unions’ while a sin, SHOULD be granted equal rights as a married couple, but marriage is a union between a man and woman. The supreme court acted illegally by being inclusive with God and state, and not separating God and state which is the same thing these sinful ultra liberal junkies fought to get the first go around.
    What is even more shameful as the “Christians” that think their voices will be heard even when they do not speak. if God had meant for two same sex people to be married, they would be able to mate…. without surgery.. The end is near……..
    Leviticus 18:22
    You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

  • Guestomfg says:

    Shut up.

  • Guest12345 says:

    Christians should not have any legal rights as husband and wife if they marry. This would include taxes, insurance, health, etc. Because as YOU stated “The supreme court acted illegally by being inclusive with God and state, and not separating God and state which is the same thing these sinful ultra liberal junkies fought to get the first go around.” So marriage as a whole should not be recognized by any government. FYI – Christians don’t own the whole marriage idea. So it is not a Christian thing. The Bible is not the definitive word on marriage – particularly since the idea of “marriage” was around long before the Bible was.

  • Guest John the B says:

    Actually I like this one more.
    (Leviticus 26:14-30)

    [I]f you will not hearken to me, and will not do all these commandments… I will do this to you: I will appoint over you sudden terror, consumption, and fever that wastes the eyes…Then if you walk contrary to me and will not hearken me, I will bring more plagues upon you… I will let loose the wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children… You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters. And I will… cast your dead bodies upon the dead bodies of your idols…” (Leviticus 26:14-30).

  • Guest1851658 says:

    This would make sense if homosexuality were a choice rather than a trait individuals were born with.

  • Really? says:

    “These you may eat, of all that are in the waters. Everything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you. You shall regard them as detestable; you shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is detestable to you.” Leviticus 11:9-12…..that includes shrimp. Should we go on a crusade to stop Red Lobster from serving any shrimp or lobster? Or oysters? Or clams? Or scallops? Sigh…some people.

  • GuestMan. says:

    read the parts of Leviticus that tells of the cannibalism committed by religious people. Lev.26:29 will tell you they were commanded to eat the flesh of their children.
    Is cannibalism not an abomination?
    God doesn’t have a lot of credibility if he is telling people to eat their own children during the siege now does he.

  • Jenn says:

    Keep your religion out of my government and everyone else’s private lives. Marriage is about LOVE, not sex, not procreation.

  • Guest Mechanic says:

    The gays do not force their beliefs on heterosexuals, so whay should we force ours on them? Another case of religious meddling that is contrary to the Golden Rule.

  • PublicAvenger says:

    This is horrible. The idea of gay couples claiming to be married, and adopting children. Why must they adopt ? Because it’s not natural for two people of the same sex, to create a child.

    Even in California, when put to popular vote, this thing was struck down, almost 3/1. So they slide this evil through a Obama stacked court.

  • Jenn says:

    So by your logic, no one should get married who are not able to have a child. No widowed couples, infertile couples, or couples who just don’t want to procreate. Marriage isn’t about LOVE, but about sex in your view.

    And an “Obama stacked court?” Where do you get your information? Obama has nominated TWO people to the Supreme Court. The vote was 5-4 with Justice Kennedy, who was a Republican appointee, joining against the dissent. Why? Because he believes in the Constitution and has a brain.

    There are four Democrats and five Republicans on the bench.

Leave a Reply