Posted on 07/20/2004 12:15:13 PM PDT by truthandlife
In an historic lawsuit, a same-sex couple "married" in Massachusetts is expected to file a legal challenge July 20 against the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
If successful, the lawsuit could result in all 50 states recognizing same-sex "marriage."
Florida attorney Ellis Rubin is scheduled to file the lawsuit in a Tampa, Fla., federal court on behalf of Nancy Wilson and Paula Schoenwether, a lesbian couple who received a marriage license in Massachusetts July 2 and are suing to have it recognized in Florida, a spokesperson for Rubin told Baptist Press. Wilson is pastor of Trinity Metropolitan Community Church -- a church that affirms homosexuality -- in Sarasota, Fla.
The lawsuit would be the first against the Defense of Marriage Act on behalf of a same-sex couple who have a state-recognized marriage license. Legal experts say the license strengthens the couple's case.
A friend of the couple, Robin Tyler of Dontamend.com, said the lawsuit is necessary. Dontamend.com, which first announced the lawsuit, is a campaign seeking to prevent the passage of a constitutional marriage amendment.
"We do not have equal protection under the law, and we will continue to sue across this country, until the Supreme Court of the United States finally grants us full marriage equality," Tyler said in the statement.
Although Rubin has filed lawsuits recently seeking the legalization of same-sex "marriage" in Florida, this is the first one where his clients have a valid marriage license.
The nation's major homosexual rights organizations -- such as Lambda Legal -- have yet to file suit against DOMA in federal court, perhaps because they believe the political timing isn't right.
Signed into law in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act is the federal law that gives states the option of not recognizing another state's same-sex "marriages." The law also prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex "marriage." If it is overturned, then every state presumably would be forced to recognize Massachusetts' same-sex "marriages."
The controversy over the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act is at the heart of the debate over the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Opponents of the amendment argue that DOMA has yet to be challenged successfully in court and that the push for a constitutional amendment is premature.
Supporters of the amendment counter by pointing to the numerous lawsuits nationwide and say is it only a matter of time before the Defense of Marriage Act is overturned. On the state level, at least eight states are defending their marriage laws in court against those seeking to legalize same-sex "marriage."
"The question is no longer whether the Constitution will be amended," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R.-Tenn., said during floor debate on the marriage amendment July 14. "The only question is who will amend it and how it will be amended. Will activist judges -- not elected by the American people -- destroy the institution of marriage? Or will the people protect marriage as the best way to raise children? My vote is with the people."
Constitutional amendments require the passage of two-thirds of both the House and Senate and three-quarters (38) of the states.
I hope the DOMA is revealed for the toothless piece of paper it is and exposes the need for a constitutional amendment to put an end to this blatant disregard for the law.
....but, but, but there's no need for an amendment, this will be left up to the states.....(/liberaltarian)
Who didn't see this one coming?
Anyone?
Anyone?
With any luck, the courts will see the light and shoot this challenge down, thus preserving the states' rights to deal with this issue as they will, and thus ending this whole debate/debacle once and for all.
If same-sex marriage licenses were to be recognized in all 50 states, then logically, the same courtesy should be extended to people with concealed-carry permits.
And so it begins...
"With any luck, the courts will see the light and shoot this challenge down, thus preserving the states' rights to deal with this issue as they will, and thus ending this whole debate/debacle once and for all."
Wow, surprise surprise.
And to all those who said "No amendment is needed, leave it up to the States" should go shove their stupid arguments where the sun doesn't shine.
Ping
I think it will be difficult for a court to sustain the federal government's right to recognize certain marriages lawfully entered into in a state as valid but others as invalid in order to determine which married persons receive certain federal benefits. This is a classic Equal Protection case.
How quickly America has fallen from her lofty perch of honesty, goodness and justice to the Third Way of the Clinton Third World despotism. Cheating, lying, dishonesty and perjury are characteristic of eight years under a liberal administration and yes Arnold is right in calling them girly-men – Sandy Burger is this day’s case in point – a proven liar along with David Gergen and Tom Daschle along with Gephardt all covering for a liar just because he is a democrat – had Burger’s blunder happened to a Republican, that person would not have 24 hours to get out of town....just a hair away stand the Clintons – still in the shadow but the picture is becoming clearer now – just what will the 9/11 commission do when they are found culpable in the Clinton Cover Up?
What if two brothers want to get married? What if I want to marry my hamster? Where does it end?
In MA, these two women are legally married. That much is clear. If the federal government extends a benefit to married people, then all legally married people should receive it.
Homosexual Jihad - I mean Agenda - Ping. This one definitely qualifies for the "Jihad" nomenclature.
And just how is this a states' rights issue again? With each state deciding for themelves whether marriage means what it has always mean, or something else entirely?
It's always good to know the truth; it's always good to know what the enemy wants and is planning. Well, here's what the homosexual agenda people want - to dominate, to control, to enforce their immorality on everyone else, everywhere. Is that clear?
And eventually shut us up.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
Any idea what they plan to do about birth control?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.