Its amazing that even though the Supreme Court weighed in on this matter just two weeks ago - that they still were trying to force the issue. This is only going to get hotter...
Posted on 01/19/2005 6:54:55 PM PST by neverdem
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 8:08 p.m. ET
TAMPA, Fla. (AP) -- In what is believed to be the first ruling of its kind, a judge on Wednesday upheld the federal law letting states ban same-sex marriages, dismissing a lawsuit by two women seeking to have their Massachusetts marriage recognized here.
Attorneys for conservative groups hailed the ruling by U.S. District Judge James S. Moody as an important first step, but the plaintiffs promised to appeal.
``This is a legal shot heard 'round the world,'' said attorney Ellis Rubin, who filed the lawsuit on the women's behalf. ``But we are not giving up. ... This case is going to be resolved in the U.S. Supreme Court, and I have said that since the day I filed it.''
Although several federal cases are challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, attorneys said Wednesday's ruling was the first by a federal judge on a direct challenge to the law.
Moody sided with former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who argued in court filings that the government has a legitimate interest in allowing states to ban same-sex marriages, namely to encourage ``stable relationships'' for the rearing of children by both biological parents.
The Justice Department did not immediately comment on the ruling.
The plaintiffs, Nancy Wilson and Paula Schoenwether, a couple for 27 years who live in Tampa, were married in Massachusetts in July. They wanted their union recognized in Florida, where state law specifically bans same-sex marriages.
The women argued that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional because it was discriminatory on the basis of sex and violated their fundamental rights.
But Moody disagreed, saying the law was not discriminatory because it treats men and women equally and that the government met its burden of stating a legitimate interest for allowing marriages to exist only between men and women.
Moody said he could not declare marriage a ``fundamental right,'' as the lawsuit urged him to do, and that he was bound to follow legal precedent.
``The legislatures of individual states may decide to overturn its precedent and strike down'' the law, Moody wrote. ``But, until then, this court is constrained to hold (the law) and the Florida statutes ... constitutionally valid.''
Wilson, a minister for Metropolitan Community Churches, one of the world's largest congregations of gay Christians, said in a statement she was prepared to take her challenge to the Supreme Court.
``Despite this ruling, we are still married in our hearts, and legally married in Massachusetts,'' she said. Her partner added: ``No civil rights movement was lost on one bad court decision.''
Conservative Christian groups applauded the ruling.
``Today we have witnessed a significant victory -- for marriage and democracy,'' said Tom Minnery of Focus on Family. The group is pushing for an amendment to the Constitution that would ban same-sex marriages.
``Unfortunately, at any time, marriage in any jurisdiction is only one judge away from being ruled unconstitutional.''
Last year, a federal bankruptcy judge in Washington state ruled the Defense of Marriage Act constitutional when a lesbian couple sought to file for bankruptcy as a heterosexual couple would. But that decision was not binding on other courts.
Elsewhere Wednesday, the Louisiana Supreme Court unanimously reinstated an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution that was overwhelmingly approved by voters in September.
The high court reversed a ruling by a state judge, who struck down the ``defense of marriage'' amendment on the grounds that the measure dealt with more than one subject, in violation of the Louisiana Constitution.
But the Supreme Court said: ``Each provision of the amendment is germane to the single object of defense of marriage.''
The amendment was put on the ballot by the Legislature and approved by 78 percent of the voters. Eleven other states adopted similar amendments in the fall elections.
That's still not a mandate. That's why we must use the courts. To keep matters like this out of the hands of a bunch of ignorant, sexist, homophobic voters. :) Denote sarcasm.
Was there something wrong with the judge? Didn't he get enough sleep last night and was too tired to legislate from the bench, or to consider how they do it in Europe? </sarcasm>
Is a marriage suit anything like a birthday suit ?
I threw out all my old same-sex-marriage suits. My wife made me throw them out, actually.
I threw out all my puffy shirts, too.
I kept the lime-green one.
So much for those who think this is a state issue.
More of good judicial news.
``This is a legal shot heard 'round the world,''
Heck yeah, with cheers!!! Fireworks and all.
Not loud enough apparently if they aren't going away!
Definitely good news.
Good !
This is the 11th DCA. Very smart court.
IF I am not mistaken these are the two lesbians who want to establish a marriage so that the homosexual partner of the woman with children can adopt the children.
If marriage is established in FL, then they can use that to attack the FL ban on homosexual adoption. (six states have bans on homosexual adoptions, two are outright bans, four are severe restirctions. 27 states do not allow for homosexual sex partner adoptions.)
This is being appealed.
This should also be read with the recent LA upholding their state DMA which outlaws civil unions as well as homosexual marriages. (the homosexuals challeged based on the one subject rule of referendums) This means and indicates that a duplicate of the LA amendment in other states will help keep marriage lite out of the debate.
Now we need to educate the public about homosexual behavior is a choice and that "born 'gay'" is a political phenominon NOT a scientific conclusion.
related article here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1324087/posts?page=6#6
This will hopefully fan the flames for the FMA.
It will also demonstrate the need to bar civil unions.
With any luck, the ABA will have to rewrite their far leftist Model Divorce Code.
Thanks for the link.
There are no winners where logic loses.
With any luck, the ABA will have to rewrite their far leftist Model Divorce Code.
They are already divorcing in MA. Quite something, considering their marriages aren't really legal to begin with.
The ABA sponsors what the call the "model laws project". They come up with model laws which states can use to come up with laws which are in harmony across states. (ala the UCC which was such a model code.)
There is only ONE model code used by legilators and its the leftist tripe of the ABA.
The homosexuals are seeking to get divorced in other states too. IF a state recognizes a homosexual marriage in divorce court, then it has to arguably recognize the existence of the marriage. They tried the same stunt with Vermont civil unions in TX, GA, CT, and FL with no success.
LOL -no, this is a slap heard 'round the world', selfish disordered homosexual depraved activity does not warrant social acceptance.
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.