Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gay couple can't contest marriage definition
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 5/5/6 | Bob Egelko

Posted on 05/05/2006 12:48:15 PM PDT by SmithL

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court today dismissed a challenge by two Orange County men to a law denying federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples, saying a couple that isn't legally married under state law has no right to contest the federal definition of marriage.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached the result urged by gay-rights groups, which opposed the federal suit because they are trying to overturn California's marriage law in state court.

The appeals court also refused to consider the constitutionality of the state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying it should be addressed first by the California courts.

The central issue in the case was the validity of the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton. The law reserved federal marriage benefits -- joint tax filing, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration status and numerous other marital rights -- to opposite-sex couples. Another provision allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that were performed in another state or a foreign nation.

Both the federal law and the state law were challenged in a 2004 suit by Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer of Mission Viejo after they were twice denied a marriage license.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuit; 9thcircus; homosexualagenda; lawsuit; playinghouse; ruling; samesexunions
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last
To: pray4liberty
This is such a game of ping-pong between the courts. We need a Federal Marriage Protection Act to settle the matter.

Yes, for the good of the country it would be nice to settle the matter -much like President Ford did with the Nixon pardon. The homosexual activists and ACLU have had their 15 minutes -time for the country to move on...

21 posted on 05/05/2006 5:14:00 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

BTTT.


22 posted on 05/05/2006 5:21:02 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Incredible! *LOGIC* out of the 9th Circus. Makes perfect sense, really.


23 posted on 05/05/2006 6:04:36 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Don't use illegals: HIREPATRIOTS.COM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pray4liberty
Don't agree. Secular "marriage" should remain a state's rights concern.

I've wondered by the left hasn't tried to get Roe vs Wade into a Constitutional Ammendment. Maybe they know it won't pass?

24 posted on 05/05/2006 6:08:26 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Don't use illegals: HIREPATRIOTS.COM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

is there an error? It says Ninth Circuit ?


25 posted on 05/05/2006 6:10:55 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

The 9th circus ALWAYS has an agenda.


26 posted on 05/05/2006 6:20:59 PM PDT by SmithL (Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The ninth circus has an agenda indeed. Note:

"The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached the result urged by gay-rights groups"


This was the ruling "urged" by gay activists. It's just a step toward their goal.
27 posted on 05/06/2006 8:51:09 AM PDT by gidget7 (PC is the huge rock, behind which lies hide!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
saying a couple that isn't legally married under state law has no right to contest the federal definition of marriage.

LOL! Whether statutory (federal) law OR civil (State) law, no governmental entity has the authority (juristiction) to define marriage as ANYTHING other than a marriage between a man and a woman.

All political entities and subdivisions MUST remain true to natural law-

This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other-It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.

From Blackstone's Commentaries Book I Part I Section II

28 posted on 05/06/2006 9:04:10 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I will hold my government to the intent of the Founders...whether it likes it or not!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: catmanblack.

Smelts hammer Arthur and Christopher!!!


29 posted on 05/07/2006 7:26:09 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

My goodness! This from the Ninth Circuit? They must be keeping an eye on the Supremes. No judge likes to be overruled. Roberts and Alito have already made a difference.


30 posted on 05/07/2006 7:31:14 AM PDT by ContraryMary (New Jersey -- Superfund cleanup capital of the U.S.A.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson