Posted on 07/02/2011 4:34:34 PM PDT by markomalley
In a strongly worded legal brief, the Obama administration has said the federal act that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman was motivated by hostility toward gays and lesbians and is unconstitutional.
The brief was filed Friday in federal court in San Francisco in support of a lesbian federal employee's lawsuit claiming the government wrongly denied health coverage to her same-sex spouse.
The Justice Department says Karen Golinski's suit should not be dismissed because the law under which her spouse was denied benefits — the Defense of Marriage Act — violates the constitution's guarantee of equal protection.
"The official legislative record makes plain that DOMA Section 3 was motivated in large part by animus toward gay and lesbian individuals and their intimate relationships, and Congress identified no other interest that is materially advanced by Section 3," the brief reads, referring to the section in the act that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Though the administration has previously said it will not defend the marriage act, the brief is the first court filing in which it urges the court to find the law unconstitutional, said Tobias Barrington Wolff, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
(Excerpt) Read more at old.news.yahoo.com ...
I suppose the doj will weigh in on the side of the two queer marines who were arrested for fraud, etc in San Diego.
She divorced her husband and moved in with a chick. Close enough for us pervs. :)
She’s a lesbian? A homosexual terminator, go figure.
No matter how many laws the homosexual lobby gets passed, homosexuality will still be perverted and sinful. Laws can’t change facts.
Does it really matter anymore? The country, states, local communities and school districts are all jumping on the political bandwagon. Conservatives across the nation are more and more forming their own ‘communities’. Look at the home schooling trend. The hell with the government. It’s a growing movement. I could go deeper into facts, but, we’re underground. The internet is taboo. Someday, we’ll win.
Hot women like men and men like hot women.
I don’t think they spelled cunnilingus right.
So now Supreme Court Justice Hussein Obama has declared DOMA Unconstitutional and now he is spending taxpayer dollars to help these two fruit boots to gyp an Insurance carrier.
Why are we paying those other 9 a-holes sitting in the Supreme Court Building, if Obama is the Judicial expert and arbiter of the Constitution?
Evidently the Supremes don’t mind , they aren’t saying a word.
Of course with Obama’s two Lesbian appointees I really don’t expct them to.
Agreed!
By that logic it is also a violation of the constitution’s guarantee of equal protection for congress, the president, judges and bureaucrats to have a better health plan, better benefits and perks, and a better retirement plan than every other citizen.
>> God will surely judge this nation. It’s only a matter of time.
I’ll judge the Nation now. The govt shouldn’t be in the marriage business!
Why do these clowns even bother to go to court? The matter is already decided. The senses of normal people will be insulted and their purses ravished to support the abomination of sodomite ceremonies and the financial consequences thereof.
The Tree of Liberty needs watering.
I posted a comment a month or two ago that stated: It is the Western Christians that ultimately represent and fight for freedom and individual liberties. Nonetheless, as Western Christians, we’ve assigned an abundance of authority to the govt it doesn’t deserve to have, and we’re now paying for it.
I particularly don’t care about the unions formed by homosexuals. What concerns me is the govt forcing its citizens to support homosexual behavior. To me, that’s not unlike forcing homosexuals to adopt Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. The govt should just get the # out of the way, and let the people do their thing in the context of their beliefs. I have a strong opinion on homosexual marriage, but its ultimately irrelevant under the Constitutional framework we should all enjoy.
Just guessing but perhaps because you are only thinking in stereotypes? The sort of black and white one-dimensional view that never considers the Samantha Fox, Portia de Rossi, or Leisha Hailey types.
Of course beauty (or hotness) is in the eye of the beholder anyway. Everybody's mileage may vary.
One accomplishment Milk helped happen;
http://jonestownapologistsalert.blogspot.com/2009/02/milk-another-peoples-temple-political.html
[I’m a woman and even I have to ask: Why are there no hot lesbians?]
The whole male fantasy of two lesbians comes up a bit short in real life, doesn’t t!
[Conservatives across the nation are more and more forming their own ‘communities’. ]
I’m writing a book on Civil War II. Yup, our side will just go underground in plain sight. It is already happening.
At least there open about being against it, rather than deliberately staging an incompetent defense designed to fail.
If I respected the idea that Federal judges get to dictate the meaning of the constitution I would manipulative them in just such a way. I would get my buddy’s to play one side in the case while I play the incompetent defending side.
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.