Appeals court rules against Defense of Marriage Act

Comments (11)
Libicz wrote:

When same sex marriage was legalized in Canada several years ago, the matter had first been presented to the Supreme Court for its opinion as to its legality and the legality of restricting marriage to a man and a woman, which had been the traditional definition in Canadian jurisprudence. The Supreme Court, as had two or three provincial superior courts previously, ruled that same sex marriage was constitutional under the terms of the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms and had to be legislated as such.

Of course, as is the case in the US today, the matter caused a furor amongst conservative and religious bodies, a Calgary Roman Catholic bishop publicly telling the Catholic prime minister that he was destined for Hell if he supported a bill to legalize these marriages. The very right wing Conservative party threatened to unravel the law if it were ever elected as government, which it was six or seven years ago, and now holds a majority to do whatever it wishes.

However, it has not undone this law because Canadians are generally comfortable and in accord with it. They see that homosexual marriages have not been the monstrous bugaboo and cause of the end of the family the religious right claimed they would be. In fact, many same sex unions and marriages are as, or more, stable, loving and fruitful than heterosexual marriages.

Thus, it surprises me that in America, the land of the free, the issue is still such a controversial and divisive one. It seems clear that the two US court decisions declaring for the constitutionality of same sex marriage are right, and ought to outwear people’s personal opinions and beliefs, or the demand the matter be decided only politically. The courts are needed to uphold minority rights against the bulllying of the majority.

Oct 18, 2012 6:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
lie_detector wrote:

@LIBicz: its called “majority rule” and that’s how its *supposed* to work. A handful of judges have no right to overturn the will of the people or insult time-honored religious traditions. But I suspect you understand that full well – you just don’t CARE because liberals have zero respect for the law unless its furthering their agenda. If is isn’t then its conveniently ignored.

Oct 19, 2012 3:48am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jcfl wrote:

so let’s see…when i want the fed govt to intervene in state’s rights it’s ok, but when i don’t want the feds meddling in what i believe then state’s rights trump. can’t have it both ways, unless you live in the faith based reality that is the new gop.

Oct 19, 2012 6:39am EDT  --  Report as abuse
MetalHead8 wrote:

Good day for equal human rights

Oct 19, 2012 9:27am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RobinMPowers wrote:

Judicial activism? How about “Protectors of the Constitution!” It seems that every judge so far seems to agree… are they all “Judicial Activists?” Really?

Oct 19, 2012 12:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BigBlue56 wrote:

Can’t wait until the time comes when I can marry my dog, or my little sister or everyone in my harem…etc. If it feels good…

Oct 19, 2012 1:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rbodell wrote:

I don’t get politics at all. every time there is a disagreement, the constitution comes into play which in turn brings up the SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, yet everybody brings their RELIGIOUS views in to play. If you want a government mandated church, then vote one in and we will ban all other churches. You can even bring in the religious police to enforce your religious views.

there are two types of marriages, one in the church and one in the courthouse. Let the government control who gets married in the courthouse and let the churches decide who can get married in which church since some churches approve of same sex marriage and some do not.

keep the government out of the church and keep the church out of government.

Oct 19, 2012 1:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gregbrew56 wrote:

Well put rbodell.

BigBlue56 – Can you say “red herring”?

Oct 19, 2012 2:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Regardless of whether or not judges and courts recognize perversion as protected, God does not. The more this happens, the further this nation sinks into depravity. God is just, and He is not mocked, what we sow, we shall also reap.

Which should terrify us when something like this is reported.

Oct 19, 2012 4:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@lie_detector

We live in a constitutional republic, not a religous democracy. You can’t make a law that is at odds against the constitution because you have a simple majority. Rather than attacking the rights of your fellow citizens, why not mind your own business and respect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Oct 19, 2012 4:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Libicz wrote:

@lie_detector: Detect your own lies and delusions first.

I find you an ignorant man regarding the function and purpose of the three levels of government that are judged necessary in a democracy, the executive, legislative and judicial, and that exist in your very own country (must I, a Canadian, tell you this?).

A democratic nation with a constitution that protects and furthers all citizens rights, including minority rights, does not and cannot rule by simple majority edict as you claim it should. If a government of the day attempts this and gets away with it, it is fascist. However, in a democratic and open society with arms length courts, all prejudiced parties may go to them for redress.

If you do not see this very liberal, constitutional proviso and safeguard that all enlightened lawmakers and thinkers invoke, you are a hopeless and insultable nitwit. You refer to time-honored religious tradition, but conveniently ignore other Western traditions derived from the Classical world and even the Christian world (borrowed from Antiquity though) – law, rational thought, the rights of man – that well predate your Evangelical (or is it Pentecostal?) religion.

Oct 20, 2012 12:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.