• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Federal Judge Strikes Down Defense of Marriage Act

    In 1996, by a vote of 342–67 in the House and 85–14 in the Senate, the United States Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and President Clinton signed it into law. Section 3 of DOMA defines marriage as the union of husband and wife for purposes of federal law.

    Yesterday, a single federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that Section 3 of DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution. The judge concluded that there is no “rational basis” to support DOMA and that DOMA could only have been motivated by “irrational prejudice” and “animus.”

    In 1996 Congress stated that protecting marriage as the union of husband and wife would advance the public interest in “responsible procreation and childbearing.” Previously the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that marriage is “fundamental to our very existence and survival” and has “more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution.”

    Yesterday, the federal judge in Massachusetts concluded that the public interest in procreation and childrearing does not provide a rational basis for upholding DOMA. The judge also declared that, under the U.S. Constitution, “defending traditional notions of morality” is not a permissible basis for supporting DOMA.

    In a related opinion, the judge also ruled that, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, the federal government “plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment [to the U.S. Constitution].” Although the Tenth Amendment certainly does reinforce the limits on national authority in the Constitution, even influential liberal law professors, such as Jack Balkin, have expressed concern with this argument as applied to a federal statute like DOMA.

    President Obama’s Justice Department should promptly appeal this decision with appropriate vigor. More than just the distribution of federal benefits is at stake in this litigation. In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court redefined marriage in the Bay State because, it said, the traditional definition was “rooted in persistent prejudices” and supported by “no rational reason.” As The Heritage Foundation said at the time, such rulings alter marriage’s “core meaning, for to redefine marriage so that it is not intrinsically related to the relationship between fathers, mothers, and children would sever the institution from its nature and purpose.”

    It is imperative for the American people, at every level of government and in every way necessary, to redouble their efforts in defense of the institution of marriage.

    Posted in Culture [slideshow_deploy]

    61 Responses to Federal Judge Strikes Down Defense of Marriage Act

    1. Penny Sautereau-Fife says:

      This irrational and hypocritical bullying rhetoric is getting old. You're losing a fight that you should never have started to begin with, just accept it and move on. Get your damned priorities straight.

      First of all, Marriage equality is good for the economy. That's been abundantly proven here in Canada.

      Second, to claim Traditional one man/one woman marriage must be upheld because it's imperative to a child-rearing dynamic shows a ludicrous lack of contact with reality. Marriage doesn't dictate breeding. People will breed regardless of marital status. Hetero couples divorce. Hetero males abandon females frequently upon learning of pregnancy. Maury Povitch is a rich man because the Sanctity of Marriage as child-conducive has been sadly proven to be utter bullsh*t. There are married hetero couples who have no desire to procreate at all, and single carreer women perfectly content to raise a child alone. And for all the unwanted children left for adoption, there are gay couples perfectly willing to devote their lives to providing stable happy loving homes.

      Marriage is and always has been purely a legal contract. Marriage exists to share legal responsibilities and privileges. And given the divorce rates, the sanctity of marriage argument simply does not hold water.

      I love my wife, regardless of a piece of paper. But that piece of paper matters, because it not only constitutes public acknowledgement that my love is a valid as yours, but it gives my wife legal rights otherwise denied her. If I were hospitalized, our marriage GARAUNTEES that doctors CANNOT forbid her from visiting me or being kept apprised of my status.

      And gay marriage boosts the economy by putting more consumer dollars into the various businesses surrounding marriage. Hell here in Canada it's been a boon to the tourist industry.

      So when all of this is taken into account and you acknowledge Gay marriage will not hurt ANYONE, then the only reason to continue fighting against it is simple bigotry. And no amount of whining that you're being persecuted if anyone calls you a bigot makes it any less true. You are actively fighting to keep an entire group of people you dislike seperate and second-class under the law, just as the KKK once did with the Jim Crow laws. You CANNOT actively fight AGAINST true equality and NOT be a bigot.

      I hope you have the moral courage to let this comment through unedited. So very few conservative sites like this are ever willing to let my comments be seen by their readers, because I point out the stark reality of equality. We are JUST like you. The only difference between gays and straights is who we love. But while some conservatives try very hard to keep the focus on gay sex, sex is no bigger a part of our lives than any straight folks. My wife and I are intimate MAYBE once a month if I can find the energy, and never longer than a half hour. The rest of the time we're doing all the same things everyone else does. We spend time with our kids. We clean the dishes, we watch tv, we pay the bills and we wonder what to cook for dinner. In other words we're normal boring human beings just like you. Yes there are some really out there flamboyant gay folk but there are straight folk that weird too.

      Just please, let us be equals. It WILL NOT harm you, nor will it restrict your right to be bigots and insist God hates us. Someone preaching that can of ignorance won't get arrested unless he's openly advocating direct violence.

      My marriage CANNOT hurt you, nor will it affect or change yours.

      Please, see the harm you cause, and stop this senseless waste of energy. Think how many starving American children could be fed and clothed with the money spent fighting equality? Priorities people! Is it REALLY more important to keep t3h gayz in their place as beneath you than to prevent a child from starving to death?

    2. Ken Daigle New York, says:

      The Declaration of Independance states that we hold that all men are created equal. Isn't it time we started following that statement and allow all our citizens to marry the person of thier choice, regardeless of their sexual orientation.

      Bigotry and Predjude against the homosexual must be called our and the love of Chirst allowed ot take it;s place.

      Jesus would be ashamed of the Pharisaic attitudes that prevade the religion made from his teachings.

    3. Pingback: Sports Review

    4. Gary Sanders says:

      The Mass. Judge is an IDIOT and should be removed from position.The Law was made and voted on. One super liberal fool should not be able to overturn the Law.

      You may not publish this, however. I have reached an end point with these stupid


    5. DANNY, HERMANN says:

      What next? Anyting that adds to the stabiltiy of this country is threatened by our corrupt government. That they want to see this country fail is obvious. How long are we going to let this continue?

    6. Doris Mabry, Decatur says:

      Marriage is marriage. It is between a man and a woman. I have no problem with providing comparable rights to homosexual couples, but call it a union (or make up some new word), but don't call it a marriage.

    7. Richard Wolf says:

      after reading your rules below, i'm forced to place you in the same catagory

      of political correctness, which is the lefts attempt to controll free speech, and


      i presume then that words such as amoral, immoral, perverted, twisted and sick. though telling the truth, will not be tolorated, avoid all caps, what kind of nonsense is this? i"v respected and trusted you through the years, only to realize i've been had. since the truth to you isn't civil. i suggest we part our ways i go mine and you like an abstract from the main tenets of the communist


      i've never seen free speech schreded so elequently, you support my first amendment rights, you deny my rights to be heard, i feel like vomiting if i;m allowed to print that word!!

      I purchased your electronic dictionary, that says allah is god, and jesus is considered to be god by christians.

      don't write to me, send me e-mails or communicate with me in any way, shape or form, your nothing more than a hoax, a ruse, a lark, you have the audacity to call yourselves conservative.



    8. Winston Krause says:

      Who appointed this judge? Elections have consequences.

    9. Mona Edwards Granbur says:

      I think this is another federal judge who is way too far left to even recognize "reason", "rational", or responsible procreation. All of which belong in the definition of marriage. And since there are so many liberals who would undermine our Constitution completely if allowed, we had better maintain some defenses. IE. DOMA.

    10. Roger NY says:

      The God-less few are slowly and incrementaly destroying the United States. If the rest of us wake up to their "game" we can still save our country and way of life. As a christian my belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman. That said, if people want to co-habitate, that is morally wrong (gay or straigt). If gay people marry for the benefits that married straight people have, so be it. Employers should recognize the "significant" other, for what ever the employee benefits may be.

    11. Paul at Madill,OK says:

      Marriage is to give strength to family ties , which include children this is only possible with a male & female. Judges who don't deal with the real world need to e replaced we don't need fancy in our Justice system.

    12. john w. blackwell ra says:

      how can 1 appointee over rule 409 elected members of congress????.

    13. Eddie Gomez totally says:

      My good-ness…if you think that is creating a traffic jam, get a load of this one!! . . . . . . Neither the congress, nor the president, nor the supremcourt is qualified to define marriage, for any reason what so ever. IT IS SIMPLY TO BE ACCEPTED…LIKE THE WARTS ON YOUR FACE!!!

      In addition it is not a "moral"matter at all! Marriage is defined first of all by GOD, that's right atheists, and agnostics…GOD!!! Like it or not!! Second marriage is defined by MOTHER NATURE!! IT IS A NATURAL PROCESS, AND HOMOSEXUALITY IS A DEVIANCY…LIKE IT OR NOT!!!

      If we had persisted trying to building a race of homosexuals we would have no human race at all, therefore marriage is defined by nature as a union of men and women for the purpose of preserving the human race.

      If we want a congress, and supreme court and other sections of government to be made up of quers and sexual deviants…well it looks like we made it because they are about to vote you out and their kind in, but leave your stupid ideas in your shorts and panties, and lets start again…but this time with an open mind…to look into what the Bible has to say about it all; and start looking at your own family background…are you the product of a twisted and deviant homosexual relationship?; Do you want to be a part of such a twisted society? If so then just look ahead, if these fools have their way you are going to get it…but I'm leaving for some place that is sane, safe and healthy like this country used to be…and good ridence to all I'm leaving behind!!!

      But it wont be long before I'm back though, because you will all have quered your self out of existence, then the world will be safe again…Bye now ! ! ! ! ! ! !

      To the editors…if you don't approve of what I have to say delete it and join your new society…hard words oftimes must needs be spoken!!

    14. oscar j. karok says:

      It is my belief that the marriage of one man to one woman is the foundational cornerstone of every civilization since recorded time.

      This concept, based on Biblical truth, permeates all societies, irrespective of their religious viewpoint or political system.

      To strike down this law and make the determination that it violates the Constitution is nothing less than a total distortation of the truth and squarely flies in the face of the principles of our founding fathers.

      Sadly, this judge has completely ignored the will of the majority of the people of this country and has taken it upon himself to also ignore the will of our legislative branch.

      Our duty as the very evident majority of this nation who supports DOMA is to engage in whatever means it will take to have this judge's ruling overturned on appeal.

    15. Jimmie Denver,CO says:

      Is the judge gay?

    16. Billie says:

      Let's see. No defense of marriage? Marriage that builds families and civilly!. Judge wants to give favor to those that love to have sex with each other? Gays have been around since the beginning of time. Yet those that were, kept it to themselves because they knew it wasn't right. All of a sudden, tears of selfish, narcissistic demands come pouring out in the 20th century, all to destroy the just term of marriage. IGNORANCE HAS NO LIMIT! And weakness, has no strength.

    17. B. Warren - GA says:

      This is why "conservatives" are inconsistent at best, an hypocritical at worst … Small gov't and, more specifically, liberty are pillars, until forcing social beliefs down other people's throats.

      And by the way, this is how it's supposed to work … DOMA can still be law, just at the state & local level. The danger of allowing the federal gov't to overstep its enumerated rights is that when your guy loses the election, you get things like ObamaCare, stimulus 1, stimulus 2, and so on and so on.

    18. Loretta E. Bates says:

      I certainly believe in marriage as being between one man and one woman. How can anyone interpret marriage any other way except those who are not Christian and those people who just do not care. We have so many couples living together without being married, what can we do? I pray that parents will really care about their children and raise them to respect our laws; all of them. I, also, pray everyday for the Heritage Foundation to keep on letting us know the truth about what is going on in America.

    19. Chuck - Virginia says:

      This is a HUGE shock! This sure has the hallmarks of the ACLU – was that organization involved in this descecration of marriage? God help us! Judgments like this one will certainly cause the complete moral collapse of this country.

    20. Rheta Martinez, Salt says:

      Evidence of the Last Days. This Judge in power has no idea who God is and what is at stake. Hope it is the end of his job. I hope that he can be voted out!

    21. Sue Va. says:

      Since the constitution is based on biblical standards and marriage in the bible is between a man and a woman then it makes sense that it would be constitutional to be between a man and a woman so that judge is wrong.

    22. Carolyn Landy, Fresn says:

      This should ruling should be repealed as soon as possible. I am definitely in favor of keeping marriage between a man and woman.. God did not mean it to be anything other than that as he created a woman for Adam, not a another man.

    23. Ronald DuBois Bogota says:

      So there's "no rational reason" for the current definition of marriage. This is so ridiculous, the rational reasons are too numerous to point out. Since the beginning of societies, marriage has been between a man and a woman – the same in the bible. Try filing a federal income tax as a married couple as George and Peter. (Does the IRS allow gay couples from states that allow gay marriage to file as married?) What gets my goat is that for the past few years I softened my stand on gays. I agreed we should not harass them and should treat them with the same respect we give all other people. But they don't seem to be satisfied, pushing beyond being like everyone else, and wanting "special" treatment – even if it entails changing the rules of society in a way that most people question on grounds of morality. They're lucky they don't live in the many countries where they have no rights at all, and are even executed for being gay. Like the saying goes: Give an inch, and they'll take a mile.

    24. Lt.Col. Ed Salmon(RE says:

      Why didn't you name the Judge/? Doesn't seem to me that he deserves anomity. I, for one, am sick and tired of these liberal, actiist Judges who decide on a whim to enact legislation that is not within their perview. I am becoming more and more convinced that Federal Judges should not have lifetime appointments. When they do they begin to feel that they are ominpotent and all-knowing. Ignoring us poor common people. I'm not sue that any of them are capable of grabbing their behine with both hands.

    25. Robert Wichmann, Sou says:

      I believe that marriage is a religious matter. Federal, and also State Governments should separate religious concepts from the law. California by its definition of civil unions has attempted to do so, but as long as Federal Law, e.g. the Federal Income Tax Code, is based on religious concepts civil unions are not equivalent to marriage. If "Equal Protection" means anything, civil unions between 2 people need to be defined as equal, whether between a man and a woman, or between a same sex couple. As an alternative, all people ought to be treated equally by the law, as single people.

      Furthermore, I cannot imagine that any "traditional" marriage can be in any way harmed by allowing same sex marriage. I cannot believe that fewer heterosexual couples intent on joining their lives by marriage will not do so because homosexual couples can do the same. Religious leaders, whether pastors, priests, or rabbis currently act as government officers in performing marriages. If a particular religion recognizes same sex marriage, I see no reason why a marriage cannot be performed. I see no reason why the state cannot allow religious leaders, as well as judges, to perform the legal requirements for reporting civil unions as marriages are now reported.

    26. Diane Sellers, Calif says:

      Major premise: Marriage between a man and a woman is based on Hebrew/Christian Scripture (Genesis 2:24).

      Minor premise: Our Constitution is based on Hebrew/Christian Scripture.

      Conclusion: Marriage between a man and a woman is Constitutional.

    27. Sal, Indiana says:

      Dr. Ron Paul states it clearly here:

      The Federal Marriage Amendment Is a Very Bad Idea


      by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

      Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

    28. Chuck Anziulewicz (S says:

      Opponents of marriage equality for Gay couples speak passionately about “States Rights” and Federalism and so on … but the fact remains that MOST of the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities of marriage are bestowed on couples by the FEDERAL government. They number 1,138 according to the Government Accounting Office (GAO). Most significantly they have to do with tax law and Social Security, so it simply wouldn’t do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa to suddenly become UN-married once they move to a neighboring state. On the other hand, any heterosexual couple can fly off to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend and get married by an Elvis impersonator, and that marriage will be automatically honored in all 50 states, no questions asked.

      This is why DOMA is transparently unconstitutional under both the 14th Amendment and the “Full Faith & Credit” clause. I know marriage equality for Gay couples makes some people uncomfortable. There are still many people today who are uncomfortable with people of different races marrying. But “popularity” and “constitutionality” are not always synonymous.

      If the federal government wants to wash its hands of this and leave it to states to define marriage for themselves, the federal government had better be prepared to dispose of all the benefits of marriage under tax law, Social Security, and so forth. I wonder how many married STRAIGHT couples would be happy with THAT?

    29. Sue Marie in Detroit says:

      Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, the Judge is wrong. The Human race has continued because of the union between a man and a women. Gay people exsist because their parents are a man and a women. Society has benefitted greatly from marriage. Men are civilized because of marriage. Males are typically self centered and only think in the present. Males learn to think of the future once a female and offspring enter their lives. My mother often said: " marriage protect women and children but men benefit from this union greatly". Marriage help men improve themselves which improves civilization and the planet. Also, marriage may help them get into heaven. Yes I do believe in the after life and God. I know that is not the current fashionable thinking. I have never followed the morals dictated by media or politics.

    30. Ken Steuerwald-Kalam says:

      This Judge is overstepping his position; should be impeached or replaced, The sanctity of marriage is irrefutable! Thank the Lord.

    31. John Downing, Bowlin says:

      I think the judge is correct. Our system of laws is set up to protect the rights of minorities also, and there is no logical reason why people of the same sex should not be able to make the same legal contract with each other as those of us who are heterosexual. I have never heard a reasonable argument refuting this. DOMA just reinforces irrational cultural prejudices and fears.

    32. Ryan says:

      True,moral, and fundamental marriage (family) has been dead for a long time in the US and most of the world no matter what the government decides or continues to debate. We all have to pay and we all will continue to pay for the indiscretions and sins of others married or not.

    33. Jane Doe says:

      I talked to God today and he said it was okay. However, He's not happy about that cloth of mixed fabric thing. You may want to consider some legislation on that one!

    34. Will, Canada says:

      Well well…that entire news column and not one single use of any of these words: "gay" "same-sex" "The Holy Bible."

      How coy and duplicitous these 'Foundry' people are. They want to oppress gay people, but they do not want to _Be Seen to be Doing So_. FOUNDRY = CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST PROPAGANDA!

    35. Pingback: Protect the legal definition of marriage | Thumpernet.Net

    36. Winslow Boynton, Nor says:

      In 5000 years of recorded history, nations come, and nations go. They seem to

      have a pattern. Build on slavery. live large for a while, then go empirialistic and

      collapse. Guess where we are! Against those facts there is no defence.

      All we can dol is do the best we can and keep our morals and morale up as

      high as we can. Help each other and as corny as it may sound. hold your nose

      and vote,

    37. Pingback: Did Obama Sabotage DOMA? | Rubber Donkey.org

    38. Danny Blackwelder in says:

      Marriage is not just a contract between two people, but an institution. It is not a right given by government but a gift from God. It is for the good of the family as a whole, and for the stability of society in general. Sadly this is just more proof that many of our leaders and people in positions of authority are reprobates and dangerous enemies of the United States. The only hope we have is to remove them from office and replace them with moral leaders.

    39. Jim/TX says:

      Glad to see a judge enforce the constitution! Any one dieing at the scene of an accident or from any thing else has the right to refuse life saving measures from any one, regardless of sexual preferences!

    40. Jim Colorado Springs says:

      When will we start to to realize that God established this law of one man.one woman and we will be required to answer our actions for this.

    41. Stanley L Sitcler, I says:

      The judge needs to be replaced along with many other radicals who are trying to destroy the very morals and constitutional laws that made America great. What is some are trying to do to this country would have been looked at as treason a few years ago.

    42. Billie says:

      oooh, ouch Willy, ouch!

      Will wrote:

      How coy and duplicitous these ‘Foundry’ people are. They want to oppress gay people, but they do not want to _Be Seen to be Doing So_. FOUNDRY = CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST PROPAGANDA!

      You're looking at it from an ignorant perspective. Which you are entitled.

      …if gays are oppressed, they're dong it to themselves. but blaming it on any little thing they can for attention and burden to others.

    43. Dan - York, SC says:

      This is a reflection of the corruption of moral principles in our unwraveling and tattered social fabric. Before long we should expect to see marriages with multiple grooms and bridesmaids. Perhaps, the nambla will cry discrimination as well. Few people in 1980 would have believed homosexual "maariage" would reach the point where it is today. Twenty or thirty years from now, where will the line of demarcation for rulings and judgements be for other types of what we still believe today to be immoral behavior? GK Chesterton once said, "Tolerance is the virtue of men who no longer believe in anything." There is a "bill" coming due that we as a nation and society, as well as individuals, will have to pay for the destruction of true moral principles in our nation.

    44. George, Florida says:

      Gee, judge, while you're at it, could you also strike down other legislation that plainly encroaches on the province of the state? I'm thinking the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act should be next on your radar.

    45. Norm Klevens says:

      For Dick Durbin of IL, this is judicial activism. Allowing corporations to match union donations is an example of Democracy.

    46. Tom Cook Dogue, Va says:

      All one need do is watch Bruno to understand how sick and twisted is what homosexuals refer to as "sex." The rectum is not a sexual organ. Neither is the tongue. Queers including lesbians are sick; there should be research into treating their disease as there is Tourette's and Down's Syndrome. Instead these benighted individuals seek acceptance to justify their twisted abberrancy. Marriage is a union between a man, not a pseudo-man and woman, not a pseudo-woman, to provide a stable relationship for children. Homosexuality is not a variation of normal. There is nothing normal about it–anymore than sex with other animal species is "normal."

    47. Walter Brown, NY-Exp says:

      I would be in favor of state law defending marriage, federal law in this area is not within the enumerated powers or any conceivable extension of them. In my view citizens are citizens independent of marital status and reference to marital status, race, religion, origin has no place in federal laws. If we think that defending marriage is an important activity for the united states government then we should amend the constitution to authorize the federal government to act legally. Considering the overwhelming majority that supported the legislation.

    48. nancy emerson says:

      sad days for our country. this would seem to allow pandoras box to be open; it begs the question: what next? marriage between animals?marriage between adults and children?. the moral and etical breakdown we are witnessing daily is so frightening for our childrens and their children in the future. we cannot continue to twist the definition of right and wrong and expect to live in a safe and sane world in the future.

    49. Wildcat from Dallast says:

      Apparently we have identified another activist judge who drank the Kool-Aid, believes he is enlightened and can proclaim that marriage can and should be allowed by virtually any two living creatures provided at least one of them can say, “I do”. And then we have now confirmed another cogent reason why Martha Coakley couldn’t win a senatorial race against an almost unknown (Scott Brown) in one of the most liberal leaning states in the union. She not only drank the Kool-Aid but apparently bathes in it regularly. Perhaps she fails to realize that all married couples do in fact have equality right now.

      Those who lack so called equality are what about 98%+ of the American citizens call perverts who are living their choice of a perverted lifestyle, sometimes called an “alternative lifestyle”. So this activist judge somehow ruled favoring the less than 2% of the U. S. population who knowingly chose to live outside the bounds of the federal law. Well, when you choose that alternative style of living you also get the alternative benefits associated with that choice.

      Perhaps it is time to impeach some of these activist judges for demonstrating extremely poor judgment. After all, they were administered the oath of office to adhere to the Constitution and apply the rule of law as they were educated, previously licensed and expected to perform their duties within that scope and not some fuzzy feeling of personal affront or injustice to a select few who chose to act outside established laws. Just imagine what would happen if we successfully impeached one lower court activist judge after another (regardless of political affiliation) before we effectively did so with a sitting Supreme Court activist judge?

    50. Pingback: Judge Approves iPhone Class Action Suit Against Apple, AT&T

    51. A. Burrell, Florida says:

      I am totally frustrated with our leaders, particularly judges who do not support our constitutional standards. Why is it that so many are so biased that they continually go against the will of the people merely to support a small, bigoted minority? Even the mere suggestion of a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman would send the creators of our constitution reeling. Neither the vast majority of Americans nor our Creator ( a recent survey says that 86% of Americans believe in God, and that less than 2% of Americans are homosexual) can stomach this insurrection of American ideals. What happened to serving the people? Whether one believes in God or not, at least judges are supposed to believe in our constitution. Without the upholding of our constitution and the will of the people, there will be no America. This is what the liberals want. I will vote out every politician who supports this thinking, and I will be sure to vote for every one who upholds the constitution and the will of the majority.

    52. A. Burrell, Florida says:

      Good question– Who did appoint this judge? We really need to know so that we can vote him out of office. I, too, am opposed to lifetime appointments for judges. Another point: If I am a single mother or father, such as one who is widowed, and my "significant other" is my adult son or daughter or sister or brother; can I file jointly? Can I have my healthcare insurance cover them just as it would for a husband or wife? Can I get a married couples' exemption for capital gains tax? What if my "significant other" is my senior citizen grandmother who is on social security? Consider the ramifications. What's fair is fair.

    53. A. Burrell, Florida says:

      At a gay marriage ceremony, are the couples pronounced "wife & wife" or "husband & husband" ? The only reason for marriage is to provide a stable moral environment in which to have children and to rear them. Some couples cannot have children of their own, so they adopt. I wonder how many women, giving up babies for adoption, would want to have them adopted by gay couples; if given the choice. Poor, sick society. What next, indeed…

    54. Anthony Sandrick Pit says:

      The march goes on. It seems that there is a great failure in our nation to reconize the obvious overthrow of our Judeo-Christian values. The left reads things backwards in hopes to establish Secular Socialist society. It all started in 1960 with a federal suit being won by Madalyn Murry, O'Hair to take prayer out of school. Now the invasion of Marriage The tragic note to this debached ruleing it was leveled by a single Judge over the consensus of millions.

      Their is one simple solution to this and many other unjust an imoral rulings that were shoved up our *^&^&% that is to simply "Remember in November".

    55. rich says:

      This country is slowly destroying the the values that once made it strong. Goodbye to the root of all that is good….the family.

    56. Steve, Los Angeles says:

      As one can see from many comments in this combox, the libertarians are tearing apart the Conservative movement.

      Libertarians: "Morality, smorality, just give me my tax cuts, and bring all the troops home!"

    57. Bruce Barron says:

      It's self evident that the family is prior to the state and the state owes its existence to the family. The state,to insure its continuance,has the obvious moral obligation to protect this union without which it is again obvious it will not continue.

      All the other unions are self evidently unnatural.The state is a natural construct. The state has the legal and moral obligation to see that nothing conflicts with its existence.It has the obligation to ensure that those who gave it its existence continue in existence and to oppose any other kind of union. All these abnormal unions obviously do undermine the moral stability of the state.. The state will not survive if it permits these moral evils.It amounts to suicide.And its all so obvious.

      There are 3 orders–first the moral order; second the political order;and thirdly the economic order.The moral order has now become last and anything goes in politics and finance.But their stability depends on a sound moral order and will eventually collapse without it. Since they will eventually cave in one wonders why and who is destroying the moral order and its principles because it is heading for chaos and anarchy if it continues on this path.

      DOMA is constitutionally sound and whoever has the authority to oppose this judge should, and state the law will not be put into operation.

    58. Bruce Barron says:

      If state legislatures can overrule Supreme Court decisions they can certainly overrule this judge's ruling and restore DOMA to the states.

      Before her decision is accepted she must show by argument that the act is irrational and therefore unconstitutional. DOMA is a justly and rationally formed Constitutional Law.

      Federal rulings on constitutional questions are not final when they touch on the powers of the states.The power here involved is to enforce DOMA.

    59. Bruce Barron says:

      The judge may have struck down DOMA but the states do not have to comply at all.

      The state judges are on a par with the federal judges and should rule to the contrary.

      The trouble with this is that they are all from the same ilk,inbred,and come from the same incestuous relationships they learned at the so called institutions of erroneous learning.They are all of the same mindset.And the state judges think they have to follow the federal courts in their decisions which is false.

      She doesn't have the authority to strike it down for the whole country.

      Since the law was made for all the individual states,the states of their very nature do not have to comply.She can only speak for her district.And Massachusetts is obliged too follow laws made in pursuance of the Constitution and ignore her

      Now who will stand up to her?.

      She is a liberal blivet.

    60. CG, NJ says:

      –Those who lack so called equality are what about 98%+ of the American citizens call perverts who are living their choice of a perverted lifestyle, sometimes called an “alternative lifestyle”. So this activist judge somehow ruled favoring the less than 2% of the U. S. population who knowingly chose to live outside the bounds of the federal law. Well, when you choose that alternative style of living you also get the alternative benefits associated with that choice.– Homosexuality isnt a choice, and fyi- civil marriage has been around MUCH longer than religious marriage

    61. @borebox says:

      Now that gays can serve openly in the military it is only right that this discrimination should be struck down. It denies married gay couples the same rights as straights. I say it is a wonderful day for equality.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.