Tuesday, March 03, 2009

"Married" Homosexuals Challenge DOMA In Court

Yesterday we said the Global Warming demonstration in Washington D.C., billed as the biggest ever, may be snowed and frozen out. It was. Even Pelosi couldn't make it because of the weather. Read the story.
________________

Mary Ritchie, a Massachusetts state police trooper and her "spouse" Kathleen Bush, along with about a dozen others, have filed suit against the federal government, claiming DOMA --the Defense Of Marriage Act, which protects traditional marriage as between one man and one woman, discriminates against gay people and is unconstitutional.

This case not only threatens DOMA, but is a case study of what will happen in Washington State if we allow SB 5688 and HB 1727 to pass.

The attitude of the Obama administration is clearly left to extreme left on this and a number of other important values issues.

The President has promised to work to repeal DOMA.

This lawsuit will be a useful tool in that process.

In the set-up of this case, it is possible that with a victory, Massachusetts would be imposing its state laws regarding homosexual marriage onto the entire nation.

Washington State's HB 1727 and SB 5688 is a similar attempt to use litigation to achieve, in this case "marriage," for gays in the state.

Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, says the lawsuit is a "plausible challenge" to DOMA.

Matt Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel said, "Massachusetts has made benefits available on a state level, but cannot force the federal government's hand or the other states to accept same-sex marriage."

However, if this case would in fact defeat DOMA that's exactly what would happen.

If HB 1727 and SB 5688 are passed in Washington, homosexuals will immediately file suit, claiming the state is discriminating against them because there is now no legal difference between domestic partners and marriage. That will also be a "plausible challenge". They will use the resulting law from HB 1727 and SB 5688 as proof.

With a complicit Governor and complicit, or at best, misled Legislature, it will be an easy step from where we are to where the homosexual activists want us to be. It will be a done deal.

This is why we are doing everything we can possibly do to defeat these bills. This is not, nor has it ever been primarily about benefits. It's about redefining marriage.

And this is why we are asking for your financial support and for you to call your elected officials and tell them you oppose these bills. These two bills are on the march and our time frame in which to act is very small.

Thanks for standing with us.

__________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

14 comments:

  1. If HB 1727 and SB 5688 are passed in Washington, homosexuals will immediately file suit, claiming the state is discriminating against them because there is now no legal difference between domestic partners and marriage. That will also be a "plausible challenge". They will use the resulting law from HB 1727 and SB 5688 as proof.

    Got that backwards Gary as you know. Our State Supreme Court has spoken - the legislature can have a DOMA law and as long as the leal qualities that the restricted contract confers are still available through some reasonable means to all married citizens; 'separate but equal' is constitutional in the state of Washington as per their decision. But remember, one of the judges in their opinion advised: go to the legislature and ask for these rights, if they don't give them come back to us.

    Standing in the way of equal rights is what would provide a state Supreme Court challenge that could succeed! As it is giving equal rights by the two current bills prevents any challenge due to the legal decision allowing 'separate but equal'.

    The federal DOMA challenge is different - these are legal married citizens that the federal government is ignoring, that is the basis of the challenge. The federal government can't pick and choose which legal marriages it is going to consider valid as long as marriage is considered a state regulated contract; not by race, not by gender, not by religion, or whatever. And this challenge if successful would only invalidate the portion of DOMA regarding federal recognition of legal marriages, the part that says states don't have to recognize other state's marriage contracts if they choose would remain.

    And, of course, we are talking about a change of 1 out of 50 or 100 marriages even if it was nationwide. I'm sure people have better and more pressing uses for their money in these tough economic times.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oshtur. Gary is NOT saying the gay activists in Washington will repeal DOMA. He is saying they will use the same legal tatics, building upon previous legislation, to achieve their end. In the case of Washington, it is "marriage".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gary is NOT saying the gay activists in Washington will repeal DOMA.

    Actually he is since there can be no marriage equality if the state DOMA exists and the previous challenge was trying to find DOMA unconstitutional in the state. And the state didn't rule that it was ok to have separate sets of rights and responsibilities, it decide that you have have separate mechanisms that confer them.

    That's what's different and why Gary is wrong - as long as all citizens can get the same qualities there is even less of a challenge to the state DOMA than there was the first time. If they tried the 'but now effectively the same contract' approach that Gary suggests, the court will just reply 'Great! That's just what we said WAS constitutional -even less new to see here - move along'.

    Since the state courts said DOMA is constitutional only the legislature or referendum could remove it and/or allow marriage equality - there are no more court challenges possible other than trying to get them to actually reverse their 'separate but equal' opinion and because its member composition hasn't effectively changed that is extremely unlikely now or in the near future.

    Again, save your money passing these bills that give state equivalency protects the state' marriage contract from challenges in light of the courts previous ruling.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is the DIVORCE problem that is the "sin in the camp" of those who claim to be on the "straight" path.

    Ultimately, the ungodly will more than likely prevail as a form of judgement on Washington, and on the country at large.

    We, who call ourselves "Christian" have denied (collectively or nationally) the Word of the living God.

    God HATES divorce...

    It is not that God says, "Too bad, another divorce, I really hate it when that happens...", No, he HATES divorce as he hates homosexuality.

    Anyone, that is to say everyone (regardless of how long, feelings, etc...) who is in a "relationship" while they have a living, pre-existant spouse is actually an adulterer or an adulteress.(period)

    REPENT! (admit it and QUIT it...!)

    And, either remain separate from your Husband or Wife OR, as God is a God of Reconciliation, be RECONCILED TO YOUR HUSBAND! (OR WIFE AS APPLICABLE....)

    STOP your ongoing deception and self-deception that you have "grounds", that you are the "innocent" spouse, etc. YOU DON'T...

    GOD IS ALL IN ALL, He is NOT who you think He is, He is The Great I AM... Creator of the Universe.

    Adulterers will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God...!!!

    REPENT....!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes this is true:

    see http://www.marriagedivorce.com

    Thank you for speaking the truth in love. We must repent and turn from our wicked ways, fall prostrate and pray that it is not too late for the judgement we have "earned" to be withheld...

    God Bless you, and may America Bless God!

    ReplyDelete
  6. What about the coming rally coming on March 19--when we will be standing up fo marriage?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gary, these couples are not "married" but simply married just like every other couple in MA and CT. Similarly Kathleen Bush is Mary Ritchie's spouse, not her "spouse". It's amazing that someone, who spends so much time and energy looking for and publicizing perceived slights ("slights"?) to their group could be cavalier about dehumanizing and slighting another group of people.

    Then again, it seems more and more like being a good conservative is defined as hating all the right people.

    ReplyDelete
  8. We don't hate--we are 'sad' for them. We pray for them. It's a sad situation to all of us for those people caught up in this lie that other than opposite sex relationships is 'normal'--anything else abnormal.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ohstur hope all is well ,

    anom 1234 I agree with your view also that Gary was speaking to the present laws in this state being used as legal precedent . That was why the comparison was given with Mass. Also That has been a consistent tactic and has worked quite well on gay issues by the left . Slowly building on precedent . even to the extent I know gays who have been dis satisfied with how long it has taken to what they believe to be basic civil rights . Actually if gays get the right to marry , I can see the more conservative minded ones jumping ship to the GOP . Politics never builds last relationships , its a what have you done for me lately system .

    The stereotypical comment about conservative being haters almost does not deserve a responce . Only that you must only be diverse with people who think just like you . The only time you most likely deal with conservative minded people is when your debating them on heated subjects .
    The vast majority of my friends at church and through life experiences are usually conservative , not always . They have been the kindest people to all , regardless homeless or rich , straight or not , and always value another person's worth. You get a different view of people when you believe in your heart they are made by God . Blogs and politics usually do not allow God's light to shine , and God is often used from either side for purposes of control ,



    "Honesty is the best policy but insanity is a better defense-"

    ReplyDelete
  10. RE: In the set-up of this case, it is possible that with a victory, Massachusetts would be imposing its state laws regarding homosexual marriage onto the entire nation.

    The "imposing" of state's to recognize other states' marriages is not really the issue for Gary. This already happens every day.

    Any straight person who enters into a legal marriage in any state automatically gets recognition of the marriage in all other states, whether or not their marriage would have been legal in other states.

    That means that first cousins who marry in one state where it's legal can travel through other states without being un-married, then married, then un-married -- even if their marriages would not have been legally entered into in the state they are in.

    Also, the federal goverment recognizes all marriages the states grant to straight couples.

    The only exception to all of this is for gay people. Gay people change marital status as they travel and the federal government does not recognize any of them.

    While Gary might put quotes around the marriages granted to same-sex couples, they are still legal marriages, and fairly entered into according to state laws. Why is it OK to single out marriages of a single group and deny them the basic recognition others so easily get?

    No matter what you think about same-sex marriages, do we really want to go so far as to single out people for exceptions to the law? If we can do it to gays, rest assured, it can be done to you, too.

    Gary's problem has nothing to do with "imposing" marriages on everyone. That's a "benefit" he already enjoys. Gary's problem is that he doesn't want gays to marry, and he will do anything -- including comprimising American values -- to keep it that way.

    Tony in Seattle

    ReplyDelete
  11. Government must understand that
    they are to establish godly values
    in order to secure a good future for all. To go against the values
    of God and his ordained order is to set out on a path ordained for
    destruction.

    How soon do we want to be destroyed? It's up to us and what
    we do with the things God has given us. We can choose to be blessed and to prosper and do good
    and have peace, or we can choose to ignore God and have chaos, confussion, wars, and economic troubles.

    Those trobles come upon godly
    nations also, but the difference is that a godly nation will stand.

    Do we want Washington to stand or be destroyed? Do we want
    Washington to build up America's
    good future or to destroy it?

    Should we rob our future and for what? What will we get in return for our investing in iniquity?

    ReplyDelete
  12. "To go against the values
    of God and his ordained order is to set out on a path ordained for
    destruction. "

    942 anom I believe you may be getting carried away here . You think God would destroy us for legalizing legal contracts that give gays a marriage contract with pension benefits and such ?
    Our nation has been allowing folks living together in legal rental aggreeemnts with legal protection for a long time . In other words we have had at least since the 60s a culture that accepted living together as no big deal in fact a protected status . I don't think God will flip out on gay marriage , I am more concerned with the view that this will only make a bad situation as far as the amount of kids growing up without their natural moma and dad even increase . But I believe God would want gays to have the advantage of a Mom and dad supporting and helping them grow up , not want to destroy them .

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is why we are doing everything we can possibly do to defeat these bills. This is not, nor has it ever been primarily about benefits. It's about redefining marriage
    *****************************
    & in the process you dehumanising a
    group of American citizens
    .

    ReplyDelete
  14. 'in the process you dehumanising a
    group of American citizens

    Ralph interetsing you never see the liberal side that does the same . Not that either side is right .

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.