Quote:
(CNN) -- A federal judge in Boston, Massachusetts, has ruled that the federal ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, because it interferes with an individual state's right to define marriage.
The ruling gives same-sex married couples in Massachusetts the same right to federal benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that "as irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest," the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the protection under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
|
Oh boy, this is not good. It looks good on the surface, as I am pro gay marriage, but this could start a very bad chain of events... a chain of events I have been dreading ever since I heard this case was going to the court system.
This case WILL go to the Supreme Court, mark my words, and there is a very good chance the Supreme Court will find that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. That does not make gay marriage legal, but finds that specifically
banning gay marriage is not legal (if that makes sense and I hope I am presenting this correctly... I'm sure Xantar can clarify if I am not).
All of this sounds great, but the problem is that marriage traditionalists make up the VAST majority of this country. Even in California, beacon of liberalism, voted 80-20 against gay marriage. There might be enough backing to support a marriage amendment to the Constitution, and that would be an awful thing to happen. Also, the debate will be an utter distraction in a time when we have pressing issues that need to be at the forefront.
The last time such divisive social/cultural issues were legislated from the judge's bench, we ended up with Roe vs. Wade, and has that settled anything? No, its 40 years later and the abortion issue is still as divisive as ever. That is what happens when choices are taken from people, and given to a select few judges. This just delays cultural evolution, IMO.
SOURCE:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/08/mas...ex.html?hpt=T2