GAY TRUTH

English: Official portrait of United States Attorney General Eric Holder Español: Retrato oficial de Fiscal General de los Estados Unidos Eric Holder (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Yesterday’s announcement by Attorney General Eric Holder that the federal government will recognize the marriage licenses of same-sex couples in Utah —even though the state announced earlier this week that it would not —highlights the need for the federal government to respect state marriage laws. Just yesterday, bipartisan legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives that does just that. The “ State Marriage Defense Act of 2014 ,” HR 3829, requires the federal government to respect state laws on marriage. The Act requires the federal government to look to the laws of the state where citizens reside to determine the definition of “marriage.” It states that the term “marriage” shall “not include any relationship which that State, territory, or possession does not recognize as a marriage,

August 19, 2013 ( The Public Discourse ) - In a recent conversation with a dozen well-educated young social conservatives, I found that hardly any held to what ten years ago would have been considered the conservative position on marriage. A few had accepted the idea that marriage was a social construction that a majority could change. Others opted for the view that it was a religious institution, and political outcomes on the subject didn’t really matter. Still others thought that there were just other, more winnable, battles worth fighting. The most common sentiment: even though none thought a same-sex relationship was a marriage, almost none wanted to play for a losing team whose objective was a national stranglehold on people’s happiness. Common sense has apparently changed a lot in only a few years. When the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed in 1996, the overwhelming majority considered it common sense to protect such a fundamental institution as marriage. By the

polyamory: a primer (Photo credit: Pierre LaScott ) August 7, 2013 ( MercatorNet ) - When the Supreme Court struck down section 3 in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in US v Windsor in June, same-sex marriage was not the only beneficiary. The decision seems to have given fresh impetus to polyamory as well. This is not news that “marriage equality” fans welcome. They look upon legalised polyamory as a dangerous foe because it confuses the message of their own campaign. “Marriage should be extended to people who can’t get married, not those unable to marry six people,”  says Jonathan Rauch , author of  Gay Marriage : Why It is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America . However,  Anita Wagner Illig , a long-time polyamory spokeswoman, told  Newsweek  that the DOMA decision had been a great help: "A favorable outcome for marriage equality is a favorable outcome for multi-partner marriage, because the opposition cannot argue lack of precedent for legalizing

English: The Supreme Court of the United States. Washington, D.C. Français : La Cour suprême des États-Unis. Washington D.C., États-Unis. ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬: Høyesterett i USA. Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) WASHINGTON, D.C. , July 19, 2013 ( LifeSiteNews.com ) – The U.S. House’s GOP-led Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group has withdrawn from a court case in which it was defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and a similar statute, Title 38, against a complaint from homosexuals in the military who want spousal benefits for their same- sex partners . In a federal court   filing , the House lawyers said that the Supreme Court’s June 26 decision to strike down DOMA left them no choice. “The Supreme Court recently resolved the issue of DOMA Section 3’s constitutionality,” wrote the House lawyers. ”The  Windsor   decision necessarily resolves the issue of DOMA Section 3’s constitutionality in this case.” Continued the lawyers, “While the question of whether [T

Last week the Supreme Court ruled in  United States v. Windsor  that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. For all purposes of Federal laws, section 3 defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The case arose in New York, under the law of which same-sex couples may enter a status that New York defined as marriage. Ms Windsor, a resident of New York, was the beneficiary of her deceased same-sex spouse's sizeable estate. Under Federal tax law as affected by section 3 of DOMA, she could not claim the marital exemption that would have sheltered all her inheritance from the IRS. Rather, she was assessed over US$363,000 in Federal estate taxes. The legal issue, as the Court chose to define it in the majority opinion, was whether the Federal constitution was violated when it applied its definition of marriage to the resident of a state in which the definition was broader. In this situation, the Court held, DOMA is unconstitutional as

Yesterday, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court , as expected, overturned part of the Defense of Marriage Act , or DOMA. At the same time the Court declined to rule on California’s Proposition 8 , citing what lawyers call a “lack of standing.” Here's the bottom line: Same-sex marriage is not the law of the land. The Supreme Court did not issue a Roe v. Wade type of decision for gay marriage. Yes, DOMA is gone. But same-sex marriage in California is still up in the air, and everywhere else the battle goes on. The DOMA decision, U.S. v. Windsor, involved the estate of a woman who left everything to her same-sex spouse, a marriage recognized by the state of New York. The surviving spouse was barred from claiming the federal estate tax exemption by Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal purposes. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld the District and Appeals Court’s rulings that DOMA was unconstitutional. Writing for the ma

The Supreme Court rulings on Proposition 8 and DOMA defy thousands of years of history and the findings of sociology, undermine citizen democracy, open the door to polygamy, and rewrite thousands of federal laws on family policy with the stroke of a pen, according to pro-family advocates. “Today the Supreme Court issued the  Roe v. Wade  of marriage,” said Penny Nance , president and CEO of  Concerned Women for America (CWA)  after news of the rulings broke. “These rulings will continue to divide our Republic just as  Roe  continues to do 40 years later.” "The Supreme Court rulings fly in the face of reams of research showing that the best household arrangement for children is a married mom and dad,” said Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, director and senior fellow of  CWA 's Beverly LaHaye Institute. “It represents a national experiment in social reconstruction at the expense of our children's futures and the future of America." “For thousands of years marriage