GAY TRUTH

US President Barack Obama A Bigot?  Fourteen months ago, President Obama was a bigot. Now he is simply wrong. That's what you have to believe to agree with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy 's majority opinion for the Supreme Court on the Defense of Marriage Act. Kennedy writes that the only reason Congress had for passing DOMA - which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law - was to "disparage," "injure," "degrade," "demean" and "humiliate" gay and lesbian Americans . So in 2008 when the American people elected a president opposed to redefining marriage, they elected a bigot. Got it? When President Obama "evolved" on the issue just over a year ago, he insisted that the debate about marriage was legitimate one. He said there are people of goodwill on both sides. Supporters of marriage as we've always understood it (a male-female union) "are not coming at it fro

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

Today the Supreme Court issued rulings on two historic and controversial cases which challenged the legal validity, at both the state and federal level, of the the traditional definition of marriage. Here are nine things you should know about the cases: 1. The two cases,  United States v. Windsor   and  Hollingsworth v. Perry , are each based on differing -- and perhaps mutually exclusive -- theories of which level of government has the right to define marriage. The challenge to DOMA ( Windsor ) was based on the claim that marriage is a matter for state rather than federal regulation while the challenge to Proposition 8 ( Hollingsworth ) was a challenge to to the claim that an individual state can define marriage as between one woman and one man. 2.  United States v. Windsor  was a direct challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This  case was not about  whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but rather whether Congress can treat married same

On the last day of its term, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today on two same-sex marriage cases. Both are important cases, and both will go far in redefining the most basic institution of human civilization. The Court knew it was making history. A majority of the justices clearly intended to make history, and future generations will indeed remember this day. But for what? In the first decision handed down today, the Supreme Court found that the Defense of Marriage Act , passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, is unconstitutional. Specifically, it found that the federal government’s refusal to recognize a same-sex marriage that is legal in a state to be unconstitutional. The Court left in place the DOMA provision that protects states from being required to recognize a same-sex union that is valid in another state. In the Proposition 8 case, the Court’s majority held that the plaintiffs in the case, representing the people of California

March 26, 2013 ( thePublicDiscourse ) - What would the triumph of same-sex marriage mean for American civilization? Americans disagree on this question. Liberals think of it merely as an incremental step toward justice understood as equality. For them, homosexuals have been unjustly excluded from marriage, and now they no longer will be. Nothing more momentous is involved. Conservatives, on the other hand, think of same-sex marriage not as an extension of marriage but as a radical redefinition of it. To tamper with the very definition of a fundamental social institution like marriage, they warn, is to invite all manner of threatening consequences. The conservatives are closer to the truth than the liberals on this question, but their foreboding does not go far enough. To embrace same-sex marriage is to plunge headlong into the abyss of nihilism. It is to step into a realm in which there are no longer any solid or reliable public standards of judgment as to what is right and w