Skip to main content

View Diary: Elena Kagan proves that DOMA's original intent was bigotry, not tradition (129 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You show perfectly why DOMA is unconstitutional. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    viral, commonmass, doraphasia, GreenMother

    I went to the wedding of two ladies over ten years ago. It was performed by their Rabbi and it seemed as though half the congregation was there. It was a beautiful ceremony. Why hasn't some church or temple filed against DOMA on the grounds that it violates their religious freedom. They are federally recognized and tax exempt. Why are their marriages not recognized? Is that not a basis under which to challenge DOMA?

    That passed by; this can, too. - Deor

    by stevie avebury on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:39:52 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  YES! THIS! And a truly outstanding point (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stevie avebury, commonmass

      Please tell me that you remember this Rabbi and perhaps that should be filed in some kind of amicus brief?

      Because that further goes to show religious bigotry being perpetuated by the US Government and government officials who oppose gay marriage on the sole basis of religion.

      Which if memory serves me correctly, violates the first freedoms of other American Citizens who might be of a different faith, or may not be religious at all.

      The government should not be favoring religion over non-religion and it especially shouldn't be favoring one particular religion above all others, either.

    •  How does it violate their religious freedom? (0+ / 0-)

      You just said they preformed the marriage.

      One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness. ~Towards a Quaker View of Sex, 1964 (Proud left-handed queer here!) SSP: wmlawman

      by AUBoy2007 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 02:45:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is an example of the government choosing (0+ / 0-)

        between religions and promoting the policies of one over another. The marriage that this temple performed should have been valid and recognized by the government if the group itself is recognized. The government refuses to recognize the churches right to marry the couple because it will upset some other church. How is that equal protection? How can the government legislate that one religious institution be able to prevent the rites of some other religion from being recognized? That is not freedom of religion. That is the government picking a religion.

        That passed by; this can, too. - Deor

        by stevie avebury on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 05:21:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not the church that grants legality (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          It's the state.

          As you said, their temple had no problem with them being married, and the only reason it wasn't legal is because the STATE wouldn't grant them a license.

          This should have nothing to do with getting married in a church or other house of worship. It has to do with the legality of the marriage.

          And that is an issue for the STATE.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site