DOMA Ruling and How Gay Marriage Affects my Family

DOMA Ruling and How Gay Marriage Affects my Family

Diane Robertson

The First District court of appeals in Boston today, May 31, ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. The three panel judge based their decision on the idea that the federal law interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and therefore denies married homosexual couples federal benefits given to married heterosexual couples.

The ruling will be stayed while the case is appealed. Like the California Proposition 8 case, the appeal will most likely be heard en banc before the full panel of judges of the First Circuit Court before heading to the Supreme Court.

William Duncan, from the National Organization for Marriage interpreted the court’s decision thus:

Three judges on a federal appeals court purported to apply two amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Tenth and Fourteenth, to Congress’ definition of marriage which forecloses same-sex marriage for federal-law purposes. The panel said the law did not exceed Congress’ power and would be valid under any analysis used between the time of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) and 1973. The panel said, however, that since 1973 the implications of a handful of U.S. Supreme Court decisions have newly invested the federal courts with a power to second-guess Congress’s purposes. In this case, these three judges decided Congress’s rationales for preserving in law what has been the overwhelming norm of marriage (probably unanimous) for millennia just didn’t measure up.

It is clear from both the DOMA rulings and the Proposition 8 rulings that the Supreme Court will have to take up the issue of gay marriage.

I have been asked why I care about the legalization of gay marriage when it does not affect my heterosexual marriage and my family, and isn’t that just discrimination against a minority group?

I lived in Toronto, Ontario when gay marriage became legal in 2003. This did not have any effect on my individual marriage. It did have an immediate effect on my family and how I taught my children. With the change in the law my young children saw a number of homosexual couples being overtly intimate on the streets. My children asked questions. I had to answer, even though my 6, 4 and 2 year old children did not know anything about sexual intercourse and sexuality. As time has passed, the affect that gay marriage has on individuals and families is becoming more and more clear.

Gay marriage in Canada, and gay marriage and civil unions in the United States and other nations has a huge effect on future laws, children’s education, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and decency. It changes society, and as Canada and other nations are proving it sexualizes children, promotes early promiscuity and sexual experimentation while silencing parents, families, and religions.

This last winter in Laramie, Wyoming, my 16 year old niece took a high school course on diversity.  Instead of the course being about different races and cultures, the course was mainly about homosexuality. In this class students were encouraged to experiment with homosexuality. Any voices against the gay agenda were immediately silenced and counted as bigoted.

In Ottawa, Ontario there is a “Sex: a Tell-All Exhibition” at the Ottawa’s Museum of Science and Technology created for teens by the Montreal Science Centre with the help of “sexologists.” Among other things, it praises multiple partners and includes a “climax room” with depictions of aroused genitals as a recording describes the sensation of orgasm. This has been in other museums in Canada, and until there was enough outrage in the community, the exhibit displayed an animated video of teens masturbating and allowed children as young as 12 to enter the exhibit without an adult.

Last winter in Alberta, Canada, Bill 2, the Alberta Education Act, originally stated that even home schooled families would not be allowed to teach their children religious-based beliefs on homosexuality.  The bill passed with an amendment stating that, “the government of Alberta recognizes that parents have a right to choose the religious and ethical traditions in which their children are raised”. The amendment doesn’t change that public and private schooled children will be taught a comprehensive sexual education course that must “honour and respect” the controversial Alberta Human Rights Act that has been used to target Christians with traditional beliefs on homosexuality.

Right now in the UK, A draft of new guidelines titled “Personal beliefs and medical practice” issued by the UK’s General Medical Council warns doctors that exercising their conscience rights to not prescribe the abortifacient morning after pill, not referring for abortions or performing gender reassignment surgery, could endanger their license to practice, and psychologists are not allowed to offer any therapy for unwanted same sex attraction.

A bill is currently going through the California legislature that would ban all therapies used to treat unwanted homosexual feelings regardless of patient consent and desire.

There are numerous cases where business owners, hotel owners, and doctors have been sued for denying services because of religious beliefs or moral objections.  I repeat: legalized gay marriage has a huge effect on future laws, children’s education, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and decency.

 

8 Comments
  • Nathan000000
    Posted at 07:40h, 01 June Reply

    This article would be much stronger if there were links to more of the assertions, such as the hypersexualization of children.

  • Michael C
    Posted at 08:38h, 01 June Reply

    The arguments provided are making a case not against the inclusion of gay couples in the institution of marriage, but against homosexuality itself. The Ottawa exhibit and the UK “warning” about morning after pills, abortion and gender reassignment have nothing to do with either homosexuality or marriage.

  • Truth
    Posted at 10:02h, 01 June Reply

    “With the change in the law my young children saw a number of homosexual couples being overtly intimate on the streets. My children asked questions. I had to answer, even though my 6, 4 and 2 year old children did not know anything about sexual intercourse and sexuality.”

    The law didn’t make it so that gay people could be “overtly intimate on the streets.” You know this, I know this and everyone else knows this. This is just a poor attempt to lay blame and nothing more.

    If you had to explain “sexual intercourse and sexuality” to a 6, 4 and 2 year old you should have them taken away. This is just another attempt by you to scare and cause fear in others. Seriously the conversation would go: why are those two boys kissing each other? because they love each other, oh, ok, can i have a cookie? Really what is it that you “had” to tell your children?

    “Gay marriage in Canada, and gay marriage and civil unions in the United States and other nations has a huge effect on future laws, children’s education, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and decency.”

    What religious freedom are you talking about here? The freedom to actively flout the laws? To openly discriminate? Your religious freedoms have always ended where mine began. Decency according to who? Dencency is treating people equally, not using some chosen faith, or dislike to treat others as sub-par.

    “It changes society, and as Canada and other nations are proving it sexualizes children, promotes early promiscuity and sexual experimentation while silencing parents, families, and religions.”

    You really need a citation here. How does allowing gays to marry cause any of these wild claims of yours?

    “This last winter in Laramie, Wyoming, my 16 year old niece took a high school course on diversity. Instead of the course being about different races and cultures, the course was mainly about homosexuality. In this class students were encouraged to experiment with homosexuality. Any voices against the gay agenda were immediately silenced and counted as bigoted.”

    Another citation needed. I really find this quite suspect and it would not surprise me that you are quite incorect in your accusations here.

    “In Ottawa, Ontario there is a “Sex: a Tell-All Exhibition” at the Ottawa’s Museum of Science and Technology created for teens by the Montreal Science Centre with the help of “sexologists.” Among other things, it praises multiple partners and includes a “climax room” with depictions of aroused genitals as a recording describes the sensation of orgasm. This has been in other museums in Canada, and until there was enough outrage in the community, the exhibit displayed an animated video of teens masturbating and allowed children as young as 12 to enter the exhibit without an adult.”

    What does this have to do with gays getting married? Seriously, more scare and fear. Is anyone forcing you to attent this exhibit? Your attempt to tie this exhibt to gays getting married is quite laughable and really makes you look like a fool.

    “Last winter in Alberta, Canada, Bill 2, the Alberta Education Act, originally stated that even home schooled families would not be allowed to teach their children religious-based beliefs on homosexuality. The bill passed with an amendment stating that, “the government of Alberta recognizes that parents have a right to choose the religious and ethical traditions in which their children are raised”. The amendment doesn’t change that public and private schooled children will be taught a comprehensive sexual education course that must “honour and respect” the controversial Alberta Human Rights Act that has been used to target Christians with traditional beliefs on homosexuality.”

    Again, what does this have to do with gays getting married? Nothing. Being gay is legal and natural and in our education system teaching otherwise is wrong. Our secular education system needs to teach the laws of the land. Not religous dogma. Of course outside of “school” parents are still free to tell their kids that gay is icky. Just as you are free to do so.

    “Right now in the UK, A draft of new guidelines titled “Personal beliefs and medical practice” issued by the UK’s General Medical Council warns doctors that exercising their conscience rights to not prescribe the abortifacient morning after pill, not referring for abortions or performing gender reassignment surgery, could endanger their license to practice, and psychologists are not allowed to offer any therapy for unwanted same sex attraction.”

    If a doctor can’t do their job becuase of their religion or faith then they shouldn’t be a doctor. Seriously would you want to be denied because someone didn’t like the look of you and said that it’s against their “conscience”? We all deserve, no demand, eaqual treatment in healthcare.

    Reparative therapy has been proven to be very harmful and ineffective. Even Dr. Spitzer has denounced his own study that “gays could change”. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html)

    “A bill is currently going through the California legislature that would ban all therapies used to treat unwanted homosexual feelings regardless of patient consent and desire.”

    You aren’t quite correct here. It is banned for minors. If you are over 18 you can still attempt this change. By not telling the whole truth you are just adding more lies and fear into others.

    “There are numerous cases where business owners, hotel owners, and doctors have been sued for denying services because of religious beliefs or moral objections. I repeat: legalized gay marriage has a huge effect on future laws, children’s education, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and decency.”

    Being gay is legal even before gays could get married. People could get sued for refusing services before gays could get married. Your attempt to say all these things happen because now gays can marry is a fallacy. You don’t get to discriminate because you find gays icky. I am curious as to what free speech you think you are losing. Please cite some sources as near as I can tell you can still voice your opinion. I think that’s self evident in your post here.

    In a nutshell gays getting married has gotten in your way to openly treat others as second class citizens and nothing more. You just don’t like the sound of this and how it makes you look when correctly put this way.

  • Lar P.
    Posted at 18:06h, 02 June Reply

    With all of the examples that were mentioned in the text, I have to wonder how many places the author and her family currently lives in. It sounds as if she live across several provinces, nations and continents. That or they are just listing things that do not affect her directly but things that she just wished to complain about.

  • Meagan
    Posted at 20:18h, 03 June Reply

    That is nice that you are concerned about the author staying on topic Michael and Nathan, but I think you guys miss the point. I saw this article as a good insight into how giving homosexuality a place of great honor (not just tolerated) in our society opens the floodgates to honoring other kinds of deviant sexuality and social taboos. Why do you think that the repeal of don’t ask don’t tell also made bestality legal? People who practice deviant sex often don’t just focus on one kind. Why is gender reassignment being seen as a right at the same time? Gender-confused folks also tend to be sexuality confused folks. And people who promote abortion, like Planned Parenthood, also are usually pro-deviant sex because they work hand in hand to separate sex and consequences. If you need more understanding on how these are related I recommend the book The Industrial Sex Complex put out by the Lighted Candle Society which will give you the proven facts and studies you are looking for.

    The people have a right to decide which institutions deserve their tax dollars and honor. Rule by the people, not the ideals of special interest groups is a basic principle, at least it is here in the USA. Occasionally the people make a dumb law that’s against their state’s constitution and the courts have to slap them on the hand for that, but there’s a way to remedy that. It’s definitely not unconstitutional if they make the definition of marriage part of their state’s constitution via amendment. The day we start saying the constitution is unconstitutional is a dangerous day.

  • United Families International
    Posted at 14:28h, 04 June Reply

    The point is not that every change in society resulting from legalizing gay marriage etc., will have a direct relationship to homosexuality. Rather the opposite is the case. The point the article is making is that by giving a group of people special legal status by legalizing gay marriage, civil unions and making nondiscrimination laws specifically because of their sexuality, this changes many other things in law and society. In particular by giving special status to sexuality this undermines religion and the first amendment’s protections of freedom of religion. This may not have been apparent at first, but it is becoming more and more obvious.

    Because the majority of religions teach that homosexuality is a sin, that puts what homosexual’s feel and believe and what religions teach in opposition to each other. Since, the constitution of the United States, and the governments in most of the Western world were based on Jude o-Christian values, things will naturally have to change when homosexuality is given special status, because now instead of religious values having the forefront of law and society, sexual preferences are given that status. The two do not stand together. These changes where sexual preference is given the forefront of law are being seen in a variety of places.

    The UK warning about the morning after pill, abortion, and sex reassignment is very relevant because in the past the protection of freedom of religion would naturally place a persons conscience above another persons sexual preference. When the law changes to give sexuality special status that protection religion gave to one’s conscientious choices will change. It is no longer okay to say, “I don’t believe this is right, go see someone else.” Because the “new right” is sexual choice. Pregnancy is a very real part of all things sexual, and therefore abortion is placed in the same category.

    The tax funded sexual exhibition in Canada is relevant in the same way. All things sexual now have a right over all things religion– including promoting promiscuity and experimentation for children.

    As far as changes in the education system goes, three of the judges on the first circuit court believe that when the law is changed then it is important to change education too. As part of the ruling in a 2008 case of Parker vs the Lexington, MA school board, the court stated, “Given that Massachusetts has recognized gay marriage under its state constitution, it is entirely rational for its schools to educate their students regarding that recognition.”http://www.glad.org/current/pr-detail/glad-applauds-decision-affirming-schools-diversity-teaching/

    When asked about conflicts between religious freedom and sexual liberty, Chai Feldblum, Pres. Obama’s appointee to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission stated, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/10/05/chai-feldblum-on-sexual-liberty-vs-religious-liberty/

    Diane Robertson

  • Truth
    Posted at 09:29h, 05 June Reply

    “The point is not that every change in society resulting from legalizing gay marriage etc., will have a direct relationship to homosexuality. Rather the opposite is the case. The point the article is making is that by giving a group of people special legal status”

    Disallowing a man to marry a man is giving special status to men who want to marry a woman. Allowing a man to marry a man does not give anyone any special status. Heterosexuals are allowed to marry the person they love. Homosexuals cannont. How can you not see that this is a “special status” for heterosexuals?

    “In particular by giving special status to sexuality this undermines religion and the first amendment’s protections of freedom of religion.”

    Citation needed. How does it undermine religion considering that civil marriage laws having absolutely nothing to do with religion. Please give an example of how anyone’s freedom of religion is being restricted. Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. You don’t get to ignore civil laws and cite your chosen faith as a reason. Is this what you want to be able to use your freedom of religion to do? Deny others?

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/01/47019.htm

    “Because the majority of religions teach that homosexuality is a sin, that puts what homosexual’s feel and believe and what religions teach in opposition to each other.”

    Sin is only a concept for those who believe. It is not law nor are laws based on sin. You may attempt to say that they are, look at murder and stealing, those are sins. They may well be but they also cause harm to others. That is why they are illegal. Some religions teach that homosexuality is a sin but under civil law it’s not illegal and being gay causes no one any harm. To some eating pork is a sin. However it’s not illegal.

    Until you get fired from your job or lose your home because you are straight there will always be the need for anti-discrimination laws.

    “Since, the constitution of the United States, and the governments in most of the Western world were based on Jude o-Christian values, things will naturally have to change when homosexuality is given special status, because now instead of religious values having the forefront of law and society, sexual preferences are given that status.”

    I would suggest that you read up on the Treaty of Tripoli. Specifically Article 11. Laws are not based on any religion no matter how much you want to say that they are. Also trying to denegrate something as innate and sexual orientation by labeling it “sexual preference” is quite telling.

    “The UK warning about the morning after pill, abortion, and sex reassignment is very relevant because in the past the protection of freedom of religion would naturally place a persons conscience above another persons sexual preference.”

    Again I fail to see how a person’s “sexual preference” is related to abortion or the morning after pill. You fail to see how wrong this is. A person’s chosen faith should in no way whatsoever be involved with medical health care being provided.The Mormon faith believes that black people are cursed. Would you stand up with someone denying a black person health care because their chosen faith says they are cursed? Would you think that’s right?

    “The tax funded sexual exhibition in Canada is relevant in the same way. All things sexual now have a right over all things religion– including promoting promiscuity and experimentation for children.”

    Failed again to say what this has to do with gays getting married. What you are attempting to do is blame the movement of sexual freedom on gay people. You might want to consider what role bra burning played in the sexual freedom movement. Your, or any religion, has no place in controling anyone’s freedom. Being gay no more equals promiscuity than being straight equals monogamy.

    You may consider sex to be a bad thing unless between two married, opposite sex people, in the dark missionary style and that is perfectly fine. However your beliefs don’t trump others. Religion has no place in anyone’s life but for the one that chooses to follow it.

    “As far as changes in the education system goes, three of the judges on the first circuit court believe that when the law is changed then it is important to change education too. As part of the ruling in a 2008 case of Parker vs the Lexington, MA school board, the court stated, “Given that Massachusetts has recognized gay marriage under its state constitution, it is entirely rational for its schools to educate their students regarding that recognition”

    Finally something related to gays getting married. As there are gay kids and children from same sex couples in school this should absolutely happen. Kids will learn diversity, understanding and tolerance. Is this is a bad thing? Of course it isn’t. Public schools are for the public. Gays and straights alike. No public school should ever teach any religion.

    “When asked about conflicts between religious freedom and sexual liberty, Chai Feldblum, Pres. Obama’s appointee to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission stated, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.””

    Absolutely. Religion has been used for centuries to control others. So many people have been killed “in the name of God”. It is used as a scapegoat to hate and treat others as sub-human and those days are over.

  • Deacon Bob Fournier
    Posted at 15:14h, 12 June Reply

    Deny others—no—-but step on my toes and you will hear from me.

Post A Comment

twenty − sixteen =