Justice

[Cole Parker]

We ARE moving forward.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009...d-benefits.html

C

[JamesSavik]

that'll be appealed so fast it'll make your head spin.

look for the inJustice Department to be Halo dropping lawyers to the US Federal District Court of Central California to defend their precious DOMA.

[DesDownunder]

All marriage banned in Texas, Yes, I said ALL marriage.

See this rather fun

oops.

[Grant Bentley]

brit18uk you summed it up perfectly.

[Drewbie]

and which is odd is where I live in that is considered a Bible belt. No one is really even religious in this part of the state or heard much of an issue. but there was enough of them to pass that stupid law here wasn't for marriage more for after certain amount of years your basically considered married if you live with someone and get bennies. but it also screws over straight couples.

After following your link, Cole, I spotted the map thingy that explains the various states positions on gay marriage and civil union's.

I've heard a great deal about the Bible belt and wondered if all those states in the middle and south west of the country, with the exception of the two marked in grey, are the one's who make up the Bible belt.

If that is the case then it illustrates a glaring example of which portions of their Bible they actually read and follow. They seem to totally ignore Christ's teachings and go for the 2 to 5000 year old Old Testament. I wonder how many of them realize that it was originally written for the ancient Jewish community who populated the middle east of that time.

Christ is actually credited with saying something to this effect; "All that has gone before is past", and he then followed that with something akin to 'new beginnings' etc etc etc. Thats a little vague, I know, but I don't practice any kind of religion and the few pertinent facts I am aware of are from what little I've read purely for the interest of trying to understand the many outlandish views I read about.

A great many theologians actually believe that the Old Testament has no bearing from the death of Christ onwards so the teachings of Levicticus and his fellows are really just so much 'hog-wash'. That, of course, is only if you take any notice at all of the Christian scholars and a large number of Jewish scholars, too, for there is an eminent group of forward thinking Rabbi's who debate this as well.

I always thought that Christianity was actually named after Christ and, if that is so, it shows those Bible belt nuts to be the poor excuse for Christian's they actually are if they are ignoring the word of Christ himself.

The Old Testament, from what I can understand of it, is a book filled with predjudicial teachings, intolerance with an utter lack of humanity, and even hatred. That being so, and with the huge amount of people reading it daily, and believing it, then its no wonder you are seeing the predjudice you do. We have it in Britain but I don't think its as widespread amongst the community as it is in the US. We, as a nation, have the 'civil partnership' enshrined in law as well.

Rick

[E.J.]

Seems that the Obama administration is fighting this ruling....or maybe just ignoring it.

LINK

but the judge is fighting back:

LINK

[colinian]

Seems that the Obama administration is fighting this ruling....or maybe just ignoring it.

LINK

but the judge is fighting back:

LINK

The Defense of Marriage Act is a U.S. Federal law. The Justice Department (not the "Obama administration") is required to defend all Federal laws when there is a court case. They can't pick-and-choose which to defend and which to ignore. The good thing is that is that Federal courts are passing rulings that question the legality of DOMA. Eventually it will find its way to the Supreme Court. What happens there is anyone's guess. What's needed is a bill submitted in and passed by Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. President Obama has said he will sign such a bill when it arrives on his desk.

Colin

[E.J.]

The justice department isn't involved....yet.

Quote by the Judge:

The Executive Branch, acting through the Office of Personnel Management, thought otherwise. It directed the insurance carrier not to process Ms. Golinski's form 2809, thwarting the relief I had ordered.

From the second link:

Sidestepping constitutional questions about equal treatment for gays under the law, he agreed that the Defense of Marriage Act forbids the government from recognizing gay marriages. But Kozinski's argument centers on the Federal Health Benefits Act, which says that coverage must be provided for an employee's family, including a spouse and children under the age of 21. While the Administration interpreted that as meaning the coverage could only be provided for couples whose marriages are recognized under federal law, Kozinski reasoned that the law should be seen as setting a minimum standard for coverage, and that policies could include grandparents living at home, children until they are 25 or, as in Golinski's case, a woman with whom she is raising a child and is married to under state law.

[colinian]

The justice department isn't involved....yet.

Actually, they are:

Justice Department Now Grudgingly Defending DOMA

US Judges Rebel Over DOMA

News articles referring to the Department of Justice as "Obama's" is disingenuous. The DOJ is headed by an Obama appointee, the Attorney General Eric Holder. He is an appointee, he reports to the President, but he does not take his marching orders from the President or anyone else in the Executive Office. The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice Organization, Mission and Functions Manual:

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The position of Attorney General was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789. In June 1870 Congress enacted a law entitled "An Act to Establish the Department of Justice." This Act established the Attorney General as head of the Department of Justice and gave the Attorney General direction and control of U.S. Attorneys and all other counsel employed on behalf of the United States. The Act also vested in the Attorney General supervisory power over the accounts of U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.

The mission of the Office of the Attorney General is to supervise and direct the administration and operation of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Bureau of Prisons, Office of Justice Programs, and the U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals Service, which are all within the Department of Justice.

The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:

> Represent the United States in legal matters.

> Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.

> Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.

> Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.

> Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.

> Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.

The President cannot unilaterally overturn an act of law passed by the Congress, nor can the President direct the Department of Justice to not represent the United States in legal matters where such an act of law is challenged. The Congress must overturn DOMA. To do so there must be a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and it's currently believed that the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture on such a bill could not be achieved.

Colin

[Cole Parker]

The links you provide, Colin, bring back hope that fairness and equality still have a reasonable chance of prevailing. Thanks for that.

C

[Pee Jay]

He is an appointee, he reports to the President, but he does not take his marching orders from the President or anyone else in the Executive Office.

Nor does he advance policy or law. He's an enforcer, that's his job. The law is the law and he can't change that. He's bound to uphold it. So he's a non-player in that regard. Yes, he may choose not to prosecute an issue but he can't change the outcome.

Pee Jay