Attorney general to extend recognition of same-sex marriage rights to all states


#1

(CNN) – Attorney General Eric Holder says he is set to extend the federal government’s recognition of same-sex marriages even in the 34 states that don’t consider it legal.

CNN has obtained excerpts of a speech Holder will deliver at the Human Rights Campaign’s New York City gala event Saturday night.

Holder plans to announce that the Justice Department will issue a memo Monday that recognizes same-sex marriages “to the greatest extent possible under the law.”

cnn.com/2014/02/08/politics/holder-same-sex-marriage-rights/index.html


#2

That guy makes me sick. Thinks he is King Holder and can do what he wants, just like someone else I know.

I will pray for him, somehow.


#3

I applaud the man ffor his courage. Equal rights for ALL Americans under the rule of Constitutional law.

Thank God our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters will finally under the Constitution will finally have marriage equality.:thumbsup:


#4

I hope he will also extend Federal recognition of the Easter Bunny to those states which do not recognize him.


#5

Uh…wow. Did this basically just legalize same-sex marriage at the national level? It vaguely seems like it did.


#6

I suppose that it means, for example that a same sex couple “married” in some state where it is legal, but residing in Kansas, where it is not, could file a joint federal tax return. They probably could not file a joint Kansas tax return, which might be problematic, because the Kansas filing status is supposed to be the same as the Federal filing status.


#7

I hope the states will pass legislation nullifying this and then sue the DOJ for violating the plenary powers clause.


#8

As far as I know a state cannot pass a law nullifying action of a federal agency. And in this case the federal government has the backing of the federal courts. What could happen is that the US congress passes a law and the president signs it that would nullify the action and write it in such a way, unlike DOMA, that the SCOTUS upholds it. But let me be perfectly clear on this point before you get your hopes up: THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN with this congress and president.

Elections have their consequences…


#9

Under the 2014 Employer Withholding guide it tells employers to withhold as married if married in any state, even if the marriage is not recognized in the state of residence.


#10

Great news!!!


#11

Courage? Are you kidding? Hes a political hack. It doesnt take courage to coddle the gay vote. It takes courage to stand up to it. ’

As for the Constitution, there is simply NO right to for homosexuals to “marry” under the Constitution. The recent DOMA and Prop 8 decisions were more states rights decisions than anything else , which he is now perverting and trying to overstep his role as AG. And states have every right to define marriage as they see fit despite what these liberal judges think. There is NO discrimination against a homosexual for not being able to have a same sex “marriage”. The state has every right to support heterosexual marriages for the creation and protection of children, while deciding that there is NO state interest in lending support to homosexual unions. When someone can define the benefit to the state of state recognition of homosexual unions, then we can talk. But I have yet to see anyone argue such a benefit for the basis of public policy. Therefore, the state has every right to discriminate against recognition of traditional marriage over gay “marriage”.

Marriage equality is a meaningless propaganda term used to convince nice people like yourself that every marriage is just as valid as the other. There can be no gay “marriage” equality because marriage is one man and one woman for the potential creation and support of children. Without the potential for creating children , the state has no interest in recognizing and supporting marriage. And thus, gay marriage is utterly meaningless and equal to nothing like real marriage.

Its great to be nice and loving and tolerant of other people. But marriage is for a very specific purpose - for the creation and support of children and family unity. We should want the state involved in our lives only when absolutely necessary. Thus , since children sustain society, the state has a reasonable interest to support such traditional marriage which provides a mother and a father! Supporting any other arrangement for the family only distorts the ideal of human community and, the state should only be interested in supporting the ideal institutions. And in terms of gay “marriage” , it is simply UNEQUAL rights to deny both a mother and father to a child in favor of rights of gay parents to be “married” and adopt children. The so-called Marriage Equality that you favor is really child inequality. Children have the right to a mother and a father! Simply put, your “Marriage Equality” = Childrens Rights Inequality!


#12

No, you must have misread the OP. I see you are a Catholic so Yep you misunderstood it. This is not good news. Au contraire it’s grave


#13

May I ask you both what you believe marriage is?

Thank you for reading
Josh


#14

I don’t think that clause applies, since Holder’s decision only affects the federal government.

The news article uses the example of a same-sex couple who marry in Massachusetts, but later file for federal bankruptcy while living in Alabama. Under Holder’s plan, the couple’s application would have legal standing with the federal courts.

Holder’s decision would only apply to areas in which the federal government has jurisdiction. As someone else mentioned, the same-sex married couple could file a joint federal tax return, but would not be able to file a joint Alabama tax return.


#15

Which is a lawsuit factory, as most - if not all - states require that the federal and state filing status be identical.


#16

I didn’t know the Attorney General had the authority to do that.


#17

It is a matter of what the Feds will prosecute or what they will not prosecute.

Bobby Kennedy did a lot as Attorney General during the civil rights days.


#18

What do you believe marriage is? I am almost sure we are not in agreement. But that’s ok, because I still think the Attorney General did the right thing.


#19

They already have it here in Michigan. A homosexual couple can enter into a civil marital contract under the same terms as anyone else.

Namely, an unmarried adult human can enter into a contract with an unmarried, consenting, adult human of the opposite sex.

The law is applied equally to all :thumbsup:


#20

Another example of the feds overstepping their bounds, bullying the states’ who disagree and forcing their totalitarian agenda on the nation as a whole :mad:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.