Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gregory]

1) The United Stated Appealate Court or the 1st Circuit in  Boston has delivered a unanimous decision that has declared that the seciton of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which denied Federal benefits to same-sex couples legally married in States that allolw same sex marriage violates the Constititution of the United States.

The Court ruled that its decision would not go into effect until the United States Supreme Court ruled on the appeal that is certain to be filed.

Briefly:  This ruling established that Federal benefits granted to married people must be given to same-sex couples married in States where such marriages are legal.   Examples of benefits would include: the right to file Federal Income Tax Returns as a married couple and the rights of married couples to Sociaol Security Benefits.

2) The Court did not rule on whether or not States that do not recognize same-sex marriage must recognize same-sex marriages performed in States that recognize them.

3) This decision of the Court does not grant a right for same-sex couples to marry in States that do not recognize such.

4)  One judge was appointed by GHW Bush, one by Clinton and the third by Regan.

[Johann]

Two Republican against one Democrat?

Are judges influence by the party of the President who appoionts them?

[Gregory]

Johann:

The ruling was unanimous--all three judges agreed.

The legal philosophy of the appointing President influence the selection that the President makes.  However,  those views may be moderated by the fact that the President only recommends.  The Senate has to approve.

The legalphilosophy of the appointed judge is likely more important that the political party.

[Johann]

What influence does the individual vote have

1) Presidentian election?

2) Congress?

3) State legislature?

4) State Governor?

Does your vote have any influence on future verdicts like this?

[Gregory]

 Under the philosophy of law in the U.S.  Individual votes are to have no effect on judicial decisions.  Judges are required to rule according to statute law and case law.

The issue comes when the statute must be applied in a situation that could not have been imagined by those who placed the law in effect.  Strict "constructionists" seek to have the statue applied exactly as written even if not written for the context in which it is being applied. The so-called liberal judges seek to determine the intent of those who enacted the statute and apply that intent to the immediate situation.  Of course, there are in-betweens.

Those you have listed generally have the power to enact laws, or to administer governments.  By electing those who have the power to enact laws, individual votes have an influence on the laws that are enacted.

So, my individual vote only potentially influences the types of laws that are enacted.

However, U.S. Courts may take into cosideration the extent to which the people are seeking judicial redress.  On the level of the U.S. Supreme "Court, this is generall expressed by divided appelate court decisions.  It is fromt his standpoint that some legal scholars beleive that the U.S. Supreme Court agree to take a case related to  same-sex marriage.  The Appealate Courts have been divided on this.  However, the current Court typically agrees to take very narrow parts of issues.  So, sit may be questioned as to what aspects to this issue will be ilnitially decided by the U.S.; Supreme Court.

[Johann]

Thank you  Gegory! Does this help us decide how we vote?

[Bob Pickle]

One problem I see is that the appellate judges assumed that the couples in question were in reality "married" when they are not.

"Notably, it prevents same-sex married couples from filing joint federal tax returns ...."

It does not speak well to the intelligence or morality of the judge for him to pretend that two people of the same gender are married when they are not. If he begs to differ, he should file a complaint with the Judge of all the earth, the One who created marriage to begin with.

[Gregory]

Bob:

The Bible is clear (see Romans) that there are two spheres of authority in life--civil and religious/spiritual.

Yes, on an individual basis, the individual Christian is to give priority to the teachings of the Bible.  I acknowledge that.

In the U.S. the civil system is seperate from the religioius/spiritual.  The civil sphere depends on the statutes that are enacated by those who have the power to   enact the laws along with case law.  The civil is unrelated to the religious/spiritual, unless such has been enacted as statute law.

When civil law allows same-sex couples to marry, such are married as it pertains to civil law regardless of any religious/spiritul considerations.

The requirement for our judges to judge according to statute and case law is well founded.  Consider for a moment the situaiton that would exist if judges were to decided on the basis of religous/spiritual considerations.  So, an Islamic judge would consider the teachings of the Koran.  A Hindu judge would consider on the basis of the ancient Indian writing from whihc Hinduism arose.  Would you want that?  Probably you would only want consideration to be given to the Bible, and your understanding at that.

[Johann]

When I served in Nigeria I learned that the country at that time had at least two sets of laws governing marriage. People who followed the native religion were permitted to have several wives but the marriages were to take place according the ancient pagan rituals. Although the country was an independent republic at the time of our arrival, the country still followed British laws when it came to registered marriages. Therefore I could not marry a couple unless they had obtained a license, and if they were married by a pastor/priest on the basis of that license they were not permitted to have another spouse unless they obtained an official divorce.

Since I was never asked to marry a Muslim I never checked the laws governing a Muslim marriage, but is seem like they were permitted to have up to four regular wives.

This just shows what considerations a civil government has to take under varying circumstances. Governments bound by religious liberty cannot only use our Bible as as a rule.

[Gregory]

I met and married my wife in Korea.  She was born in Boston and was teaching in the English department of Sam Yuk Dae Hak Yo (the SDA University).

Native Koreans go married by simply signing a record in their village.  NOTE:  No such thing as a religious marriage.

But, neither she nor I were Koreans.  So, the Korean government had special laws for us.  We had to travel to three different Korean government offices and sign the records in three places.  At that point we were married under Korean law, but that marriage was not recognized by the U.S. government.  To be recognized, we had to go to the U.S. Embasy and present copies of the documents that we had signed for teh Korean government.  Then we had to sign U.S. documents.  At that point we were married under U.S. law.  NOTE:  Again no religious ceremony authorized.

Additional comment:  In order to get married, the U.S. Army had to give me permission.  Even though Sharon was a U.S. citizen, she had to be given a health physical by a military physician.  We had to have that permission before we could go through the Korean stuff.

[Gregory]

This whole process could be complex.  On my first tour in Korean one of the soldiers requested permission to marry a Korean woman.   Her medical condition was evaluated by a military physician.  She was certified.  He was given permission to marry and such took place.  Then it came time for him to rotate back to the United States and she applied for residency documents. She was turned down on the basis the the military health exam had determined that she had TB!  That became a problem

Eventually she was given her residency documents on the basis that she had been certified and she agreed to follow-up medical evaulation and treatment in the United Stated.

NOTE: The certification was in error.

[Bob Pickle]

Bob:

The Bible is clear (see Romans) that there are two spheres of authority in life--civil and religious/spiritual.

The Bible is clear (see Rom. 13) that in civil matters as it pertains to the 2nd table of the Decalog, the civil authorities are God's ministers. It therefore seems quite out of line for civil authorities in the U.S. to pervert what those precepts state. Simply because God uses civil authorities to punish violators of those precepts, does that give those authorities license to abolish or pervert or alter those precepts?

Another matter is honesty. A judge should not lie. He cannot call two people of the same gender married when they are only pretending to be married. And that's the only thing it will ever be able to be is pretending.

The U.S. Constitution prohibits religious tests for office. So now are we going to start prohibiting people from holding federal office if they refuse to lie and call two people of the same gender married?

What if Massachusetts now decides that it wants to allow three people of the same gender to marry? Or 50 year olds and 2 year olds? Or people and baboons? Must the principles of federalism prohibit the U.S. Congress from intruding into a state's right to regulate marriage if Congress decides that it doesn't want to extend the federal benefits of marriage to polygamous "marriages," pedophilic "marriages," and "marriages" with baboons?

(I suppose that Congress might "arbitrarily" specify that marriage has to be within the same species, despite the fact that one's pet baboon may be a very dear companion. But then the evolutionists might retort that the baboon is a close cousin.)

Consider for a moment the situaiton that would exist if judges were to decided on the basis of religous/spiritual considerations.  So, an Islamic judge would consider the teachings of the Koran.  A Hindu judge would consider on the basis of the ancient Indian writing from whihc Hinduism arose.  Would you want that?

Excellent point. But then, what are our civil precepts that regulate interaction between man and man based upon in the U.S.? What moral precepts are the statutes and case law here based upon? It's all based on the 2nd table of the 10 Commandments, is it not? That would help explain why the 10 Commandments appear on the Supreme Court building.