Recent United States Supreme Court rule that Gay's lose Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

LEGAL THREATS TO TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE: IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC POLICY
HEARING BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THEJUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The purpose of today's hearing is to explore threats posed to
traditional marriage, historically understood as the union of one man
and one woman, by recent court decisions, including the United States
Supreme Court's Lawrence decision and the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court's Goodridge decision. Despite the authority of
Congressto enact the Defense of Marriage Act under clear
constitutional provisions, which wasthe subject of our last hearing,
it is unfortunately becoming increasingly common to see once clearly
understood constitutional provisions wash away over time following a
slowly advancing tide of judicial precedence. For example, in 1965,
the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut discovered a
constitutional right to contraception rooted in the right to marital
privacy.By the time the Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, the right
to reproductive privacy was applied to abortion, wholly outside the
context of marriage. In 1986, the Court in Bowers v. Hardwick
refused to create a right of sexual privacy for same-sex couples, but
then in 2003, the Court reversed itself in Lawrence v. Texas. In
Lawrence, the Court claimed not to have gone so far as to establish a
right to same-sex marriage, but then the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court prominently used the Lawrence decision just a few
months later to do just that. While the Massachusetts court
repeatedly cites in its decision the Massachusetts Constitution,
nowhere in the Goodridge decision did the court state precisely which
provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution had been violated by the
State's traditional marriage policy. Instead, the Massachusetts court
expansively cited Lawrence v. Texas as establishing a broad right of
personalautonomy, failing to acknowledge the statement in Lawrence
that ``the case does not involve whether the Government must give
formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to
enter,'' and also failing to acknowledge any of the differences
between laws regulating private sexual behavior and laws establishing
public family relationships. The Massachusetts court in Goodridge
concluded there was ``no rational reason'' for restricting the
benefits of marriage to heterosexual couples. That court thus asserted
via what The Washington Post editorial page has called a judicial fiat
that the three reasons the State of Massachusetts gave for giving
preferred status to heterosexual marriage--promoting procreation,
encouraging the raising of children in two-parent biological families,
American society will come to formally recognize gay relationships as
a result of judicial fiats and we felt that the four-to-three majority
on the Massachusetts court had stretched to find a right to gay
marriage in that commonwealth's 224-year-old Constitution. When moral
certainty bleeds into judicial arrogance in this fashion, it deprives
the legislature of any ability to balance the interests of the
different constituencies who care passionately about the question.
Given the moral and religious anxiety many people feel on the subject
and the absence of clear constitutional mandates for gay marriage,
judges ought to be showing more respect for elected officials trying
to make this work through a political process,'' and again, that was
The Washington Post. First, it is expected that some same-sex couples
will soon marry in Massachusetts and then file lawsuits in other
States to force those other States to recognize the same-sex marriage
licenses granted in Massachusetts. Second, activists can be expected
to file new cases similar to Goodridge in other States to demand
recognition of same-sex marriage as a constitutional right under those
States' laws. Third, same-sex couples who havemarried in
Massachusetts can also be expected to apply for Federal benefits, such
as Federal employee health insurance. When such applications are
denied under the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) First, it is
expected that some same-sex couples will soon marry in Massachusetts
and then file lawsuits in other States to force those other States to
recognize the same-sex marriage licenses granted in Massachusetts.
Second, activists can be expected to file new cases similar to
Goodridge in other States to demand recognition of same-sex marriage
as a constitutional right under those States' laws. Third, same-sex
couples who havemarried in Massachusetts can also be expected to apply
for Federal benefits, such as Federal employee health insurance. When
such applications are denied under the Federal Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA) as ruled in favor of Federal Government not to Defense Gay
Rights by The United States States Supreme Court on DOMA.

--
President of The United States
Guy Ralph Perea Sr President of The United States
Weatherdata1046am0426 a Discussion Group of
Weatherdata<http://groups.google.com/group/weatherdata1046am0426>
USFMSC
http://www.cityfreq.com/ca/avalon/>
QUALIFY QICP
OCCUPS
http://www.occupationalinfo.org/02/025062010.html
goldlandabstracts; link check
own search engine - The United
States International Policies
http://apps.facebook.com/faceblogged/?uid=1340855784
http://lnk.ms/8d5gl aol
http://groups.google.com/group/united-states-of-american
http://twitter.com/ptusss Federal Communication
Commission<http://columbiabroadcast.spaces.live.com/>

Ambassador Chevy Chase; Kevin Corcran; Jack Nickolas; Cher; Shirley Temple
Black; Liza Minnille; Ansari; Ernest Tascoe; Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
Agent Jodie Foster; Department of Veterans Affairs Director George H.W. Bush
Title 22 USCS section 1928 (b) The e-mail
transmission may contain legally privileged information that
is intended only for the individual or entity recipient, you are hereby,
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the
contents of this E-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
E-mail transmission in error, please reply to the sender, so arrangements
can be made for proper delivery. Title 42
USCS section 192 etseq Margie Paxton Chief of Childrens Bureau
Director of The United States Department of Human Services; Defendant
Article IV General Provisions Section 2
(Supreme Law of The Land) The Constitution of The United States "Any thing
in The Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary Notwithstanding"
Contrary to Law (of an act or omission) illegal;
https://twitter.com/presidentus1