Nonbelievers Tell Supreme Court: Declare DOMA and Prop 8 Unconstitutional

13

The American Humanist Association urges the Supreme Court to find the
federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8
unconstitutional as the court hears oral arguments beginning today in
historic cases regarding marriage equality. The American Humanist
Association filed amicus curiae in both cases, and leaders from
the organization will participate in a rally outside the Supreme Court
at 8:30 a.m. this morning.

“The Supreme Court has the opportunity to give all couples equal
rights and dignity under the law,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive
director of the American Humanist Association. “Religious groups don’t
have the right to target others for government discrimination. This
nation should support a secular government that respects the rights of
all people.”

The American Humanist Association filed amicus briefs with the
Supreme Court in February arguing that, under the Equal Protection
Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment,
discrimination against gays and lesbians, such as the case with race or
gender, must be presumed to be unconstitutional. The full amicus briefs
can be found here and here.

“The discrimination against gays and lesbians embodied in DOMA and
Prop 8 is inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of
equality to all Americans,” said Bill Burgess, legal coordinator of the
American Humanist Association’s legal arm, the Appignani Humanist Legal
Center.  “The time has come for the Supreme Court to bring our marriage
laws into line with the Constitution, just as it did decades ago in
overturning bans on interracial marriage.”

Written By: American Humanist Association
continue to source article at americanhumanist.org

13 COMMENTS

  1. As a gay man, I’ve been having this discussion all day with people on both sides of the issue. Those against gay-marriage have only religious reasons and their secular ones are shoddy, based on BAD or NO evidence. Looks promising!

  2. Just wondering, if gay marriage is ruled as a Constitutionally protected civil right, could that eventually mean faith-groups refusing to marry same-sex couple could lose their tax exempt status?

    Mike

    • I wouldn’t think so. The state can’t force a religious institution to “do” anything. Could a case be made? I don’t know, but that would be a difficult battle to fight – and probably a losing one. This is, more or less, a legal issue. Church weddings, per se, do not have any validity under the law, so only legal marriages are important.

      In reply to #2 by Sample:

      Just wondering, if gay marriage is ruled as a Constitutionally protected civil right, could that eventually mean faith-groups refusing to marry same-sex couple could lose their tax exempt status?

      Mike

      • In reply to #3 by lewis.breland:

        I wouldn’t think so. The state can’t force a religious institution to “do” anything. Could a case be made? I don’t know, but that would be a difficult battle to fight – and probably a losing one. This is, more or less, a legal issue. Church weddings, per se, do not have any validity under the law, so only legal marriages are important.

        So what is the process in the US that makes a church married couple a legally married couple ? Isn’t that the leverage point at which you can attack religion: “You won’t your marriages recognised by us, the people, you stop discriminating”.

        Michael

  3. In one episode of South Park, the KKK realize$ they should lie about what they advocate, because they are so hated people will oppose whatever they claim to approve of. I hope no such effect exists in this case; I’d hate to see America do the wrong thing just so it can disagree with nonreligious people.

    $ Technically, a mole persuaded them of that reasoning. Said mole agreed with them on an issue for different reasons, but wanted to lose the bad publicity of their policy being associated with the KKK.

  4. I would be amazed if enough Conservatives Justices on the Supreme Court overcome their collective
    moral cowardice to do any more than affirm the California Supreme Court decision overturning Proposition
    8, thereby reinstating the legality of same sex marriage for California residents only.

    Why this issue continues to be referred to as “same sex” marriage is a mystery to me. The general public
    has not yet awakened to the fact that the term “sex” now is more properly understood as the behavior itself, and NOT the human phenotype!!!! Perhaps we should even refer to it as “Isophenotypical Marriage”. All of us married heterosexuals are really involved in “Non-Isophenotypical Marriage”. Or “Trans-Phenotypical Marriage”. (I guess a Non-Isophenotypical Marriage could be between a human and a Pet Rock!!!–so let’s drop that one!!!)

    For those of you with limited access to the Internet, more than sufficient visual evidence now exists that, with the exception of vaginal intercourse, sexual behavior between Isophenotypicals is virtually IDENTICAL to that of Transphenotypicals.

    These two new words would be a great new addition to the English vocabulary, because they would
    allow the same adjective to be used for sexual preference as is used for marital preference. (A trans-
    phenotypical marriage should be reflected by a mutual transphenotypical sexual preference, –
    likewise for isophenotypicals. Marital preference, just like sexual preference, is really in the eye
    of the beholder, isn’t it?????

    Gender, however, is not. The true notion of gender relates to how the individual feels INTERNALLY. Therefore the phrase “Transgender Isophenotypical” would make perfect sense. And I’ll bet that the global ratio of
    transgender isophenotypical individuals to transgender transphenotypical individuals is extremely high!!!

    Of course a bisexual individual could be reclassified as being “ambiphenotypical”.

    When I go to a new doctor’s office, and on the registration form it asks me to choose my “sex” by
    circling the letter M or the letter F, I cross out both letters and write in “Never Enough”!!!!! At the
    very least, that form should be changed to ask me for my “Genotype”, not my sex. If they choose
    to ask me about my gender ID, then they could give me an M, F, choice. If they ask my sexual, or marital preference, I could then answer Transphenotypical, or Isophenotypical as the case may be.( I would wonder, however,
    about a person who answered ” ambiphenotypical” to a question of marital preference.—No one
    could be born with that much of an inherent propensity for misery!)

    Any way you look at it, the very real dilemma remains, as expressed by the many Comedians of yesteryear,

    “Are you married, or are you happy?????”

    Only you folks can be the judgey-wudgies of that!!!!

    Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!!!!!

    The Kid

  5. So any nut job can buy a firearm (the sole purpose of which is to harm another human being) over the counter but not anyone can get married??? Seems like good old fashioned common sense

    America – Land of the free

    • In reply to #12 by AtheistSquaddie:

      So any nut job can buy a firearm (the sole purpose of which is to harm another human being) over the counter but not anyone can get married??? Seems like good old fashioned common sense

      Well, the sole purpose of firearms are not always to harm another human being, but I understand what you mean. Available off the rack in Walmart to just about any knuckle dragging redneck with a drivers license.

Leave a Reply