Patch’s Poll: Should Gay People be Afforded the Same Federal Rights in Marriage?

A federal judge in Connecticut has ruled that a portion of the government’s Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it denies gay couples access to certain federal benefits.


A federal judge in Hartford ruled on Tuesday that a portion of the U.S. government’s 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it denies certain benefits to same-sex couples.

According to the Associated Press, U.S. District Judge Vanessa L. Bryant issued a lengthy decision saying the federal law violates the Fifth Amendment right to equal protection, because of a provision that “obligates the federal government to single out a category of marriage as excluded from federal recognition, thereby resulting in an inconsistent distribution of federal marital benefits."

The case, which was carried out in the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals, involved six married gay couples, and a widower, who were denied federal benefits such as recogition under the Family and Medical Leave Act, Social Security death benefits, the federal tax code and others.

As the AP reported, the couples had worked for the government, and at least one of the plaintiffs was a Navy veteran.

The ruling comes just a few months after a panel of judges in the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston issued a similar ruling, according to Fox News.

What do you think? Should gay people be afforded the same federal rights in marriage as straight people with regard to benefits? Take our poll and share your thoughts in the comments.

Trish Neild Barry August 03, 2012 at 06:16 PM
I don't know how much of a "new generation" I am... I will be 40 this year. But obviously, I do not say "whatever" I think and speak for myself. I always have. Occasionally got in some trouble for it, but my parents always supported me. We didn't always agree, but they supported me. I learned to do stand up for what I believe in by listening to my parents and grandparents who did the same. And I will teach my kids to think and speak for themselves and I will support them and not demand they blindly go along and believe what others have believed in for years... I don't know too many people in the current generations who are "whatever"
stluva50s August 03, 2012 at 09:18 PM
Well said Trish.
Olive3 August 04, 2012 at 12:01 AM
Are you two all worked up about this blog? Your right, there is no comeback or argument I could say that would change YOUR minds. I have been watching this opinion page grow into something of an out of control gang up on someone you don't even really know. All that you have been demonstrating here is that you are the intolerant ones, the judgemental ones towards anyone who doesn't think the same way you do. I really proved that I was a bigot, it could be said the other way around. Be careful you may be your own worst enemy. The real difference between us is that I would never stoop to publicly calling someone hurtful names. Thank you for the conversation.
Trish Neild Barry August 04, 2012 at 12:22 AM
Reread my posts, I have never called anyone a name.
stluva50s August 04, 2012 at 01:42 AM
I'll own it but I stand my comment. I am not the one who refuses to accept everyone as they are Olive, you are. Here is the official definition of a bigot: Adj. 1. bigoted - blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others; "a bigoted person"; "an outrageously bigoted point of view" Trish did not use this term, I did. I am done with this subject.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »