Down goes DOMA!!

[bodecea]

VERY BIG DECISION -- all federal rights have just been granted to same-sex couples.

The wording of this decision puts all anti-gay laws into jeopardy.

Federal benefits and protections! A big day for us and our other veteran friends!

then it's not about love

It's BEEN about love since 1990, my friend. This is about equal rights, benefits, and protections that you automatically get if you marry someone of the opposite sex legally.


Of course....unless you wish to assert that heterosexual marriage isn't about love either.......?

 

[Oddball]

Not arguing that, but by not hearing the case and since it was already ruled unconstitutional...it's over. Prop 8 is DONE.

We'll have to bookmark this one for the next time a state decides to ignore one of the left's pet laws and regulations.

Who is ignoring anything? Due process was done.

If the people of CA passed a handgun ban, would you have wanted it challenged?

Red herring.

Ignoring a constitutional amendment passed by the will of the people (remember that?) isn't upholding the law...It's ignoring it.

 

[bendog]

That's basically what they're saying, and the supreme court is also saying that no other branch of government is equal to them, they're top dog, which is wrong as hell. The supreme court is getting a little more power than it supposed to have here. Newt Gingrich was right.

How is the Supreme Court getting "a little more power that it supposed to have here" in this case?

Are you saying they do not have the power of Judicial Review?

Judicial review is controversial at best, technically they aren't supposed to use it. What we are saying here, is that the will of the voting majority no longer holds any weight in our "democracy." All you need is a court decision, and you wipe out millions of votes from millions of people, essentially silencing their voice. So, the minority is the majority, and the majority is the minority.

How sad.

Indeed.

The Supreme Court . The First Hundred Years . Landmark Cases . Cherokee Indian Cases (1830s) | PBS

 

[Oddball]

Federal benefits and protections! A big day for us and our other veteran friends!

then it's not about love

It's BEEN about love since 1990, my friend. This is about equal rights, benefits, and protections that you automatically get if you marry someone of the opposite sex legally.


Of course....unless you wish to assert that heterosexual marriage isn't about love either.......?

So, no matter how you try to spin it, it's all about the Benjamins.

 

[bodecea]

We'll have to bookmark this one for the next time a state decides to ignore one of the left's pet laws and regulations.

Who is ignoring anything? Due process was done.

If the people of CA passed a handgun ban, would you have wanted it challenged?

Red herring.

Ignoring a constitutional amendment passed by the will of the people (remember that?) isn't upholding the law...It's ignoring it.

Not a red herring at all. A state constitutional amendment cannot go against the U.S. Constitution which is called the Supreme Law of the Land for a very good reason.

Let me ask you....if the majority of Californians voted to amend the CA state constitution to make gun ownership illegal...would you happily support the will of the people?

 

[squeeze berry]

Federal benefits and protections! A big day for us and our other veteran friends!

then it's not about love

It's BEEN about love since 1990, my friend. This is about equal rights, benefits, and protections that you automatically get if you marry someone of the opposite sex legally.


Of course....unless you wish to assert that heterosexual marriage isn't about love either.......?

you always had equal rights honey, now you are biting off more than you can chew.

Those benefits include divorce and being in a relationship with someone that doesn't pull their weight.

Not pulling their weight will not mean a damned in divorce court either.

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

Run for the hills you fools

 

[rightwinger]

We'll have to bookmark this one for the next time a state decides to ignore one of the left's pet laws and regulations.

Who is ignoring anything? Due process was done.

If the people of CA passed a handgun ban, would you have wanted it challenged?

Red herring.

Ignoring a constitutional amendment passed by the will of the people (remember that?) isn't upholding the law...It's ignoring it.

People should not be allowed to vote on which rights others are allowed to have

Sounds kind of libertarian doesn't it?

 

[TemplarKormac]

How is the Supreme Court getting "a little more power that it supposed to have here" in this case?

Are you saying they do not have the power of Judicial Review?

Judicial review is controversial at best, technically they aren't supposed to use it. What we are saying here, is that the will of the voting majority no longer holds any weight in our "democracy". All you need is a court decision, and you wipe out millions of votes of people, essentially silencing their voice.

Judicial Review has been around since 1800. I find that the only time people have a "problem" with it, is when the Supreme Court goes against their wishes. Kind of like legal marriage. People only say they want the government out of marriage when people they don't like are allowed to legally marry.

And you were for it when they upheld Obamacare, Roe v. Wade, and here as well. But liberal reactions on the decision of striking down the Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act yesterday were deemed as "judicial activism." So, accusations of me accusing them of using Judicial Review, will fall flat on their faces.

 

[RandallFlagg]

DOMA was hate based legislation to start with.
It never should have been allowed and Clinton should have vetoed it

"hate based"? Bill Clinton PUSHED for the legislation.

 

[bodecea]

then it's not about love

It's BEEN about love since 1990, my friend. This is about equal rights, benefits, and protections that you automatically get if you marry someone of the opposite sex legally.


Of course....unless you wish to assert that heterosexual marriage isn't about love either.......?

you always had equal rights honey, now you are biting off more than you can chew.

Those benefits include divorce and being in a relationship with someone that doesn't pull their weight.

Not pulling their weight will not mean a damned in divorce court either.

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

Run for the hills you fools

Simply not true.


And I would hate to think you are making some kind of veiled threat towards gay couples. I'm sure you aren't, right?

 

[bodecea]

DOMA was hate based legislation to start with.
It never should have been allowed and Clinton should have vetoed it

"hate based"? Bill Clinton PUSHED for the legislation.

You might want to recheck that one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree with the VA decision yesterday (it's time we decide the playing field is level) and I agree with the Prop 8 and DOMA decisions today. The reasoning was good in all three.

Now you far lefties and you far right reactionaries can now beat up on me for being an enemy of . . . something.

 

[bodecea]

Judicial review is controversial at best, technically they aren't supposed to use it. What we are saying here, is that the will of the voting majority no longer holds any weight in our "democracy". All you need is a court decision, and you wipe out millions of votes of people, essentially silencing their voice.

Judicial Review has been around since 1800. I find that the only time people have a "problem" with it, is when the Supreme Court goes against their wishes. Kind of like legal marriage. People only say they want the government out of marriage when people they don't like are allowed to legally marry.

And you were for it when they upheld Obamacare, Roe v. Wade, and here as well. But liberal reactions on the decision of striking down the Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act yesterday were deemed as "judicial activism." So, accusations of me accusing them of using Judicial Review, will fall flat on their faces.

Interesting. I am a liberal and I did no such thing yesterday.

 

[RandallFlagg]

It's BEEN about love since 1990, my friend. This is about equal rights, benefits, and protections that you automatically get if you marry someone of the opposite sex legally.


Of course....unless you wish to assert that heterosexual marriage isn't about love either.......?

you always had equal rights honey, now you are biting off more than you can chew.

Those benefits include divorce and being in a relationship with someone that doesn't pull their weight.

Not pulling their weight will not mean a damned in divorce court either.

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

Run for the hills you fools

Simply not true.


And I would hate to think you are making some kind of veiled threat towards gay couples. I'm sure you aren't, right?

What the hell is wrong with you? Are you actually afraid of someone injuring you? Bullshit. The days of "rolling fags" are long over.

However, if you are implying that this ruling means that someone won't knock you on your ass for being stupid, then you are an idiot.

 

[Katzndogz]

No matter which side you're on, I hope everyone realizes that these decisions out of the SCOTUS is only going to deepen and widen the divisions already deep and wide enough to swallow the country in one bite.

 

[National Socialist]

good.I hope it does...I would love nothing more than the country to split into chunks...balkanization.

 

[squeeze berry]

It's BEEN about love since 1990, my friend. This is about equal rights, benefits, and protections that you automatically get if you marry someone of the opposite sex legally.


Of course....unless you wish to assert that heterosexual marriage isn't about love either.......?

you always had equal rights honey, now you are biting off more than you can chew.

Those benefits include divorce and being in a relationship with someone that doesn't pull their weight.

Not pulling their weight will not mean a damned in divorce court either.

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

Run for the hills you fools

Simply not true.


And I would hate to think you are making some kind of veiled threat towards gay couples. I'm sure you aren't, right?

gays could always marry
gays could always serve in the military
gays could always practice their peculiar habits

Marriage is not the great benefit you imagine. I think I have already stated a few reasons why..

Trust me, you are better off in a domestic partnership.

fools rush in.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I suspect that the Westbro Baptist church congregation was up all night painting new signs.

 

[bendog]

I hope they have to stay in hellish marriages just to keep their big screens too.

 

[RandallFlagg]

DOMA was hate based legislation to start with.
It never should have been allowed and Clinton should have vetoed it

"hate based"? Bill Clinton PUSHED for the legislation.

You might want to recheck that one.

On Friday, September 20, prior to signing the Defense of Marriage Act, President Clinton released the following statement:

Throughout my life I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. I am signing into law H.R. 3396, a bill relating to same-gender marriage, but it is important to note what this legislation does and does not do.

I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".

This legislation does not reach beyond those two provisions. It has no effect on any current federal, state or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to enact anti-discrimination laws. I therefore would take this opportunity to urge Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace. This year the Senate considered this legislation contemporaneously with the Act I sign today and failed to pass it by a single vote. I hope that in its next Session Congress will pass it expeditiously.

I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and have no place in American society.