Down goes DOMA!!

[bodecea]

Okay, lots to look at here.

As others have pointed out, the Windsor decision only effects the FEDERAL definition of marriage. It does not address the 34 or so states that have written homophobia into their constitutions or laws because that was a big priority. Of course, that was never in dispute in this case. Windsor got her marriage in Canada and New York Recognized it. But is there a wink and a nod that they will strike it down if it comes up? I kind of think so.

I do find the Perry ruling to be strange. Why rule that the plaintiffs didn't have standing if you heard the case? I'm kind of getting the feeling that Kennedy didn't WANT to rule on this case. He doesn't want to be the guy who legalized gay marriage for the whole country. Judge Walker CAREFULLY crafted his decision citing Kennedy's past rulings in Roemner and Lawerence. So he was kind of stuck, and this was a graceful way out.

Hypothetically, a future CA governor could sue because he would have standing. Don't see that as likely, though.

Okay, you all can resume your screaming at each other.

just one comment because your post is all bullshit.

it is not homophobic to object to gay marriage. Accepting that some people are gay is where most of america is today. wanting everyone to have equal rights is where most people are today.

Let me ask you....would it be true to say "it is not racist to object to interracial marriage"?

 

[g5000]

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.

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, had the absolute right to marry.

It is not the government’s job to say who gets married – it’s their job to passively record it when it happens,

And yet it does far more than that. The government gives you about a thousand gifts for being married. Lots of cash and prizes.

And THAT is the issue here. The federal government, by way of DOMA, withholds those gifts from gay marriages.

 

[Dot Com]

DOMA was 100% political when enacted so its only appropriate that its been struck down

 

[Seawytch]

Okay, lots to look at here.

As others have pointed out, the Windsor decision only effects the FEDERAL definition of marriage. It does not address the 34 or so states that have written homophobia into their constitutions or laws because that was a big priority. Of course, that was never in dispute in this case. Windsor got her marriage in Canada and New York Recognized it. But is there a wink and a nod that they will strike it down if it comes up? I kind of think so.

I do find the Perry ruling to be strange. Why rule that the plaintiffs didn't have standing if you heard the case? I'm kind of getting the feeling that Kennedy didn't WANT to rule on this case. He doesn't want to be the guy who legalized gay marriage for the whole country. Judge Walker CAREFULLY crafted his decision citing Kennedy's past rulings in Roemner and Lawerence. So he was kind of stuck, and this was a graceful way out.

Hypothetically, a future CA governor could sue because he would have standing. Don't see that as likely, though.

Okay, you all can resume your screaming at each other.

just one comment because your post is all bullshit.

it is not homophobic to object to gay marriage. Accepting that some people are gay is where most of america is today. wanting everyone to have equal rights is where most people are today.

So being against interracial marriage isn't racist? Bigots everywhere, rejoice!!

 

[Katzndogz]

Overturning this law won't overturn the law of unintended consequences and there will be some big ones. The Will of millions of people cannot be disregarded without some kind of reaction.

 

[Seawytch]

Overturning this law won't overturn the law of unintended consequences and there will be some big ones. The Will of millions of people cannot be disregarded without some kind of reaction.

More empty threats, Katz?

 

[Trajan]

Okay, lots to look at here.

As others have pointed out, the Windsor decision only effects the FEDERAL definition of marriage. It does not address the 34 or so states that have written homophobia into their constitutions or laws because that was a big priority. Of course, that was never in dispute in this case. Windsor got her marriage in Canada and New York Recognized it. But is there a wink and a nod that they will strike it down if it comes up? I kind of think so.

I do find the Perry ruling to be strange. Why rule that the plaintiffs didn't have standing if you heard the case? I'm kind of getting the feeling that Kennedy didn't WANT to rule on this case. He doesn't want to be the guy who legalized gay marriage for the whole country. Judge Walker CAREFULLY crafted his decision citing Kennedy's past rulings in Roemner and Lawerence. So he was kind of stuck, and this was a graceful way out.

Hypothetically, a future CA governor could sue because he would have standing. Don't see that as likely, though.

Okay, you all can resume your screaming at each other.

just one comment because your post is all bullshit.

it is not homophobic to object to gay marriage. Accepting that some people are gay is where most of america is today. wanting everyone to have equal rights is where most people are today.

Let me ask you....would it be true to say "it is not racist to object to interracial marriage"?

hows your arm feel? thats some reach.

 

[squeeze berry]

Prove it.

When the U.S. started registering marriages, women were the property. The first court challenges were to the laws that said married women could not own property, but you are mistaken when you insist the registries were started to protect women.

look up some wills

You simply could have said you have no proof.

you can do some research as well

I'm not your slave

 

[Trajan]

Okay, lots to look at here.

As others have pointed out, the Windsor decision only effects the FEDERAL definition of marriage. It does not address the 34 or so states that have written homophobia into their constitutions or laws because that was a big priority. Of course, that was never in dispute in this case. Windsor got her marriage in Canada and New York Recognized it. But is there a wink and a nod that they will strike it down if it comes up? I kind of think so.

I do find the Perry ruling to be strange. Why rule that the plaintiffs didn't have standing if you heard the case? I'm kind of getting the feeling that Kennedy didn't WANT to rule on this case. He doesn't want to be the guy who legalized gay marriage for the whole country. Judge Walker CAREFULLY crafted his decision citing Kennedy's past rulings in Roemner and Lawerence. So he was kind of stuck, and this was a graceful way out.

Hypothetically, a future CA governor could sue because he would have standing. Don't see that as likely, though.

Okay, you all can resume your screaming at each other.

just one comment because your post is all bullshit.

it is not homophobic to object to gay marriage. Accepting that some people are gay is where most of america is today. wanting everyone to have equal rights is where most people are today.

So being against interracial marriage isn't racist? Bigots everywhere, rejoice!!

you are on the conflation train, you should get off before the wreck.

 

[JoeB131]

Okay, lots to look at here.

As others have pointed out, the Windsor decision only effects the FEDERAL definition of marriage. It does not address the 34 or so states that have written homophobia into their constitutions or laws because that was a big priority. Of course, that was never in dispute in this case. Windsor got her marriage in Canada and New York Recognized it. But is there a wink and a nod that they will strike it down if it comes up? I kind of think so.

I do find the Perry ruling to be strange. Why rule that the plaintiffs didn't have standing if you heard the case? I'm kind of getting the feeling that Kennedy didn't WANT to rule on this case. He doesn't want to be the guy who legalized gay marriage for the whole country. Judge Walker CAREFULLY crafted his decision citing Kennedy's past rulings in Roemner and Lawerence. So he was kind of stuck, and this was a graceful way out.

Hypothetically, a future CA governor could sue because he would have standing. Don't see that as likely, though.

Okay, you all can resume your screaming at each other.

just one comment because your post is all bullshit.

it is not homophobic to object to gay marriage. Accepting that some people are gay is where most of america is today. wanting everyone to have equal rights is where most people are today.

Let me ask you....would it be true to say "it is not racist to object to interracial marriage"?

ZING!!!!!

Exactly right, and simply put.

If you aren't gay and you aren't homophobic, why would you care?

 

[bodecea]

Overturning this law won't overturn the law of unintended consequences and there will be some big ones. The Will of millions of people cannot be disregarded without some kind of reaction.

Yeah Yeah Yeah....you keep hinting around to some horrible consequences....

 

[bodecea]

just one comment because your post is all bullshit.

it is not homophobic to object to gay marriage. Accepting that some people are gay is where most of america is today. wanting everyone to have equal rights is where most people are today.

Let me ask you....would it be true to say "it is not racist to object to interracial marriage"?

hows your arm feel? thats some reach.

It's a simple question. Let me ask it again.

Would it be true to say "it is not racist to object to interracial marriage"?

 

[Seawytch]

look up some wills

You simply could have said you have no proof.

you can do some research as well

I'm not your slave

I did...and found nothing to support your claim...just like you did when you tried to back it up.

 

[Seawytch]

just one comment because your post is all bullshit.

it is not homophobic to object to gay marriage. Accepting that some people are gay is where most of america is today. wanting everyone to have equal rights is where most people are today.

So being against interracial marriage isn't racist? Bigots everywhere, rejoice!!

you are on the conflation train, you should get off before the wreck.

Oh? How so? If being against gays marrying isn't bigoted, being against interracial marriage also must not be, right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This ruling, AFAICT, does nothing to restrict States (who traditionally set Marriage requirements and standards)...... Yet.

The ruling on Californication's Prop 8 could seal the deal one way or the other. THAT is the important ruling, IMO

The very broadly worded majority decision strikes down all anti-gay laws under equal protection.

Get a clue.

Its actually a very narrowly written opinion that is based on the fact that a state has issued a marriage liscence, and the federal government cannot use the details of said licsence to discriminate between one holder of it and another. The equal protection comes from being a marriage liscence holder, not from anything to do with the sex of the couple.

It says nothing about having to issue the liscence to same sex couples.

As a strict constructionist I approve of this decsion.

Obviously you’ve not read the ruling:

DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 13–26.

DOMA’s principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of state-sanctioned marriages. It contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State. It also forces same-sex couples to live as mar-ried for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. Pp. 20–26.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf

Don’t attempt to spin the decision as some sort of ‘states’ rights only’ ruling; this is clearly an affirmation of the fundamental Constitutional tenet that Congress, nor any other jurisdiction, may not seek to favor one class of persons over another, or to place a class of persons at a disadvantage absent a legitimate legislative end.

“No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

DOMA was indeed an effort by Congress to deprive same-sex married couples their liberty absent due process of law.

This is very much a ruling upholding personal liberty, and restricting government’s authority to attempt to limit that personal liberty.

 

[squeeze berry]

So being against interracial marriage isn't racist? Bigots everywhere, rejoice!!

you are on the conflation train, you should get off before the wreck.

Oh? How so? If being against gays marrying isn't bigoted, being against interracial marriage also must not be, right?

go ahead and marry

good luck......

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

this was an odious law. Good riddance

Agreed.

 

[squeeze berry]

You simply could have said you have no proof.

you can do some research as well

I'm not your slave

I did...and found nothing to support your claim...just like you did when you tried to back it up.

lair

 

[bodecea]

you are on the conflation train, you should get off before the wreck.

Oh? How so? If being against gays marrying isn't bigoted, being against interracial marriage also must not be, right?

go ahead and marry

good luck......

Already married....got in that window before November 2008. But, you see, I'm not of the "I've got mine...screw the rest of you!" persuasion.

 

[bodecea]

you can do some research as well

I'm not your slave

I did...and found nothing to support your claim...just like you did when you tried to back it up.

lair

So...you DID back up your claim? Where is the evidence?