1 Can someone explain this in non lawyer talk

2 Ace of Spades or Gabe's Gay News? You make the call!

3 Bullshit, in other words.

4 More bullshit from the phony ass courts.

5 Tell me why some on the right are proposing a "cease-fire" in the cultural wars when the left has no such intention?

Or am I too damn stupid to understand such nuance on account of the fact that I'm not vain enough to win a glorified popularity contest?

6 Oh it's coming.

7 Oh, I suspect someone will appeal.

To be snarky, I would think almost everyman is looking for equal protection in marriage.

8 6 Way, way, way TMI....

9

'Instead of being, "Married"...

You'll be,  "Butt Buddies".'

10 What's in a name? Institutionalize full gay marriage rights as "Perverse Unholy Union" instead of "marriage," and be done with it.

11

>>> Also, if the Obama Administration decides to appeal, expect EPIC DRAMA from the Gay Mafia.

Gabe - Why would they appeal?

12 Honestly, both reasons for overturning Sec. 3 are true. The problem with the equal protection argument is that the federal government violates equal protection all the time through the tax code (and in many other ways too).

13 I would think almost everyman is looking for equal protection in marriage.

Now, that was funny.

14 -->In Gill the judge held that DOMA section 3 violates equal protection principles entrenched in the Fifth Amendment right to due process.

This is just sheer stupidity and disingenuous legal bullshit.  I guess this judge is all go for polygamy (which actually has a long history in just about every culture, unlike the joke idea of gay marriage) and every other type of arrangement that can be thought up.

"This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status. The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid."

More legal insanity.  The state can pay whatever marriage benefits it wants.  No federal benefits will be forthcoming, though.  Tough titties.  No state has the right to dictate to the federal government what marriage is.  Also, our immiigration system is family-based, which means that the federal government MUST have its own definition of 'marriage' and recognize no other - especially as this is a system that has to deal with what other countries try to call 'marriages' and must exercise great care and limits in that.

15 I thought that the federal courts had forgotten all about the tenth amendment.

16 if the Obama Administration decides to appeal

You jest.

08-09-24-19-30-07

17 I'll probably get accused of trolling, but can someone explain why it's ok for the feds to put their big stomping boots on when its a so-con issue (DOMA), but not ok when it's something you disagree with (Obamacare, etc.)? I don't think courts should be deciding issues like gay marriage, but I also don't think it's any of the federal government's business.

18 15 I thought that the federal courts had forgotten all about the tenth amendment.

I'm curious to see how the ultra-libs will react to this one, as mentioning the Tenth Amendment to them had been like brandishing a cross at a vampire for years.

Now that it got one of their pet causes a ruling in their favor, they'll probably love it.

19 It would be nice to have a big, foundational 10th Amendment decision coming from the Supremes.

20  

21

_{08-09-24-19-30-07}

I almost want to go out and buy a Lotto ticket, now.

22 PoP is correct.  Gay marriage is just a stalking horse for Islamic polygamy.

23 The problem seems to be that in cases like Medicaid, the programs are joint ventures between the states and the federal government.  What happens is that the states say that a civil partner is eligable, but the government doesn't.  The judge ruled in favor of the state.

24 I'll probably get accused of trolling, but can someone explain why it's ok for the feds to put their big stomping boots on when its a so-con issue (DOMA), but not ok when it's something you disagree with (Obamacare, etc.)?

Posted by: Brad at July 08, 2010 05:21 PM (zTZGo)

I explained it in my earlier post, but I'll repeat it.  Our immigration system is family-based.  Federal jobs have family benefits.  The federal government, therefore, must have its own definition of 'marriage'.  After all, the federal government has to deal with foreign concepts of marriage, including polygamy, and decide (especially for immigration purposes) what federal status certain arrangements have.  When the states go out of their minds and start tearing up the notion of marriage (which each state has the right to define for itself) then the federal government needs to be explicit about its own definition and state that even US states that fall outside of it will not be able to impose their individual notions of 'marriage' on the federal government and everyone else.  This is also the need to release other states from accepting 'marriages' that fall outside their definitions.  Otherwise, the craziest state gets to dictate policy for all the states and the federal government (including having a huge effect on immigration policy), and that is just totally unworkable and not what the Constitution allows for.  No state is being disallowed from designing whatever joke of a definition it wants for marriage, it just can't force that on anyone else.

25 *Feels slightly better about living in his country*

26 So, it's a STATE issue, but also an equal protection issue?  Seems like the judge is looking to have it both ways to get it the one way he really wants it.

27 Full Faith and Credit hardest hit.

28 Well d'uh you stupid wing nuts.   It IS a violation of the 10th when the federales are attempting to to deny cock suckers their civil rights.  It IS NOT a violation of the 10th when the EPA tells you what mileage your car has to get.  What part of that don't you retards get?

29 well, obama is a constitutional scholar, right? *guuffaw*

30

Kinda torn on this one... Marriage has always been done under State law... so it seems that the Feds gave them 10 Amendment cover a long time ago.

But its also true that any License given by a State, MUST be recognized by the various other States (Constitution)...

Its also interesting that the Fed anti Polygamy laws were for the territories... they made States pass anti polygamy laws as a condition of Statehood...

Looks like a mess to me...

31

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 08, 2010 05:28 PM (Qp4DT)

Hmmm... I thought that Polygamy barred you from immigration...

32 It would be worth living with this ruling if they REALLY bring back the 10th amendment - but I fear it would from now on only be interpreted as "Acts by a Conservative Congress ALWAYS violate the 10th, but acts by a Liberal Congress NEVER do!"

33 @26 progressoverpeace at July 08, 2010 05:28 PM (Qp4DT) Pure federal concerns like (legal) immigration and benefits to federal employees are irrelevant to my point. An individual state's rules have zero effect on those, and DOMA doesn't really effect the federal government's definition of marriage for purely federal purposes anyway (see, e.g., Barry O's recent executive orders about benefits to 'partners'). The issue is a federal law basically telling states what they must do on a matter of state law/policy. I can't think of a single social issue that is any of the federal government's business, and don't understand how 'conservatives' can take a principled stand against federal intrusion, except when they agree with it.

34 another Bush failure. Should have done a constitutional amendment. Maybe Barry will get right on that. The gays would then distrust him because of his middle name or something.

35 I wonder if this can go sua sponte to a 3 judge panel or the full circuit.

36 LOL oh yes gays are crazy about support islamic polygamy, it's right there in our agenda over outing married men trolling for guy sex on craigslist. Please people I'm pretty sure we can separate gay marriage from polygamy, polygamy is a a straight person problem, it's in your bibles, it's practiced by religious nuts (and fundie islamists but i repeat myself). Gay marriage is being pursued by gays because we are tired of not being able to get married and share pensions and benefits and the social accouterments that legal marriage carries. Not all gays support gay marriage and for a variety of reasons. However no one has ever made a good argument why the gays that want to stick it out and get married can't. It doesn't make more gays, it doesn't destroy your marriage, and if gays are raising kids it makes the legal paperwork a heck of a lot easier. Telling gays that their love isn't real and that society should be focused on destroying them isn't really that good for the psyche. As a high tax paying citizen and the child of a straight couple I'm not sure how anyone else has the right to invalidate my relationships with another adult but a lot of people seem to think it's their business. I want them off my back and I want a legal framework for protecting myself and my family from them and I see nothing wrong with pursuing the matter in the courts since my "fierce advocate obama" can't be bothered.

37

If states can dictate to the federal government what the definitition of marriage is, then can they dictate the definition of "citizen"?

Just curious.

If not, why not.

38 Telling gays that their love isn't real and that society should be focused on destroying them isn't really that good for the psyche.

Ouch.

39 The issue is a federal law basically telling states what they must do on a matter of state law/policy.

Posted by: Brad at July 08, 2010 05:41 PM (zTZGo)

You have the text that states anything of the sort?  Not even wiki makes that claim.

The DOMA defines federal "marriage" and releases states from Full Faith and Credit on marriage, with respect to being same sex.

I don't see where it demands states what laws they must make or what marriages they must recognize.  Show me.

40 I'm with you Tim, but why isn't marriage by some other name acceptable to committed gays?

41 Can I get a count of the number of people around here who have ever said that destroying gays should be the focus of society?  Cause I'm pretty solidly against gay marriage, and yet I've never heard anyone (outside of Islamic countries) say anything even remotely like that.  If I didn't know better, that would be something like drama-queen hysterical hyperbole, but that'd be impossible,

42 However no one has ever made a good argument why the gays that want to stick it out and get married can't.

Sure, right.

43 It would be worth living with this ruling if they REALLY bring back the 10th amendment - but I fear it would from now on only be interpreted as "Acts by a Conservative Congress ALWAYS violate the 10th, but acts by a Liberal Congress NEVER do!"

Posted by: wws at July 08, 2010 05:40 PM (T1boi)

Bingo!

In a completely cynical way, this was a brilliant ruling.  They get to pretend that they respect the tenth amendment while advancing their progressive agenda.  It's having your cake and eating it too.

44 it doesn't destroy your marriage,

Posted by: Tim at July 08, 2010 05:44 PM (nA+tQ)

It destroys the meaning of "marriage". 

"Gay marriage" is an essentially ahistorical concept (save a handful of examples over thousands of years) that has less of a basis for claiming the label "marriage" than polygamy, which has a history in just about every culture and is a long-known  and often-accepted concept. 

One might not want to support polygamy, but if anyone supports the reasoning (to be overly charitable) of this judge, then those same arguments are far truer with respect to polygamy.

45 Not all gays support gay marriage and for a variety of reasons. However no one has ever made a good argument why the gays that want to stick it out and get married can't.

Posted by: Tim at July 08, 2010 05:44 PM (nA+tQ)

No one has made an arguement that YOU think is good - which is understandable since any such arguement would go against your wishes.  And even if having gay unions of some kind is the best idea ever, it's absurd to assert that the constitution was ever designed with the intent of protecting it or bringing it about.  The people's representatives voted, and law was made.  That law has now been undone by a corrupt court that perverts the law and makes policy according to its own whim.    That's the problem.

46 Good. Regardless of your opinions on gay marriage, DOMA was always a blatant violation of the 10th Amendment that should offend any fan of Constitutional government. That being said, what are the odds that this is the first time this judge has EVER thrown out a federal law on 10th Amendment grounds?

47 But its also true that any License given by a State, MUST be recognized by the various other States (Constitution)...


*ahem*

48

consider the federalism issues in the second decision (quoted above). Does DOMA section 3 violate powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment?

Yes.

But so does 95% of the entire federal government.

Since when does that ammendment exist? I thought we skipped 10 because it was bad luck or something.

49 What really bugs me about judicial review is they don't even try to hide the fact they're dry-labbing these decisions, just like I did back in chemistry 101.  You start with the "right" answer and work your way back to the justification.

50

DOMA was always a blatant violation of the 10th Amendment

But what isn't?

The worst thing you can do is pick and choose as it pleases you. Then it becomes like foreign law. Nothing but a smoke screen to do whatever the hell you want, utterly unconstrained by anything.

51 Sniffers of Pickles whom the State hath united, let no man cast asunder!

52 I'm with you Tim, but why isn't marriage by some other name acceptable to committed gays?



Because "marriage by some other name" can't be used by radical gay activists as a bludgeon to destroy churches (the Catholic Church first & foremost) by forcing them to change their doctrine via anti-discrimination legislation & lawsuits.

53

The DOMA defines federal "marriage" and releases states from Full Faith and Credit on marriage, with respect to being same sex.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 08, 2010 0550 PM (Qp4DT)

This is part of the issue that bugs me about this... how can a Federal Law, say that the Constitution and its protections, do not matter?  Marriage licenses, just like divorce law, has always fallen under the full faith and credit... but then the Feds tried to say "however we are going to pass a LAW, which says it does not... sometimes..."

That does sound like an equal protection problem.

54 Begone, yond foul, bunchbacked sock!

55 @drkill I used to think it didn't matter but over time I came to understand that by establishing two forms of marriage your making them inequal, both marriages can let you have kids share benefits and such but as a society we wouldn't recognize them as equal. So because we assign meaning to the words if you are truly trying to say both are equal you can't do it by giving them separate names.

56

This is part of the issue that bugs me about this... how can a Federal Law, say that the Constitution and its protections, do not matter?  Marriage licenses, just like divorce law, has always fallen under the full faith and credit... but then the Feds tried to say "however we are going to pass a LAW, which says it does not... sometimes..."

That does sound like an equal protection problem.

Posted by: Romeo13 at July 08, 2010 06:05 PM (H+oXM)

With respect to Full Faith and Credit, marriage is special because the federal government has a core need for its own definition of 'marriage'.  The example of immigration, that I keep citing, makes federal 'marriage' of utmost importance to the nation, as our immigration policy is very much family-based.  I don't see any arbitrariness in saying that for such issues which the federal government was given explicit power and responsibility (since power of Naturalization also requires a core federal definition of marriage) the limits of Full Faith and Credit among the States can be limited by the federal government's bounds. 

Again, DOMA did not stop any State from making any definition of 'marriage' it wants.  It placed limits on what the federal government will accept, as it has its own definition, and allowed for each state to take the same limits - if they want!

57 Who are we to judge relationships between, or even among, citizens?  Are not all fetishes equally valid?

58 @Concealed Carry Licences I didn't realize that catholic doctrine was written by our government. We have this separation thing going you see. besides priest don't wed people they officiate at a ceremony, the justice of the peace wed's people.

59

So because we assign meaning to the words if you are truly trying to say both are equal you can't do it by giving them separate names.

Um, yes. Exactly right.

And they're not equal.

Hence the whole issue. By demanding a legal right to coopt the same word you're trying to use the force of law to demand everyone consider them equal.

60 56 I'm with you Tim, but why isn't marriage by some other name acceptable to committed gays? Because "marriage by some other name" can't be used by radical gay activists as a bludgeon to destroy churches (the Catholic Church first & foremost) by forcing them to change their doctrine via anti-discrimination legislation & lawsuits. Posted by: Concealed Carry Licences at July 08, 2010 06:05 PM (P9+0W) CCW, you and I understand the play, But I want to hear that from Tim. In theory, I don't really care if they have another term for traditional paired-heterosexual unions, but the goat fuckers and daddy lovers and carpet munchers need to find a term of their own to support. There is room on my block for all of the above named happy loving couples (or even flocks) as long as they support CCW laws. Otherwise, screw off. And take your designated others with you. You can borrow my two-horse if you need it.

61 Tim, pick another descriptive term and I'll be glad to use it.

62 @entropy yup cause they are equal, i can have kids, i can accrue benefits and I can be a responsible member of society. Or i could go to vegas and marry a hooker and end up with a messy divorce. Don't go getting high on the track record straights have established, 75% of marriages end in divorce that has nothing to do with gays. Unless you tried to marry one.

63 This only serves to put more conservative voters in the booth come November.

64 Hell, if every type of union is recognized as marriage, I'm taking Mom and Dad down to the courthouse today. maybe Lassie too. What a good way to beat the tax man, estate tax, and probate.

65

cause they are equal

Nuh-uh.

Uh-huh.

Nuh-uh.

Uh-huh.

Nuh-uh.

66 @DrKill " the goat fuckers and daddy lovers and carpet munchers need to find a term of their own to support." why are you bringing the welsh into this? I've covered my point I want legal protections and if I don't feel like I'm going to get them till you can recognize my union as a marriage I'm going to continue to push for the term so you understand what your dealing with when you try to f*k with me or mine. I don't give two sh*ts about your religions, or your doctrines, I'm not trying to join. I want people to stop acting like I'm not a real person and that what I do and make matters just as much as them.

67

i can have kids, i can accrue benefits and I can be a responsible member of society.

I guess; but you sound like a complete asshole.

68 I didn't realize that catholic doctrine was written by our government. We have this separation thing going you see.

Catholic doctrine will de facto be written by the government through litigation if this kind of decision is allowed to stand.

besides priest don't wed people they officiate at a ceremony, the justice of the peace wed's people.

No, this is incorrect.  Even if you don't fill out the paperwork if you go through the ceremony a judge will most likely declare you married at a later date.

69 I've covered my point I want legal protections and if I don't feel like I'm going to get them till you can recognize my union as a marriage I'm going to continue to push for the term so you understand what your dealing with when you try to f*k with me or mine.

That's why we have legislatures.

70

I guess; but you sound like a complete asshole.

Posted by: Captain Hate at July 08, 2010 06:22 PM (qPpkJ)

**************************

No, no -- the Feds won't allow him to be complete until he can be married.....

71

 I want people to stop acting like I'm not a real person and that what I do and make matters just as much as them.

Exactly true.

Force of law to make you stop acting the way he doesn't want you to act. Force of law to demand "recognition" as equal. Not tolerance but acceptance. By force.

72 And the lawfare continues. Some people think the culture wars are over. Its never really even warmed up yet.

73 Force of law to make you stop acting the way he doesn't want you to act. Force of law to demand "recognition" as equal. Not tolerance but acceptance. By force.

Yep.  Leveling down.

74 Not all gays support gay marriage and for a variety of reasons. However no one has ever made a good argument why the gays that want to stick it out and get married can't.

How about that gay marriage doesn't now and can never exist.  It's a null set - a non-thing.  All you'll ever be able to do is coerce people to pretend in public that you and Sal are "married" just like their grandparents - but, of course, you don't mind policing people's mindspace for incorrect thoughts, do you?

75 I've covered my point I want legal protections and if I don't feel like I'm going to get them till you can recognize my union as a marriage I'm going to continue to push for the term so you understand what your dealing with when you try to f*k with me or mine. I don't give two sh*ts about your religions, or your doctrines, I'm not trying to join. I want people to stop acting like I'm not a real person and that what I do and make matters just as much as them.

Shorter Tim:

It's all about MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

76 If states can dictate to the federal government what the definitition of marriage is, then can they dictate the definition of "citizen"?
Posted by: Warden at July 08, 2010 05:48 PM (QoR4a)

I disagree with the decision and the idea the federal government is bound by a state definition of marriage but there's a difference between defining marriage and defining citizen.

The Constitution specifically states the definition of 'citizen'....

Amendment XIV, Section 1.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

As for as naturalization, Congress is specifically empowered to create a system to cover that.

77 Force of law to demand "recognition" as equal. Not tolerance but acceptance. By force.

Marriage is not between two people, they're between two people and everybody else.  No one defines your relationship with another person.

Like Tim's mention of pensions, it's going to be the employer that has to extend the benefits.  It's not about one person to another, it's about requiring everyone else in society to become a part of benefits, access, and everything else.  And that's why the rest of society gets to decide what it will participate with.

78 Like Tim's mention of pensions


Haha.  I was dyslexic for a minute there.  

79

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 08, 2010 06:12 PM (Qp4DT)

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Hmmm... actualy, forgot about that second part of the Art IV Sect 1... where Congress can by General Law, prescribe ....  the effects therof.

Sounds like States musts recognize other States docs, but the FEDS do not, and in fact, can prescirbe the manner of said acts by law.

Sounds like this needs to go to the Supremes...

80 [Worst troll ever. Bye bye now]

81 This discussion reminds me of an off color joke

In the year 2013, a mocha-complected former President is sentenced to jail.  He is ushered in to his cell, and meets his cellmate, the biggest baddest dude in the joint.  The former President cowers, but the cellmate completely ignores him until lights out.  Just when he thinks he's safe, the mocha-tinted newbie hears the cellmate's first words to him:

 "Do you want to be the husband, or the wife?"

The Harvard-educated lawyer, his head spinning, gives this some thought, then softly replies, "The husband."

The cell is quiet for what seems like an eternity, when out of the darkness the cellmate says, "Well, then, come on over here and suck your wife's....."

82 'captain hate' thinks I'm an asshole, wow remind me to take you serious when you get a grownup name And damn right I'm going to use the courts if I need to I'm a fucking citizen and that's a right, or do we get to vote ur civil liberties too?

83

Well, it seems to me everytime that Christmas rolls around, the libs start screaming "Seperation of church and state" whenever a manger scene is erected in the town square.  Or perhaps when some kid gets the idea to have a prayer before a football game.  But for gay marriage, not so much.

Traditionally, I believe that marriage is a religous institution.  A priest has usually performed the ceremony.  I realize that judges can also perform a cermony as well, but then that is a civil union, not marriage.  The gay community had the option to push for civil unions- but didn't feel it was good enough.  If there is to be a seperation of church and state- it should go both ways.  The state should not be able to tell churchs who they have to marry or not.

84 The real issue with gay marriage is the same as it ever was -- we've had hundreds of years of laws and practices at every level - state, federal, local, common -- that have been based on marriage between a man and a woman....and we don't even know what they are.

In many cases, the law should be able to apply to consenting adults -- hospital visitation, for instance -- and the whole "marriage" thing was just assumed along the way.

In some cases, there is money riding on the definition -- imagine a pension which pays 100% of a defined amount until the death of the worker, then 50% until the death of the spouse. Money can have been set aside for 20 years based on the assumption that the spouse can only have the opposite gender from the worker. With most pensions currently underwater, who would make up any additional shortfall when the actuarial tables change assumptions?

In some cases, such as the "marriage penalty" in Federal Income Tax, it's hard to imagine a worse societal construct in the first place. In others, such as the privilege that communications within a marriage may have, there may be a prospect of significant abuse that would need to be addressed.

All-in-all, what really needs to be done with "marriage" is an overall cleanup of the concept that extends through each and every law and policy, but activists on both sides keep clinging to the concept of gays either being married or completely barred from being married, and using obscure examples to bolster their positions.

For me, the more examples that are used, the more it seems like a judicious, reasoned, and cautious approach is needed, and that there should be no change to the status quo until such an approach is fully executed.

85 do we get to vote ur civil liberties too?

Yeah, pretty much every day. 

86

39 LOL oh yes gays are crazy about support islamic polygamy

It's not at all about what you personally support. It's about the logical implications of your arguements. Some people what government to base it's actions on more than ad-hoc feelings at the moment.

87

'captain hate' thinks I'm an asshole, wow remind me to take you serious when you get a grownup name

A judge can't make me take you seriously, Tim.  Or make me consider you a "real person".  I'd think you'd be out celebrating this wonderful victory instead of acting like an asshole.  You must not be as happy as you claim to be.

88 or do we get to vote ur civil liberties too?

Yes.  Newsflash, pilloweater - we've (including homos) voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman.  You voted, and you lost several times.  

89 Gotta love all these straights volunteering their sisters to marry a gay guy, I take it your hero is Lot

90

The Constitution specifically states the definition of 'citizen'....

Ehhhh... I didn't think that one through. Hmmm... I wonder if there's another, more appropriate comparison.

91 Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Hmmm... actualy, forgot about that second part of the Art IV Sect 1... where Congress can by General Law, prescribe ....  the effects therof.

Sounds like States musts recognize other States docs, but the FEDS do not, and in fact, can prescirbe the manner of said acts by law.

Sounds like this needs to go to the Supremes...

Posted by: Romeo13 at July 08, 2010 06:40 PM (H+oXM)

Good point, Romeo.  The second clause is key.   I still see this as pretty open and shut, though.  Even in the first clause, the Constitution is not guaranteeing to each state that all of its Acts ... will be honored by every other state, but instead, is dictating to each state that it must accept the Acts ... of every other state, as Congress shall thus dictate.  No limit is placed on any State's actions in its sovereign territory.  The DOMA is pretty much a faithful concrete representation of Art IV, Sec I, done in an area integral to federal policy and with a historical tradition that stretches deep into our past.

92

Oh, how about this?

Can a state redefine the word religion to include feminism and environmentalism and then force the federal government to recognize these new protected "religions" under EEOC?

 

93

If not, why not?

Why can't states be free to change all kinds of definitions that federal policy is predicated upon?

94 You know, I have to admit sometimes that my behavior is a result of the fact that late at night, when I'm all alone, I can't entirely hold back the feeling that what I am doing is somehow wrong.  That's why I really need affirmation in the form of forcing everybody else to pretend to accept me and my life.

95 Gotta love all these straights volunteering their sisters to marry a gay guy, I take it your hero is Lot

I didn't hear any volunteering going on as concerns you, Tim.  We'd allow our sisters to marry a ghey ghuy, but not an asshole.  

96

Can a state change the meaning of the word church and force the federal government to grant certain institutions tax exempt status?

97 If the Courts and Libs are going to keep attacking DOMA - then we can chalk up another reason for a Art 5 convention.  Its not going to get any better the DOMA for you gay guys, if 34 Red State get together on a slate of Amendments.

98 Can a state change the definition of the word handgun to circumvent the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act?

99

Tim,

You do realize that if marriage is just a government thing, then all it is is recognizing that two people have arbitrarily decided they should enter a partnership together.  Why the hell should they get rights for that that single people don't have?

The only reason marriage matters is because of the religious connotations.

100 Can a state change the definition of the word handgun to circumvent the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act?

Posted by: Warden at July 08, 2010 07:00 PM (QoR4a)

Let's call them 'sea-kittens'!

101 Well it's mostly been covered but the ruling is complete bullshit. The states get to decide who is married for STATE purposes, the feds for the feds. The States don't have a right to force the Feds to recognize anything, marriage or otherwise and the states are free to do as they please for their residents and those residents need rely on that states courts if it's a law not recognized by other states.
As to the Full Faith and Credit clause that is covered in that clause. The Feds can determine what form it takes. If they determine it doesn't include marriage then in doesn't.

This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status WHICH ARE GRANTED BY THE STATE. The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly exercised it's powers to set what the federal government will recognize as marriage for determining federal benefits and does  in no way. encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state


FIFY Idiot.

102 @73 - agreed. I don't care how gay people run their lives, but if you think using the term "marriage" for gay partnerships will make you equal, you're dreaming. You think sticking the same label on it will make all the difference? Nope. It'll just piss people off, people who would probably have been happy to call it anything else. You can't point to a brunette and say she's a blonde and make her anything but brunette. Changing the label doesn't change the truth. And trying to do so is a lie that even learning disabled 3-year-olds can see through.

103

Since states primarily regulate insurance, can states change the definition of health insurance to get around Obamacare?

104 Lol you guys rock, you'll fight to the death for concealed carry to the ball park but gays marrying is a step to far! "anything could happen, our sky god will smite us" And it's not like gays are a new thing, we've been around for all time, and in all cultures and societies, hmm could be genetic or just normal human but y'all act like this is some wondrous alien invention. We have three branches of govt for a reason and somethings we claim as fundamental rights and we dingbat to vote on them. This is what we are claiming and so far most courts agree. I don't care about tolerance i wouldn't tolerate most of you and that's fine. But I do want and claim my legal protections and if ur pissed about me claiming my rights that makes u pretty ignorant as an American. Many have died for these rights and I have no problem standing up to people like u to make my case

105
meanwhile in Hawaii...

Gov Lingle says fuck you to civil unions.

106

Since states primarily regulate insurance, can states change the definition of health insurance to get around Obamacare?

Posted by: Warden at July 08, 2010 07:09 PM (QoR4a)

I highly doubt it but states can and do have their own definitions of terms such as Minor. That is not really what is at question  here. Instead this judge states the federal government  must accept Mass definition for Mass resident's for FEDERAL purposes. Pure lunacy.

And by extension every other state because anything less would violate the Equal Protection Clause. Which is what this ruling is really attempting to do. It is an attempt to establish something which clearly does not nor has ever been which is a protection of "gay marriage" by the Constitution.

107 Lol you guys rock, you'll fight to the death for concealed carry to the ball park but gays marrying is a step to far!

Posted by: Tim at July 08, 2010 07:13 PM (ph/kS)

The right to keep and bear arms is Constitutional.  When you try and compare issues, try and pick ones that are actually comparable.

108 "Does DOMA section 3 violate powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment? Is the ability to define the marital status of residents a core area of state sovereignty?"

The 10th amendment limits the issues covered by state sovereignty to only those things not explicitly assigned to the federal government.

So the STATE definition of marital status is not something that the federal government should even be discussing.

The federal definition, however, is not something that any one state should be able proscribe, either, or the mischief progressoverpeace mentions will arise.

109 Tim's here, he's queer, and he's had too many beers.

So watch it, morons.

110 Lol you guys rock, you'll fight to the death for concealed carry to the ball park but gays marrying is a step to far! "anything could happen, our sky god will smite us"


If you think about it but are the same thing a question of infringing upon my rights as an individual. The former is my right to bear arms, the latter is my right not to give a rats ass about what somebody else does and my right to keep the government from forcing me to and paying for it. Tell me in your right to "gay marriage" am I entitled as a business owner not to pay you spousal benefits as an employee for your partner because it would violate my religious beliefs? No? I didn't think so.
As you so succinctly stated this is really about you forcing me to do what I do not want. That isn't so far from defending your 2nd amendment rights.

111

anything could happen, our sky god will smite us"

Well, since so many fellas like yourself, Tim, are anti-Christian bigots, it's reason enough for me to shit on your preferences.

Now go call the waaaaaambulance about it.

112

I don't care about tolerance i wouldn't tolerate most of you and that's fine.

You don't know what that word means, do you?

Many have died for these rights and I have no problem standing up to people like u to make my case

Your constitutional right to have your SO claim your pension benefits?

So that's why we were in Vietnam.

113 National Review once defined tolerance as "body-slamming anyone who won't bend the knee to the dogmas of the left." That's always worked for me.

114 Posted by: Tim at July 08, 2010 07:13 PM (ph/kS) Actually, I don't give a shit about your sexual orientation. I don't think you're a real person because you are, I assume, an adult who uses text-speak. UR not to be taken seriously. Oh, sorry. Srsly. Kthxbai.

115 How dare u fascists try to to take away my right not to spell out Y-O-U if i dont want 2?

116

Changing the label doesn't change the truth.

Meh.

So you're saying Orwell was all hot and bothered over nothing but sound and fury?

To some extent, yes. To some extent, no.

It takes time. Generations, sometimes. And it takes a full on propoganda campaign, memetics, not just some white-out on the Master copy of Merriam-Webster.

Fortunately for them, they have both those things.

117 how many people have asked for the defense of marriage CONSTITUTIONAL amendment here? I'm pretty sure we've reached that level. It was the religious right that decided to turn this into a fight, outlawing civil unions in 36 states, including my own. That means I turn to the federal courts to see if they can do that. Now you can call me any name you want, you think that's new? you think there's a single gay kid in america that hasn't had that happen for their whole life? How many spousal benefits do you pay and why? Isn't it because as a society we decided that stable monogamous relationships contribute to society and the country? This is why it keeps being about the term "marriage" you want to act like your being magnanimous in your "tolerance" as long as you don't have to do anything about it. Well it doesn't work that way. If a civil union is as good as a marriage you better pay spousal support. It's not like there are so many gays that it really matters on the money end to you. Trust me the dating scene isn't that big. The point of the term marriage is that most of our american society has attached a certain religious affectation to a civil term. However because of separation of church and state you can't make that argument in court. If any of you read the transcripts for the pro 8 trial you'll find out just how thin your legal argument gets, it's either hatred, religion, or fear. That's the only thing that drives people against gay marriage and all look pretty ugly in a court room.

118

Uh oh, words in all caps now.  Can !!!11!1!!11!eleventy!111! be far behind?

119 @AngelEm ok I'll cop to that one i was on my phone waiting in traffic and constant use of twitter has degraded any original word spelling in a constant struggle to keep to 140

120 Tim,

Being that we're inbred Bible-thumping rednecks, I should let you know that we prefer our homosexuals to be of the 'squeal-like-a-piggy' Deliverance variety.  The whole marriage thing is just kind of a distraction from that good old backwoods frivolity.  You sweater-wearing, antique-lovin' city gals just go stinkin' the place up with your lattes and marriage and theater reviews.

121 Tim. Timmy. Wanna know what I hate? I hate that there are GAY PRIDE PARADES but straight pride parades would be politically incorrect and discriminatory. I hate that gays want to shove their lifestyle down our throats and if we resist, we're called homophobes. Newsflash, Skippy, I don't want anyone doing things that I would have to cover my children's eyes over - not in public. Do whatever the hell you want in your own space - and yes, that goes for everyone, straight or gay. You are a goddamned protected class, just like the Muslims, blacks and many others. You use that "HOMOPHOBE!" complaint whenever people don't do what you want them to, and it's bullshit. I am not sorry I was born white. I am not sorry my parents raised me Christian (though I'm not now). I DO NOT CARE about you. Get it? I do not. You're not any more or less special than the parent who sees to it that her children go to church with her every week. Somehow, that person got to be the bad guy. YOU WILL RECOGNIZE ME OR I'LL STOMP MY FEET AND THROW INSULTS AT YOU. Knock yourself out, Tim. Believe it or not, we are far from the most evil thing out there. For example, that family who's in church every Sunday aren't real likely to behead you for your sexuality. Or push a wall over on you. Whichever.

122 @nickless you'll be happy to note that as a gay child to a redneck, god fearing, bible thumping family that I'm well versed in making farmboys squeal like a pig. Also please note the distinct lack of sweaters in my closet space, and I'm more of a hard liquor gay than a latte gay.

123 If any of you read the transcripts for the pro 8 trial you'll find out just how thin your legal argument gets, it's either hatred, religion, or fear. That's the only thing that drives people against gay marriage and all look pretty ugly in a court room.

Posted by: Tim at July 08, 2010 07:39 PM (ZVCmH)

OH! Now I get where your idiotic ideas of law comes from. We have read a lot of them. Gabe has posted the finer points and they are all garbage. But you really do need to look up the definition of Tolerance. There is nothing about tolerance that suggests I have to do a damn thing other than not give a shit. Trust me, you already have that.

124

It was the religious right that decided to turn this into a fight

I'm not part of the religious right, but as soon as you and your fascist little buddies demonstrated that your goal was to force acceptance of your lifestyle by going after the Boy Scouts, I put myself squarely against you.

I'm a live and let live kinda guy, but not with people who don't reciprocate. Go cry your tears somewhere else, boy.

 

125 Oh and can we please get off of the whole "marriage is government recognizing religion" bit? Marriage, and child support and divorce, was the sole province of the church till the government usurped it. Why? Not for religious reasons that's for sure.
It was to protect women and children, end of story. It is still the sole interest the state has in marriage. Leave religion out of it because the states did over 100 years ago other than to let a religious figure officiate.

126 @AngelEm you'll be happy to note that Mardi grai parades are still popular and socially acceptable and carried out throughout most of the country and the world. Along with the full nakedness and debauchery that eventually spawned gay parades. We even throw beads. Personally I think you should be ashamed of nakedness and take a page from our European cousins. I can assure you from personal experience that it makes some of your kids really really kinky and weird about their bodies. If you would like to sponsor a gay parade without nudity please contact your local Pride chapter that organizes your parades. I for one think that would be an awesome social event. I am curious if you would like the Dykes on Bikes ride too though, they get little mean if they're left out. As I mentioned before I don't really give a fuck about churches.

127 What #130 said.

Tim and his ilk don't seem to realize the huge amounts of resentment and anger they're building up.  They also don't seem to get that they're a tiny little itty minority who won't do so well if (when) things turn ugly.

128

Mardi grai parades are still popular and socially acceptable and carried out throughout most of the country and the world

You don't know what a Mardi Gras parade is, do you?

129

Gotta love all these straights volunteering their sisters to marry a gay guy, I take it your hero is Lot.

Why not?

After all, Tim, you claimed this was all about "monogamous relationships". Are you now saying that gays and lesbians like yourself don't believe in monogamy and would cheat on our sisters that you married?

 

130

 Along with the full nakedness and debauchery that eventually spawned gay parades.

ORLY?

131

Personally I think you should be ashamed of nakedness and take a page from our European cousins. I can assure you from personal experience that it makes some of your kids really really kinky and weird about their bodies.

Be ashamed... And have nude beaches? Hire topless girls to stand on the road-side waving speed-limit signs? Allow street-window prostitution?

What the fuck bizarro world do you live in where everything is upside down?

Let me ask you something timmy:

Are you here legally? Can I see your passport? Does NASA know we've been contacted?

132 I'm still trying to figure out what fucking "right" Timmay is being denied.

133 @GMan thank you and the others for threatening mob violence, it's nice to know that I'm using the courts for a reason. As for those that want me to marry their sister, would you really condemn to people to a life without sex just so things look nice in your picture of the world? I mean it happens all the time, just go to craigslist and check out how many married guys are looking to hookup on the down low. Obviously the whole marriage thing straightened them right out. helllooo messy divorce court. alright y'all I'm out gonna go meetup with an military guy and talk about butch things

134 6 Oh it's coming.

Posted by: The Gay Inquisition at July 08, 2010 05:13 PM (xO+6C)

I prefer to refer to it as the Sultanate of Sodom.  And anyone who understands marriage and morality as they've been understood for the last few millennia will become only a semi-tolerated minority under that Sultanate.  Welcome to dhimmitude.

135 You're welcome, douchebag.

Look at it this way.  I'm just returning the favor you and your buddies gave normal folks in california over Prop 8.

136

just go to craigslist and check out how many married guys are looking to hookup on the down low.

hahahaha!

This one is just too precious.

137

Hey timmy, here's a hint: The time when you and your buddies got away with your bullshit double standards has ended.

Expect to be treated in the same manner that you treat others.

Retributive politics -- it's the new black!

138 Is the ability to define the marital status of residents a core area of state sovereignty?

Gabe, DOMA in no way impinges on any State's definition of marriage.  No way, whatsoever.  A State can allow marriage between people and animals.  All the DOMA says is what it will not accept from States, and what other States , are allowed to ignore - as Art IV, Sec I details as part of Congress' job concerning Full Faith and Credit (highlighted by Romeo).

139 Timmy thinks that the whole world should change just because he likes it in through the out door. Go rant and rave somewhere else.

140 It was the religious right that decided to turn this into a fight

...if they'd only just shut up and let us do anything we wanted without the slightest question or complaint nobody would get hurt..

That's pretty much the implication here: fighting back is bad. Defending what you believe in and fighting against what you think is wrong when it attacks makes you the aggressor. That's the modern "I can do whatever I want and if you say no I'll throw a tantrum" mindset.

141 *shhhh* I'm studying for nursing school, I only have time to destroy the pseudo-traditional institutions between 4-7pm central time. *pats Buzzion on head*

142 um if you bothered to read the comment chain starting up around 40 and than my response in 60? you'll see that I apparently need it to protect myself and my family from people that would deny me equal protection under the law. The same reasons straights get married instead of just cohabitating. Why would you assume I'm a liberal? I'm pretty sure encouraging gays to be monogamous and work to form stable long lasting family units puts me in the conservative think tank.

143 Civil Unions are "marriage" with a different name. That's like me beating you into the critical care ward with a baseball bat and calling it "touching" rather than assault.

144 “But even as the debate concerning interracial marriage waxed and waned throughout history, the federal government consistently yielded to marital status determinations established by the states,” Tauro wrote. “That says something. And this court is convinced that the federal government’s long history of acquiescence in this arena indicates that, indeed, the federal government traditionally regarded marital status determinations as the exclusive province of state government.”

 Igeuss this judge has never heard of the Morrill or Edmunds-Tucker Acts.
What a complete idiot.

145 So call it the same for everyone, but just don't call it marriage.

Posted by: buzzion at July 08, 2010 10:19 PM (oVQFe)

If they can't have their way, no one can have what has existed for thousands of years and what reflects the natural organization of the most basic biological structures and imperatives that exist.

The next frontier:

All implements must be manufactured and stocked in equal numbers of left and right-handed versions, so that if a right-handed guy and a left-handed guy both ask for 100 golf gloves, say, neither's "rights to equal opportunity of purchasing choice" is infringed upon.  The discrimination against left-handers must stop.  English must adopt a right-to-left orientation option so that left-handers will have parity in handwriting (as left-to-right is right-centric writing).

We will have utopia ... or no one will have anything.

146 *shhhh* I'm studying for nursing school, I only have time to destroy the pseudo-traditional institutions between 4-7pm central time. *pats Buzzion on head*

Posted by: Tim at July 08, 2010 09:34 PM (ZVCmH)

Spoken like a true conservative. Timmy lay off the rectal thermometers. They are affecting your brain.

147 So the European Court of Human Rights has rejected gay marriage as a fundamental right but the socialists in Mass party onward in their destruction of western values and traditions.

148 I guess that means it a state's right to not recognize same sex marriage.

149 Here in MA, there was a move afoot to place the gay marriage issue on a ballot so the voters could have a say......our legislators blocked it.  They also dithered and squirmed to avoid having their name attached to either making it law, or defeating it.  And they did this more than once.  Our court, after ordering the legislature to attend to their duties, took action.  Interestingly enough, the lone lesbian judge pleaded with the rest of the panel to NOT make this law.....they ignored her.
And, judging by past issues voted on by the citizens, and ignored by our legislature, I am amazed they did not make the gay marriage legal.  Our gay community is extremely strong in this state.

150 Ferlycheater
Ferly'Juliansyah

151 An awesome lv handbags for cheap shows to arrive throughout the remarkable good quality wholesale LV handbags can be to glimpse arround lv Damier Graphite Canvas concerning the properly recognized sweeping internet web-sites and make specific that there suggestions or ranking is excellent. buying lv Damier Ebene Canvas Bags< from the wholesaler is ordinarily a nicer choice then buying from what ever nearby supplier since it will permit that you evaluate the costs of many lv monogram purses for sale providers and assortments at a time. You can purchase the purses in bulk that will pass right into a deduction merchandising price to be certain that you just will lv monogram wallets capable to market them for some earnings that is your principal purpose while you leverage the sweeping lv monogram canvas handbag sale.