Active Users:782 Time:07/02/2026 04:24:08 AM
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause Joel Send a noteboard - 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM
It is one thing to say churches that forbid homosexuality should not perform homosexual marriages and quite another to say the federal government should not ALLOW them. For my money, any constitutionally protected right places the burden of proof on the federal government to show the nations highest law is not violated by inferior ones (for conservatives reading along: Yes, that goes for the Second Amendment, too; licensing and registering guns just like cars is fine, but banning any or all is not.) Whether marriage is a right or privilege is immaterial to the Equal Protection Clauses requirement state and federal law treat all Americans equally, and the DoMA segregated marriage as surely as miscegenation laws did.

The timing, however, is perfectly awful; much as with the fight Obama picked with the Catholic Church over contraception, it will not bring anyone to the polls to thank him, and will bring many to the polls to rebuke him. Pity they could not have deliberated another three weeks or so.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional. - 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM 1061 Views
An excellent ruling. Thanks for the post. *NM* - 18/10/2012 08:47:54 PM 306 Views
Oh, and they addressed the First Circuit's argument: - 18/10/2012 08:54:47 PM 841 Views
I always knew that DomA guy was bad news. - 18/10/2012 09:05:13 PM 586 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause - 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM 831 Views
Not really - 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM 748 Views
Not quite - 19/10/2012 02:56:56 PM 639 Views
Yes, really, for "any CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT." - 19/10/2012 03:12:11 PM 725 Views
joel, please stop - 19/10/2012 05:42:51 PM 695 Views
That's such a stupid, puerile argument. - 19/10/2012 03:47:26 PM 714 Views
Not the best analogy, though I agree with the sentiment. - 19/10/2012 04:10:11 PM 647 Views
Then by the "legal argument" you all propose I should have the "right" to marry a spoon... - 19/10/2012 05:48:32 PM 664 Views
if your spoon or dog is capable of making power of attorney decisions then by all means do so *NM* - 19/10/2012 06:41:43 PM 305 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM* - 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM 298 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM* - 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM 307 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white? - 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM 637 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully - 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM 599 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument. - 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM 618 Views
It was only a matter of time. - 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM 671 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion. - 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM 839 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb. - 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM 754 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself - 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM 718 Views
There is no right being denied... - 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM 680 Views
No? - 19/10/2012 11:34:36 PM 651 Views
Really - 22/10/2012 04:29:38 PM 665 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument: - 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM 707 Views
Nope I am not - 22/10/2012 04:34:59 PM 637 Views
That is just it: Most US marriage laws are already areligious. - 23/10/2012 05:08:38 PM 650 Views
Yes, the laws are 100% secular... - 23/10/2012 07:01:08 PM 623 Views

Reply to Message