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.
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.
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.
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM
1062 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law.
- 18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM
639 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional.
- 18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM
687 Views
Do you know if there's a case about DOMA and the "full faith and credit" clause?
- 18/10/2012 10:05:11 PM
756 Views
I don't know offhand, but my gchat friend will. If she pops on again, I'll ask her. But...
- 18/10/2012 10:37:09 PM
772 Views
I asked her about pending cases taking on Section 2. "None that I know of," she answered. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 12:46:21 AM
283 Views
I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM
714 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well.
- 19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM
711 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not.
- 19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM
608 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point.
- 20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM
686 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it.
- 19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM
767 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading.
- 19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM
788 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM*
- 18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM
301 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause
- 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM
833 Views
Not really
- 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM
748 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
666 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
300 Views
provide for us a legal reason why marrying a corporation should be recognized by the US gov't
- 19/10/2012 08:09:08 PM
739 Views
The argument above was that there was no jsutification it should not, thus it should be allowed.
- 19/10/2012 10:57:16 PM
747 Views
you are only offering your own emotional take on a legal decision there is no logic in your posts
- 19/10/2012 11:12:17 PM
661 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM
315 Views
saying you should be able to marry a spoon or corporation is not logical reasoning. try again *NM*
- 22/10/2012 06:19:29 PM
291 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM
283 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM*
- 22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM
299 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school.
- 23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM
672 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic
- 23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM
638 Views
Ah yes, the fuck you argument... the height of all intelectual persuits... and you call ME emotional
- 23/10/2012 06:47:21 PM
713 Views
i see -- it's ok to be insulting as long as the "f-bomb" is not used. got it.
- 23/10/2012 10:27:54 PM
789 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM*
- 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM
308 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white?
- 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM
639 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully
- 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM
601 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument.
- 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM
621 Views
No, I am not, try reading everything I have written on the subject before jumping to conclusions.
- 22/10/2012 11:41:05 PM
771 Views
It was only a matter of time.
- 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM
672 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion.
- 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM
841 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
720 Views
There is no right being denied...
- 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM
683 Views
that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
- 19/10/2012 08:06:54 PM
754 Views
Re: that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
- 19/10/2012 11:11:55 PM
809 Views
nobody is arguing the legal right to marry, they are arguing about the legal rights marriage gives
- 19/10/2012 11:37:14 PM
662 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada...
- 22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM
680 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"?
- 22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM
593 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument:
- 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM
709 Views
