Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow! I wasn't expecting this! Everyone's been waiting for the decision on Prop. 8 in California. This decision is quite a surprise. The drama continues!
The decision makes a lot of sense. The federal government had never been involved in defining marriage for the entire country. Anyone in favor of states' rights should support this decision.
This is also a great "consolation prize" for Martha Coakley after having lost her race for the Senate in Massachusetts.
A big question: Will the Obama Administration appeal this decision? I wouldn't put it past them.
If DOJ follows precedent, Holder will appeal the decision. I don't agree, but DOJ is obligated to defend any law passed by Congress. Maybe DOJ will present very weak arguments. Obama has publicly stated he believes the law is discriminatory. IMHO, Holder and Obama are playing good cop bad cop.
If DOJ follows precedent, Holder will appeal the decision. I don't agree, but DOJ is obligated to defend any law passed by Congress. Maybe DOJ will present very weak arguments. Obama has publicly stated he believes the law is discriminatory. IMHO, Holder and Obama are playing good cop bad cop.
No, this is clear cut. Everyone should be able to follow this ruling.
Massachusetts has gay marriage. It is the right of Commonwealth to define marriage as it deems fit.
The Federal Government under the former DOMA legislation denied to same sex married couples the same federal benefits to hetero couples.
The Commonwealth therefore was forced to deny to married couples [which by right and precedent] it gets to define those same rights. The Commonwealth had to practice open discrimination
The Commonwealth argued, that under the 10th Amendment, it had the right to define marriage as it deem fit, therefore the any act passed by Congress which defines marriage differently is a conflict of interest for the Commonwealth and is therefore a violation of it's soverignty from the federal government under the guise of marriage.
It changes a lot, actually. There are over 1000 federal benefits given to opposite-sex married couples. This decision now grants those federal benefits to same-sex married couples too.
That is what it was all about in the first place money,it really had nothing to do with gay marriage.That is why it is not good enough for gays to go to a UU church and just marry they had to have the gvt recognize it so they could collect.It's all about money not about the right to marry,right?
When did marriage become some right that had to be protected?
This is what happens when the gvt buts into a area they have no business in,marriage is a church and religious function period.
I find it highly amusing that all of the sudden you are a staunch states righter now.I have read a good portion of what you have posted and I can say you do not have a ounce of libertarian in you until now.
I find it highly amusing that all of the sudden you are a staunch states righter now.I have read a good portion of what you have posted and I can say you do not have a ounce of libertarian in you until now.
Then you've misread much of what I've said. I'm much more libertarian on social issues than most Americans. If you want to make more comments about this, however, please send me a direct message. There's no need to hijack this thread with personal attacks against me. Thanks.
That is what it was all about in the first place money,it really had nothing to do with gay marriage.That is why it is not good enough for gays to go to a UU church and just marry they had to have the gvt recognize it so they could collect.It's all about money not about the right to marry,right?
When did marriage become some right that had to be protected?
This is what happens when the gvt buts into a area they have no business in,marriage is a church and religious function period.
I find it highly amusing that all of the sudden you are a staunch states righter now.I have read a good portion of what you have posted and I can say you do not have a ounce of libertarian in you until now.
So I assume that you're out in the streets each day, picketing government involvement in straight marriage with the same furor that you're showing on this site against gay marriage? Or at least writing letters to your representatives to abolish legally recognized marriage? If not... hypocrite...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
