Appeals court overturns federal gay-marriage law
A federal appeals court in Boston has ruled unanimously that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, in effect reaching the same conclusion as the Obama Justice Department.
The case is almost certainly destined to be decided by the Supreme Court, a fact the appeals court noted in delaying implementation of its ruling until the Supreme Court gets a shot at it.
The ruling is certainly founded in logic and reason. The court ruled that the federal government cannot confer benefits on those who were married under Georgia law or Kansas law and then deny benefits to those married under Massachusetts law, which allows gay couples to marry.
In one example, federal law allows the spouses of military veterans to be buried alongside them in military cemeteries. But DOMA would deny that right to gay spouses of veterans. The court found that violates both the right of gay Americans to equal protection under the law and violates the authority of states to regulate marriage.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
538 comments Add your comment
I'm a liberal and believe everything I read and nothing the other side comes up with...cause we're smart and they are not
May 31st, 2012
1:54 pm
Give us your version Adam. Read my moniker and you know we need help from the wise and gifted.
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
1:55 pm
Dear Joe @ 1:52, good afternoon, you are correct that I think the leftist cult of death is poison for an enlightened society, indistinguishable from Nazi death camps in their willingness to destroy the weak for the convenience of the strong. Don’t know what that has to do with homosexual marriage, but you raised it.
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
1:55 pm
curious @ 1:46
“Make sure you have the police and paddy wagon(s) on hand.”
Problem is that it will not just be left vs right……… You will see some right vs right and left vs left as well.
Once we got past politics, it would probably amaze all of us how the cliches would split up……… It surely wouldn’t all be about Obama and Romney
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
1:56 pm
R. Danneskjold — “You correctly perceive that I think governments should not be in the business of regulating relationships between or among adults”
You’re so incredibly full of crap, Rags. Didn’t you say that Congress was right in passing legislation to PREVENT Richard Schiavo from disconnecting his wife from life support?
I can’t think of a more extreme statist position than supporting legislation that only impacts the behavior of ONE American.
Peter
May 31st, 2012
1:57 pm
Paul……. Good to know. The written word of the blogosphere is not the best for accurate communication.
I am human so I have good days and bad, typically when my panties get in a wad is when my EGO is involved…… So I have to keep that in check always !
Paul
May 31st, 2012
1:57 pm
Doggone/GA
Again, adoption isn’t the issue. It was the example to illustrate the possible implications for a religious institution when their religiously-derived practices appear to run counter to a state supreme-court definition of a ‘fundamental right.’
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
1:57 pm
Dear Joe @ 1:56, clearly you do not know the difference between “regulation” and “adjudication.” Learn it, live it.
John Birch
May 31st, 2012
1:58 pm
Jay, if you want to cut and paste news articles from your own paper and call it an editorial piece, why not use the one about the illegal alien photographing his nude grandchildren?
Adam
May 31st, 2012
1:58 pm
Give us your version Adam
It’s not “my version,” it’s the law. Which is easily something you can find out more about without my help.
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
1:59 pm
Well, actually, as a card-carrying member of the cult of death, I suppose “living it” is outside your capacity. Perhaps you could just try to understand the distinction.
Peter
May 31st, 2012
1:59 pm
curious May 31st, 2012 1:46 pm. great stuff.. I laughed out loud about the paddy wagon !
JamVet
May 31st, 2012
2:00 pm
I tend to agree that GM is a mystery meat.
And obviously, I am not saying that there are not plenty of irrational, intolerant, gay bashing bible thumpers that visit here and who use the same moniker for more than 15 minutes…
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
2:02 pm
Dear Joe @ various times, my argument is purely jurisprudential. I know that big word is beyond your comprehension, but there are broad rules courts follow in analyzing conflicts among laws. Federal generally trumps state, the specific trumps the general, the more recent trumps the older. Here the question never gets past the first level, as the Federal law cannot be generally invalidated by a state law.
That Black Guy
May 31st, 2012
2:03 pm
josef
May 31st, 2012
1:15 pm
Skipper
@ 1:03
I never coveted my neighbor’s wife either…now his ass…?
___________________________________________________
ok josef, now tell me how to get chocolate milkshake out of my keyboard.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:04 pm
R. Danneskjold — “you are correct that I think the leftist cult of death is poison for an enlightened society, indistinguishable from Nazi death camps in their willingness to destroy the weak for the convenience of the strong. Don’t know what that has to do with homosexual marriage, but you raised it.”
It means that you’re a hypocrite and that you’re willing to use coercive state power to achieve your aims.
josef
May 31st, 2012
2:05 pm
I guess G-d must’ve called Gwynnette home…
PAUL
Waiting on Mary…good one! I just got it! I guess I was just having too much fun frolicking in the autumn mist of old age…
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
2:05 pm
“It was the example to illustrate the possible implications for a religious institution when their religiously-derived practices appear to run counter to a state supreme-court definition of a ‘fundamental right.’”
Except that adoption is not a fundamental right, so it’s a poor example. Marriage could be considered a fundamental right…but since it is ALSO a legal contract, then any church that perform LEGAL marriages should be subject to the laws and regulations pertaining to the legal relationship. If they don’t like that, they can get out of the marriage BUSINESS.
They could still perform institutional “marriages” but those would not be legal marriages until the couple appears before a presiding LEGAL functionary licensed to perfom those marriages.
So if a church chooses to discriminate in it’s parishioners and in the church “weddings” performed there, there is no legal recourse because they are not performing legal marriages.
See, to me it’s simple: marriage are a legal contract and always have been. They should be done by a legal functionary, not a religious one.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:05 pm
R. Danneskjold — “Dear Joe @ 1:56, clearly you do not know the difference between “regulation” and “adjudication.” Learn it, live it.”
Clearly YOU do not know the difference between “libertarian” and “statist.” (laughing, pointing)
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
2:07 pm
Dear Joe @ various times, I think there is a reasonable argument that the Congress would have power to pass a DOMA only to the extent that DOMA controls the relationship between individuals and the Federal government. Don’t think Congress would have power to inflict a DOMA-perspective over the internal affairs of a state and its residents.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:07 pm
R. Danneskjold — “Well, actually, as a card-carrying member of the cult of death, I suppose “living it” is outside your capacity. Perhaps you could just try to understand the distinction.”
Neither one has any bearing on the matter. You clearly support using coercive state power to interfere in private medical decisions.
ZOMG SOSHULIZUM
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
2:07 pm
Rags
Not that you have a dog in the fight, but should gays be allowed to marry in your opinion?
Not how it relates to state or Federal law, but your opinion.
No offense, but on one hand you say I have no dog in the fight and on the other you want to argue what law trumps the other and how the SC will probably rule.
Those two things are not necessarily one in the same.
You are a big boy, don’t hide behind the law and possible rulings. What is your opinion?
That Black Guy
May 31st, 2012
2:08 pm
Adam
May 31st, 2012
1:17 pm
ty: Are there more people who are NOT old white males than old white males who do not support this decision? Is there any group that has more a majority opposed, compared to old white males? Because if so, THAT is your argument against someone saying that when they die off the attitude in this country will change. Not “a couple of black people don’t agree TOO”
_______________________________________________________________________
Believe me, it’s not just “a couple” Black people. FWIW
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
2:08 pm
Dear Joe @ 2:04, you are correct to infer that I think it is an appropriate function for the government to protect the helpless from those who would kill them. Leftists disagree, of course, and that is why I call yours the “cult of death.”
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
May 31st, 2012
2:09 pm
“A federal appeals court in Boston has ruled unanimously that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, in effect reaching the same conclusion as the Obama Justice Department.
The case is almost certainly destined to be decided by the Supreme Court …………
The ruling is certainly founded in logic and reason. The court ruled that the federal government cannot confer benefits on those who were married under Georgia law or Kansas law and then deny benefits to those married under Massachusetts law, which allows gay couples to marry.”
A couple (no pun intended) of points:
1) If this holds, there will be no way in the future to prohibit polygamy. Just a matter of time.
2) Although I am against it, if this holds then I agree it should apply to every state ………. as driver’s licenses do and as “firearms licenses” should !!!
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
2:09 pm
“I guess G-d must’ve called Gwynnette home”
I just hope here 1st question isn’t regarding about the a/c being off……………
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
2:11 pm
“………her 1st……..”
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
2:11 pm
Dear Both @ 2:07, fair question. I think all should use “domestic relations” agreements, and I regard marriage as a church rite, not as a government function. I think there should be no Federal or state preferences for “married” vs “unmarried.” Does that answer all?
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:11 pm
R. Danneskjold — “my argument is purely jurisprudential.”
Rejected. You supported Congress *passing legislation* to interfere with Mr. Schiavo. That is in no way jurisprudential.
“I know that big word is beyond your comprehension,”
Not at all. But clearly it’s beyond your own, since you seem to have jurisprudence mixed up with legislation, socialist.
“but there are broad rules courts follow in analyzing conflicts among laws.”
Irrelevant to the Schiavo matter.
“Federal generally trumps state, the specific trumps the general, the more recent trumps the older. Here the question never gets past the first level, as the Federal law cannot be generally invalidated by a state law.”
Clearly you have neither read the decision nor understand it. State law didn’t override Federal law. As I told you already, a prior SCOTUS precedent was applied to DOMA and DOMA was thereby found unconstitutional. Thus DOMA has been handed back to SCOTUS for consideration. If SCOTUS refuses to grant certiorari, then the lower court decision will stand and DOMA will be invalidated.
Do try harder to keep up, won’t you?
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
2:12 pm
Dear Joe @ 2:11, you have not attacked my jurisprudence competently. You only assassinate the character of those who correctly assess your willingness to see the weak die at the hands of the strong.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:12 pm
R. Danneskjold — “I think there is a reasonable argument that the Congress would have power to pass a DOMA only to the extent that DOMA controls the relationship between individuals and the Federal government.”
Except that DOMA expressly *permitted* the creation of a separate-but-equal legal status, which is unconstitutional.
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
2:13 pm
Rags
Thanks for the reply and exchange
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
2:14 pm
Dear Joe @ 2:11, a prior SCOTUS precedent does not invalidate a law that reversed the court ruling. The Congress can pass a law that changes the way cases are adjudicated. You are still left with a change in Massachusetts state law as the sole basis for invalidating the Federal law. If a court can uphold the established Federal law by invalidating the new state law, it normally will do so.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
May 31st, 2012
2:15 pm
Bumper Sticker
“Obama’s approval ratings are so low, Kenyans are accusing him of being born in the United States”
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:15 pm
R. Danneskjold — “you are correct to infer that I think it is an appropriate function for the government to protect the helpless from those who would kill them.”
It’s not an appropriate function for government to become involved in private medical decisions. And *centuries* of common law and precedent establish that when a person cannot speak for themselves, a spouse may do so. You clearly support governmental interference in private medical decisions, and are therefore a statist. And a hypocrite.
“Leftists disagree, of course, and that is why I call yours the “cult of death.”
You can call me and mine whatever you like. I’ll call you a statist and a hypocrite, which has the virtue of being both true and accurate.
josef
May 31st, 2012
2:17 pm
FORMAL BLACK GUY
Don’t know about the chocolate shake…there’ve been so many good one liners here today, I’ve been threatening to go to iPad to protect the keyboard!
As to you and the Black church on this topic. That was one of the reasons I took Jay and the memo on the way I did with their claim that Obama’s statement was not “exactly a profile in courage.” It was. For him to stand up and challenge the Black church to make the same journey he had in look at it from a Christian perspective took cajones…he got a lot of Brownie points (I can say that, can’t I?
) for that in my book of actions and deeds…
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:18 pm
R. Danneskjold — “you have not attacked my jurisprudence competently.”
I most certainly have. You are clearly unable to distinguish jurisprudence and legislation.
“You only assassinate the character of those who correctly assess your willingness to see the weak die at the hands of the strong.”
Rejected. I highlight the hypocrisy of those — like yourself — who claim to be lovers of liberty but who would support and exert coercive state power in order to interfere with the private medical decisions of others. You are a reprehensible individual, Mr. Danneskjold.
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
2:18 pm
” I regard marriage as a church rite, not as a government function. ”
Except that it isn’t. It’s a legal contract and always has been. The first known reference to marriage is in a listing of laws.
getalife
May 31st, 2012
2:19 pm
I could not stomach w.
House rejects bill outlawing abortion.
Desperate.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
May 31st, 2012
2:19 pm
Hummmmm ………………………….
“Reports have surfaced that President Barack Obama is very loyal to his barber. The President is a man of the common people, the report tells its listeners. He hangs out with regular folks, like his barber for example. The President has been using the same Chicago based barber, who goes by the name Zariff, for the past 17 years. According to German Public Radio, the President flies Zariff from Chicago to DC for a trim every two weeks. The president allegedly personally funds these trips.”
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2012/05/30/report-obama-flies-special-barber-wh-every-two-weeks#ixzz1wTMy5Zxi
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
May 31st, 2012
2:19 pm
Hummmmm ………………………….
“Reports have surfaced that President Barack Obama is very loyal to his barber. The President is a man of the common people, the report tells its listeners. He hangs out with regular folks, like his barber for example. The President has been using the same Chicago based barber, who goes by the name Zariff, for the past 17 years. According to German Public Radio, the President flies Zariff from Chicago to DC for a trim every two weeks. The president allegedly personally funds these trips.”
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2012/05/30/report-obama-flies-special-barber-wh-every-two-weeks#ixzz1wTMy5Zxi
curious
May 31st, 2012
2:19 pm
If a same sex couple is legally married in MA and they decide to divorce, they can save a lot of legal fees by moving to NC. Right?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
May 31st, 2012
2:20 pm
Hic-cup !
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
May 31st, 2012
2:21 pm
curious:
lol !
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
2:21 pm
Dear Joe @ 2:14, “It’s not an appropriate function for government to become involved in private medical decisions. ” Poppycock. My argument supports (1) protecting children from sex criminals and incest, (2) infants in the womb from arbitrary murder by abortionists, and (3) the helpless from starvation-murder by a faithless spouse. Don’t know why you think government has no purpose in protecting the helpless from the strong.
That Black Guy
May 31st, 2012
2:22 pm
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
May 31st, 2012
1:30 pm
How does one scream “fowel,
___________________________________________
It’s what you scream when you are an umpire at a chickenhawk softball game.
Common Sense isn't very Common
May 31st, 2012
2:22 pm
HEY quit picking on NC.
We have become the preferred layover for STUPID LAWS lately
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
May 31st, 2012
2:22 pm
“Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren acknowledged for the first time late Wednesday night that she told Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania that she was Native American, but she continued to insist that race played no role in her recruitment.”
Liar, liar you wampum is on fire !
josef
May 31st, 2012
2:22 pm
SCOUT
“Obama’s approval ratings are so low, Kenyans are accusing him of being born in the United States”
I don’t care who you are, thass funny.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:22 pm
R. Danneskjold — “a prior SCOTUS precedent does not invalidate a law that reversed the court ruling.”
Wrong.
The unconstitutionality of Separate but Equal was established via SCOTUS decision.
The Federal appeals court found that DOMA expressly permitted the existence of separate but equal marriages. Therefore, the court found DOMA unconstitutional based on prior SCOTUS precedent. QED.
“The Congress can pass a law that changes the way cases are adjudicated.”
Rejected. Congress cannot pass a law that suddenly legalizes unconstitutional institutions. Well, Congress *can,* but the courts can strike such a law down. And that’s what happened here.
“You are still left with a change in Massachusetts state law as the sole basis for invalidating the Federal law.”
Rejected. SCOTUS already said *years ago* that Separate but Equal is unconstitutional. The MA state law is beside the point. Read the freakin’ decision, Rags.
“If a court can uphold the established Federal law by invalidating the new state law, it normally will do so.”
And here you explain the basis for your misunderstanding.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
May 31st, 2012
2:23 pm
HEADLINE: “Sex-Selective Abortion Debate Erupts in House’
This will be interesting !
Bumper Sticker”
“EQUAL RIGHTS FOR UNBORN WOMEN”
Jefferson
May 31st, 2012
2:24 pm
Why is multiple spouses against the law ?
Adam
May 31st, 2012
2:25 pm
TBG: Believe me, it’s not just “a couple” Black people. FWIW
True, and my apologies for any offense. None was intended. I just don’t think that there’s enough of an anti-gay non-”old white male” conglomerate to affect public opinion as anti-gay majority if you remove all the old white dude from the equation. I could be wrong, but I have no way of actually knowing for sure because I don’t know where to find the statistics on that.
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
2:26 pm
Dear Doggone @ 2:18, you perplex: why would I care about the history of marriage? I regard it as a religious rite. I agree that “legal marriage” is a statutory contract whose terms are inflicted by the legislature. I cannot envision why the existence of a state law should be more important to one than the religious ceremony.
Common Sense isn't very Common
May 31st, 2012
2:26 pm
Why is multiple spouses against the law
——————————————————————————–
Because below a certain IQ level you probably can’t get married
And that would be definite proof
stands for decibels
May 31st, 2012
2:26 pm
In fact, he was totally down with Terri Schiavo’s parents and Congress in getting all up in her medical decisions — over the objections of Mr. Schiavo.
Yeah, I’ve always found it curious, the overlap between those who whinge about marriage equality somehow diminishing the institution of marriage, and those who didn’t seem to give a rat’s ass about Terri Schaivo’s marriage commitment.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:26 pm
R. Danneskjold — “Poppycock. My argument supports (1) protecting children from sex criminals and incest, (2) infants in the womb from arbitrary murder by abortionists, and (3) the helpless from starvation-murder by a faithless spouse.”
Your position supports governmental interference in private medical decisions. Fortunately for those who love freedom, abortion is legal (despite your laughable ‘legal’ definition of it as “murder”) and your #3 is an emotional and hysterical misrepresentation of the facts of the Schiavo case. Nobody has objected to your #1, which I suspect you’ve included to give your argument a thin veneer of respectability and sanity.
“Don’t know why you think government has no purpose in protecting the helpless from the strong.”
I don’t know why you insist on misrepresenting my position and lying about your own.
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
2:27 pm
Dear Joe @ 2:22, don’t suppose it crossed your mind that the invalidated “separate but equal” was a court doctrine, and not a statute?
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:28 pm
R. Danneskjold — “don’t suppose it crossed your mind that the invalidated “separate but equal” was a court doctrine, and not a statute?”
First thing I thought of, Rags. But it’s irrelevant to the decision.
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
2:29 pm
Dear Joe @ 2:26, the usual leftist trope is that one whose logic is stronger than his own is a “liar.”
josef
May 31st, 2012
2:29 pm
SCOUT
Stop it with the Warren one, okay? You’ve already been called out on claiming the same blood quantum yourself for political commentary gain here bouts…you ain’t careful Unmentionable’s gonna chase you down and “scalp what little hair you got left on yore pointy l’il noggin” and then he says he’s gonna make you spend the night in the same bed with the Du-k-sha-nee…
Soothsayer
May 31st, 2012
2:29 pm
At last! The terrible truth can be told about homosexuals!
redneckbluedog
May 31st, 2012
2:29 pm
Refugee from the “Sahara of the Bozart” (Thank God and H.L. Mencken We Escaped)
May 31st, 2012
12:10 pm
This could be another War Between The States issue. Even the most progressive “Hate State” North Carolina just voted overwhelmingly “agin it” as Pastor Worley says as he calls for all “queers and homos” to be put inside a big fence so they can be kept from reproducing(?) and exterminated. Shorter University and 2 other TaliBaptist colleges in Jawja are decimating their faculties with their gay hate tactics. Don’t expect to see this reported in the AJC.
Same-sex marriage in the “Hate States”?
————————————————————
And yet they will vote for a polytheist in November……..
The Bible tells us that hypocrites are condemned to Hell as well….
josef
May 31st, 2012
2:30 pm
“Why is multiple spouses against the law”
Cruel and unusual punishment?
ragnar danneskjold
May 31st, 2012
2:30 pm
Dear Joe @ 2:28, we can agree that leftists do not distinguish the validity of court-made law vs. legislated statutes. Conservatives view the former as an invalid form of “activism,” and the latter as “Constitutional design.”
JamVet
May 31st, 2012
2:30 pm
I fully understand the childish obsession with trying to denigrate Ms. Warren.
If I were a pathetically soft on crime neocon and I saw this woman who is MUCH smarter than the entire leadership of that dysfunctional organization, who does not suffer from the Dick Cheney ostrich syndrome and who has a spine to the point that she wants to hold FULLY accountable to the rule of law, the banksters and corporate titans of malfeasance and deadly dereliction, I too would be grabbing at every straw that I could…
That one woman is more of a force for good than the top fifty fake conservative Republican men in this country…
TGT
May 31st, 2012
2:31 pm
As a Christian conservative, I’m certainly glad to see that same-sex marriage is becoming even MORE of an election issue.
That Black Guy
May 31st, 2012
2:31 pm
Adam
May 31st, 2012
1:40 pm
Even the ones that AGREE with this ruling?
Depends, were they against it before they were for it?
___________________________________________________________
Maybe they were like Obama and evolved. Although, in his case he devolved.
He was for it, then against it, then for it.
JamVet
May 31st, 2012
2:32 pm
jonix, so the corporal’s childish obsession with Ms. Warren is also hypocritical?
Do tell…
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
2:33 pm
“I cannot envision why the existence of a state law should be more important to one than the religious ceremony.”
Because it is the legal contract that mandates the disposition of property, and the rights of any children of the marriage should either, or both, parents die. It is the religious wedding that has little to no real meaning as it has no legal standing.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:34 pm
R. Danneskjold — “the usual leftist trope is that one whose logic is stronger than his own is a “liar.”
The usual conservative trope is that if the state disagrees with your personal medical decisions, then there’s Constitutional justification for government to get in the way of the people.
getalife
May 31st, 2012
2:34 pm
It failed scout.
John Birch
May 31st, 2012
2:34 pm
I make it Hussein 3 – Rags 0 going into the 4th round.
BTW, I make “violates the authority of states to regulate marriage” the real issue, the Feds have been attempting to usurp states rights since before the war for southern independence.
Joe the Prophet
May 31st, 2012
2:35 pm
Jefferson
May 31st, 2012
2:24 pm
Why is multiple spouses against the law ?
================================
The Morrill “Anti-Bigamy Act” was passed in 1862. Justin Morrill was a Republican, as was Abraham Lincoln, who signed the act. It targeted the Church of LDS……It was reinforced by the Edmunds Act in 1882 (another Republican) and the Edmunds-Tucker Act in 1887…a bipartisan effort……
To my knowledge, the legitimacy has yet to be challenged in court……Even when laws against interracial marriage were declared unconstitutional in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia)…the polygamy issue never came back up….
YET…!!!!!!!
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
2:35 pm
“It is the religious wedding that has little to no real meaning as it has no legal standing.”
Well it does have significant meaning to the individuals getting married, as well as their families and friends.
With that said, you are correct about the legal part. That’s why people don’t get divorced at the church.
Talking Head
May 31st, 2012
2:35 pm
it’s gotta be tough to be a gay athiest right now
Boris Badnoff
May 31st, 2012
2:35 pm
Oh goodie. Now I can marry my garden hose.
Joe the Prophet
May 31st, 2012
2:36 pm
TGT
May 31st, 2012
2:31 pm
As a Christian conservative, I’m certainly glad to see that same-sex marriage is becoming even MORE of an election issue.
===================================
ME TOO…!!!! And polygamy and polytheism and cultism as well….!!!!!
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:36 pm
R. Danneskjold — “we can agree that leftists do not distinguish the validity of court-made law vs. legislated statutes.”
No, we cannot so agree.
“Conservatives view the former as an invalid form of “activism,” and the latter as “Constitutional design.”
So you admit that Conservatives view *some* forms of state power as ‘valid’ activism then. Thank you for this admission. You have done an excellent job of discrediting yourself and your argument.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
May 31st, 2012
2:37 pm
jefferson:
Because the American people have said so and thus far the Supreme Court has agreed.
Next.
Joe the Prophet
May 31st, 2012
2:37 pm
Talking Head
May 31st, 2012
2:35 pm
it’s gotta be tough to be a gay athiest right now
====================================
A BLACK gay atheist…!!!!
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
May 31st, 2012
2:37 pm
josef:
Chief Thunder Thud say no ………………
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
2:37 pm
“Well it does have significant meaning to the individuals getting married, as well as their families and friends.”
Certainly it does…and I’ve always said: if they want a church wedding, go for it…but they aren’t legally married until they have a legal ceremony presided over by a LEGAL authority.
Joe the Prophet
May 31st, 2012
2:38 pm
Boris Badnoff
May 31st, 2012
2:35 pm
Oh goodie. Now I can marry my garden hose.
====================================
I’ve been wondering what it would be like to marry a dozen eggs….But my wife would be P.O.ed..!!!!!
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
2:38 pm
Rags
I must hand it to you…….. You are the CHAMPION of semantics…………
But do carry on and thanks again for the exchange earlier
josef
May 31st, 2012
2:39 pm
ZamVet
I guess if you’re not a “real” Jew, she’s not a “real” Indian, eh? Ole Scout would have been the Devil’s Advocate in the Nuremberg Laws.
Common Sense isn't very Common
May 31st, 2012
2:40 pm
How does equal protection under the law for all rights (gay, women, legal immigrant, etc.) affect anyone who disagrees here (gay marriage, DADT, etc.) on a daily basis?
Talking Head
May 31st, 2012
2:41 pm
“A BLACK gay atheist…!!!!”
Maybe so pre 1964, but if we’re adding race into that algorithm then we should probably say HISPANIC gay atheist
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
May 31st, 2012
2:42 pm
Common Sense isn’t very Common
May 31st, 2012
2:40 pm
It keeps the express lanes crowded?
Paul
May 31st, 2012
2:42 pm
Doggone/GA
“Except that adoption is not a fundamental right, so it’s a poor example. ”
The example relates to an institution discriminating against a couple who, according to the state, have the status of being in a relationship held as a right.
Common Sense isn't very Common
May 31st, 2012
2:42 pm
Normal
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
2:43 pm
Talking Head
How about a White & Hispanic, straight agnostic?
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
2:44 pm
T. Head — “it’s gotta be tough to be a gay athiest right now”
Isn’t the term “gaytheist?”
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
2:44 pm
“The example relates to an institution discriminating against a couple who, according to the state, have the status of being in a relationship held as a right”
But that brings us back to the church. If the church does not allow gay couples to be members to begin with, then any adoption procedures would also have to be outside the church. If the church recognizes gay couples…then why WOULD they refuse to adopt to a gay couple?
Adam
May 31st, 2012
2:48 pm
Conservatives view the former as an invalid form of “activism,”
UNLESS that activism is something they agree with – see Obamacare and SCOTUS.
Adam
May 31st, 2012
2:49 pm
To my knowledge, the legitimacy has yet to be challenged in court……Even when laws against interracial marriage were declared unconstitutional in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia)…the polygamy issue never came back up….
YET…!!!!!!!
The Supreme Court DID actually rule on this kind of thing….
josef
May 31st, 2012
2:49 pm
BOTH
“How about a White & Hispanic, straight agnostic?”
Yo no sé, hombre?
Jefferson
May 31st, 2012
2:50 pm
What is the logic ? Too much paperwork in divoice ? Is there logic or just one of those traditional items ?
Paul
May 31st, 2012
2:52 pm
Doggone/GA
“They could still perform institutional “marriages” but those would not be legal marriages until the couple appears before a presiding LEGAL functionary licensed to perfom those marriages.”
Now you have the state regulation religious practice, for in our system, legal marriage is granted to civil and religious authorities and is integral to many religious institutions’ belief systems.
Brosephus™
May 31st, 2012
2:52 pm
Paul: So…. does anyone see any negative implications for religious institutions if gay marriage is held to be a right without regard for religious belief and practice?
It depends on what you consider negative. One implication would be that the “separation of church and state” could no longer be stated as being more of a one-way division as many claim it is now. If the ruling came as you stated, then that would mean that expressing religious rights would still be applicable, but expressing those religious rights could no longer be applied to others, by way of government enforcement, if the person does not share your religious beliefs.
That would mean, for example, a Christian could not use the Christian belief system to legislate based solely on their belief system to cover those who do not share those beliefs. As a bonus, that would also mean that the dreaded “Sharia creep” would be null and void as no laws could be created based solely on religious beliefs that interfered with the personal freedoms of those who don’t share the same belief system.
——————————
josef: I never coveted my neighbor’s wife either…now his ass…?
I don’t think I’ve laughed so hard at anything you’ve posted before in my life. That one’s got my stomach cramping from laughing.
That Black Guy
May 31st, 2012
2:53 pm
Adam
May 31st, 2012
2:25 pm
TBG: Believe me, it’s not just “a couple” Black people. FWIW
True, and my apologies for any offense. None was intended. I just don’t think that there’s enough of an anti-gay non-”old white male” conglomerate to affect public opinion as anti-gay majority if you remove all the old white dude from the equation. I could be wrong, but I have no way of actually knowing for sure because I don’t know where to find the statistics on that.
_________________________________________________________________________
Adam, no offense taken, no apologies needed