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
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
2:53 pm
josef
I am out here in “purgatory”……….
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
2:54 pm
“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”
Legal marriages can only be done in churches if the presiding religious leader is LICENSED to perform them. That is what I object to. I do not think they should be so authorized. Let churches do religious marriages all they want. But legal marriages should be done by a LEGAL authority…not a religious one.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
May 31st, 2012
2:58 pm
…indistinguishable from Nazi death camps…
Godwin’s Law, proven yet again.
josef
May 31st, 2012
2:58 pm
got an errand to run…back in a bit…keep the one liners coming, this has been fun…
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
3:00 pm
Doggone — “Legal marriages can only be done in churches if the presiding religious leader is LICENSED to perform them. That is what I object to. I do not think they should be so authorized. Let churches do religious marriages all they want. But legal marriages should be done by a LEGAL authority…not a religious one.”
Completely agree. Here’s my solution.
Everyone has to get a civil marriage. The cost is low, you stand before a judge for five minutes, say your I Dos and the clerk does some stamping and copying before handing you your documents.
Then those that want one can have a religious marriage in the religious edifice of their choice. No church would be forced to participate in any marriage it didn’t approve of, and the couple getting hitched have to do their own leg work in satisfying any requirements the church might have.
Everyone can get a civil marriage. Churches don’t get forced to do something they don’t want to do. Seems to me like everyone would win this way.
Common Sense isn't very Common
May 31st, 2012
3:01 pm
JHM
now you’re just being logical
Julia
May 31st, 2012
3:03 pm
And the wing nuts will go ballistic, screaming about the federal government intruding in our lives. unless of course it is for something like oh say, telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. then they’re screaming at the top of their lungs about the sanctity of life. Because someone has to go and fight their wars for them don’t you know, so they need for all of those fetuses to be carried to term.
what a bunch of douche bags the GOP are.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
3:03 pm
Doggone/GA
It gets back to a person asserting their civil rights are being violated. Membership in the organization is not the issue.
Brosephus
That’s a neat little construct you’ve created there.
There was a case in the 70s when under the Reagan Administration a certain government agency sought to mandate Brigham Young University, a private LDS university, could not prohibit unmarried men and women from sharing the same apartment, nor could they maintain separate housing for unmarried men and women. The federal connection? BYU students received the GI Bill, the GI Bill is federal, therefore BYU was receiving federal funds and had to comply.
The Justice Department’s Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division was Rex E. Lee, who is LDS. Needless to say, the case was quickly settled.
Point of that is, whenever anyone says ‘oh, I wouldn’t worry, that would never happen” I tend to think “as long as people are involved, wanna bet?”
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
3:07 pm
LOL…. Barry still catching hell about the Polish death camp gaffe. The polish President has written a letter….and wasn’t happy with his ” correction”……Does he not know who Barry Is??? LOL….. And the guy is TOLD everything to say …that’s what’s scary.
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
3:08 pm
Maybe a new nick name. DAB………………..Dumb Ass Barry…..
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
3:08 pm
“Everyone can get a civil marriage. Churches don’t get forced to do something they don’t want to do. Seems to me like everyone would win this way”
And by keeping them legal mariages there would be no need to rewrite the many, many existing laws already on the books that manage that marriage contract.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
3:08 pm
Doggone/GA
I recognize that for you marriage is just a government contract and that’s it, but my reading is the recognition of religious practice, the religious teachings and the past practices renders that limited, particularly in regard to the current issue of gay marriage.
I also recognize nothing you have written has changed my mind and nothing I have written has changed yours, nor, based upon the various approaches that have been tried, is that likely to occur.
Brosephus™
May 31st, 2012
3:09 pm
what a bunch of douche bags the GOP are.
The people you’re talking about are simply doing the same thing that you did right there. They are expressing their right to free speech. That you don’t agree with their message does not negate their right to do so. Calling them a name because you don’t agree with them really undermines your whole point.
—————————-
Paul
I’m sure you’ve heard that idea that the separation of church and state means that the government can’t get involved in religion but does not forbid religion from getting involved in government. From where I sit, the ruling, as you describe would shred that idea above and beyond what Freddy Krueger, Leatherface, and Jason could do if they all tag-teamed with their weapons of choice.
That Black Guy
May 31st, 2012
3:09 pm
Brosephus™
May 31st, 2012
2:52 pm
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.
__________________________________________________________________________
he got me too Bro. I had a guy peek into my office wondering if I was ok.
Brosephus™
May 31st, 2012
3:10 pm
TBG
I often wonder if my neighbors can hear me at times…
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
3:10 pm
They say pot will mess up your brain cells……..Right in front of our eyes.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
3:14 pm
Ima Librul — “LOL…. Barry still catching hell about the Polish death camp gaffe. The polish President has written a letter….and wasn’t happy with his ” correction”…”
Funny how the actual letter itself falls well short of ‘giving the President hell.’
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/polish-president-writes-obama-death-camp-gaffe/story?id=16462942
East Cobb RINO
May 31st, 2012
3:16 pm
Let the gays marry. They should be able to experience everything about being in love heteros do, Including gay marriage, gay extra-marital affairs with the pool boy, followed by gay divorce and gay alimony. Can you imagine the property settlement hearing?
Paul
May 31st, 2012
3:19 pm
Brosephus
Like I said, whenever people are involved….
And another ‘wanna bet?” .
Wanna bet the employee who initiated that bright challenge that was so obviously and quickly shot down received a firewalled ‘top performer’ evaluation and an end of year bonus?
ElephantWhip
May 31st, 2012
3:19 pm
Doggone JHM:
“Legal marriages can only be done in churches if the presiding religious leader is LICENSED to perform them. That is what I object to. I do not think they should be so authorized. Let churches do religious marriages all they want. But legal marriages should be done by a LEGAL authority…not a religious one.”
Don’t be hypocrites, now. You are impeding the right to contract with this line of argument. And that is the basis of YOUR argument.
Jack
May 31st, 2012
3:22 pm
Allowing same-sex marriage is not going to help the bridal dress business; at least I don’t think it will. And the marriage ceremony wording will have to be changed somewhat. I mean taking someone to be your lawfully wedded wife or husband won’t work anymore. Filing a MFJ return is not always advantageous and I’m not sure who the spouse will be on a tax return.
Brosephus™
May 31st, 2012
3:22 pm
Paul
East Cobb RINO
May 31st, 2012
3:23 pm
Legal marriages can also be performed at the local courthouse by a justice of the peace.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
3:23 pm
Jack
I’m pretty sure we’ll be able to work thru those seemingly insurmountable obstacles with no problem -
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
3:24 pm
“It gets back to a person asserting their civil rights are being violated. Membership in the organization is not the issue.”
Certainly memebership is the issue. I said it before: if the perceived violation is of a SECULAR nature, then the church should be subject to any laws and regulations pertaining to that function. If it is of a RELIGIOUS nature, then there cannot be a civil rights violation to begin with.
John Birch
May 31st, 2012
3:26 pm
Julia – Do you believe in the death penalty or assisted suicide? If you avoid the party lines and politics, ethics shold tell you either life is sacred or its not.
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
3:26 pm
“I recognize that for you marriage is just a government contract and that’s it,”
Except I never said that, nor do I believe it. I’ve said repeatedly: let churches perform as many church marriages as they want. No problem. They just shouldn’t ALSO be legal marriages.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
3:26 pm
ElephantWhip — “Don’t be hypocrites, now.”
Who’s a hypocrite?
“You are impeding the right to contract with this line of argument. And that is the basis of YOUR argument.”
Rejected. The legal contract would be determined by the existence of the CIVIL marriage contract, not the religious one.
Paulo977
May 31st, 2012
3:28 pm
Adam
so, 2 people consists of 2 consenting adults. Toasters, dogs, and fruit salads cannot sign legal contracts as they have no legal standing as a consenting adult……..!!!!!!!!!!!
______________________________________________
Now that is funny!!!
Jefferson
May 31st, 2012
3:30 pm
I won’t be against multiple spouses unless someone can give a good reason to. Never really thought much about it myself.
jconservative
May 31st, 2012
3:30 pm
For you 10th Amendment folks the Court seems to be saying that the definition of marriage is a state matter, not a federal matter.
Now that would bring into play Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”
Doggone/GA
May 31st, 2012
3:30 pm
“Don’t be hypocrites, now. You are impeding the right to contract with this line of argument. And that is the basis of YOUR argument”
How so? I do not think someone who is a relgiious authority should be licensed by the state to perform legal marriages. I can do with them being so authorized, as long as they ALSO cannot refuse to marry a couple who can LEGALLY GET married. If they aren’t will to do that, then they should not be authorized to preform ANY legal marriages.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
3:33 pm
Doggone/GA
“Certainly memebership is the issue. ”
Nope. See my 3:03 regarding gender discrimination and a perceived violation by a government agency.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
3:35 pm
Doggone/GA 3:26
Okay, let me rephrase with ‘to me, it appears you hold any marriage ceremonies that confer legal standing should be those performed solely by civil authorities.’
JamVet
May 31st, 2012
3:35 pm
Kam @2:58,
Being a drama queen is one thing.
But to compare a legal operation or procedure with arguably the most vicious murderers in the history of the world simply exposes the utter depravity and mental masturbation of that person and his position.
ld
May 31st, 2012
3:36 pm
No, SUCKS, I’m NOT okey with people “marrying” animals because animals have no ability to refuse or consent.
Given the farse of “marriage” (i.e. divorce rate), we, as a society, might be better of ending the institution as a civil ceremony and focusing on parental responsibility.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
3:37 pm
“Nope. See my 3:03 regarding gender discrimination and a perceived violation by a government agency.”
You only said the case was settled…you didn’t say how. I presume it was settled in BYU’s favor. It should not have been. If they don’t want to follow laws and regulations attendent on receiving Federal Funds then they should not accept those funds to begin with.
JamVet
May 31st, 2012
3:37 pm
ethicssimplistic, absolutist logical fallacies shold (sic) tell you either life is sacred or its not.Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
3:38 pm
“Okay, let me rephrase with ‘to me, it appears you hold any marriage ceremonies that confer legal standing should be those performed solely by civil authorities.”
Now you’ve said it correctly.
barking frog
May 31st, 2012
3:38 pm
Id
with the use of dna you may
see that happen.
Atlas Shrugging
May 31st, 2012
3:41 pm
A federal court in Boston agreed with Obozo’s justice department, I am sooooo shocked.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
3:42 pm
“A federal court in Boston agreed with Obozo’s justice department, I am sooooo shocked”
Seems to me that it’s more a case of them both agreeing with the Constitution
Don't Tread
May 31st, 2012
3:44 pm
“as long as they ALSO cannot refuse to marry a couple who can LEGALLY GET married”
Forcing the clergy to perform marriages outside of their belief set sounds like the Catholic birth-control issue in a new wrapper. I suppose we should force businesses to serve people who don’t wear shirts and shoes.
If gays don’t like someone’s choice, there are plenty of other people willing to marry them.
JamVet
May 31st, 2012
3:44 pm
Rhetorical question, why do you randians and Republcians hate our system of government so much?
You really are becoming the anti-American Party.
I think getalife had the perfect answer for you would be anarchists, secessionists, traitors, etc…
Self-deportation, like that self-before-country Facebook POS…
stands for decibels
May 31st, 2012
3:46 pm
No church would be forced to participate in any marriage it didn’t approve of, and the couple getting hitched have to do their own leg work in satisfying any requirements the church might have.
Everyone can get a civil marriage. Churches don’t get forced to do something they don’t want to do.
Is anyone out there seriously claiming that marriage equality would mean that churches would be forced to perform same-sex marriages?
I mean, I assumed it was a joke, but I’m just checking here.
Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")
May 31st, 2012
3:46 pm
People should concern themselves with our gay citizens less and worry about themselves more.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
3:46 pm
“Forcing the clergy to perform marriages outside of their belief set sounds like the Catholic birth-control issue in a new wrapper”
Nope. In my scenario they are legally licensed to perform MARRIAGES. As a legal authority they cannot then refuse to obey the LAWS pertaining to that legal function. If they cannot abide by those laws, they do not have to apply to become able to perform legal marriages. They can do “church” marriages all they want, and for whomever they want…but those marriages would not ALSO be legal marriages.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
3:47 pm
“Is anyone out there seriously claiming that marriage equality would mean that churches would be forced to perform same-sex marriages?”
Only those who think marriage are religious and not legal. Or, in other words, those who have it backwards.
Oscar
May 31st, 2012
3:52 pm
The question of mutiple spouses seems to me to be a matter of personal opinion and preference only. Don’t see that there is any moral question involved as long as it is between consenting adults. Consenting adults should be able to enter into contract they chose, unless it is an illegal contract. And contract should be made illegal only if they are against public policy. What is the argument that multiple spouses should be against public policy. Only one I can think of is that if people are allowed to have multiple spouses, then result would be likely that many men would not be able to find available wives, leading to socail discord.
stands for decibels
May 31st, 2012
3:53 pm
Forcing the clergy to perform marriages outside of their belief set
heh.
Ok, “Don’t Tread,” do you really think anyone’s proposing to force religious institutions to perform same-sex marriages under threat of some legal prosecution?
Really? Got any cite for that whatsoever? even from some fringe lefty gay activist somewhere in Shytscreek, Flyoverlandia?
Son of the South
May 31st, 2012
3:53 pm
Hey Atlas:
“A federal court in Boston agreed with Obozo’s justice department, I am sooooo shocked.”
Two of the three judges were appointed by Republicans. Republicans who understand how the Constitution works, unlike Randians such as yourself.
Oscar
May 31st, 2012
3:54 pm
Only those who think marriage are religious and not legal. Or, in other words, those who have it backwards.
_____
If you look at the history of marriage. It began as a religious matter. The state only became involved latter, after states and laws were invented. Marrage predates states and laws.
Mr.SouthMetoAtl
May 31st, 2012
3:55 pm
A stupid act from the get-go. Nothing sanctimonious about an institution that’s filled with adultery, domestic violence and divorce. Tax benefits must be the draw. lol
Good luck to peace and harmony amongst man and woman kind.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
3:55 pm
SfD — “Is anyone out there seriously claiming that marriage equality would mean that churches would be forced to perform same-sex marriages? I mean, I assumed it was a joke, but I’m just checking here.”
Not that I’m aware of.
OBIWAN
May 31st, 2012
3:55 pm
Who cares?
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
3:57 pm
OT but checkit — Iron Man 3 photos, hot off the set.
http://collider.com/iron-man-3-ben-kingsley-mandarin/169986/
John Birch
May 31st, 2012
3:57 pm
JamVet – Still haven’t found your way to the VA for those meds have you? Situational ethics are generally little more than rationalization of one’s own inappropriate behavior. Kind of like killing the abortion doctors because the unborn baby’s lives are sacred. What are the doctors, chopped liver?
So were you drafted or did you volunteer and who’d you kill in the war?
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
3:57 pm
“What is the argument that multiple spouses should be against public policy. Only one I can think of is that if people are allowed to have multiple spouses, then result would be likely that many men would not be able to find available wives, leading to socail discord”
I, personally, have no objection fo plural marriages between consenting adults…but I think the problem is that most people think of them as you just did: one man with multiple wives. Any such relaxing of the bigamy laws would have to apply equally to both men and women.
I outlined a situation a few days ago that could, potentially, cause nightmarish legal complications. Just think of it: a man has 3 wives. Of those 3, one has 2 other husbands, two of which have multiple wives. The legal complications would multiply exponentially!
Paul
May 31st, 2012
3:58 pm
Doggone/GA
It was settled when the government withdrew all action.
The rest of your response: that is exactly what causes concern in religious institutions. What you are saying, quite plainly, is that if a religious institutions receives ANY federal monies, even indirectly (veteran receives GI Bill, uses that to pay tuition or rent) then the institution receiving the payment from the vet is subject to all federal regulations.
This same pattern would also hold, by that reasoning: Catholic food bank becomes part of a program enabling food stamp recipients to purchase food at the food bank beyond the amount normally distributed. One of the needy is a Catholic woman, who then brings a case to the feds claiming discrimination because she can’t be ordained a priest and the feds pursue. Feds say their basis is because the Church receives federal funds.
Try not to get bogged down in the specifics. They are used to illustrate the main point.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
4:01 pm
“If you look at the history of marriage. It began as a religious matter.”
If YOU look into it, you will find that marriage has ALWAYS been a legal matter. The first known written reference to marriage is in a list of LAWS. A bit of Medieval history would educate you as well. Legal marriages became so UNcommon that when the Black Plague hit Europe church authorities were BEGGING people to get LEGALLY married to help resolve the issues of inheritance of the property of those who died.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
4:03 pm
Doggone/GA 3:38
That is why I’m leaning more towards the idea the government performs the civil ceremony for all, conferring legal rights, while the religious institution performs marriages for whomever it wants –
Still haven’t thought thru the implications, but it sounds reasonable.
But I will still predict that many gay marriage advocacy groups would still oppose because they will say they still do not have full marriage equality.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
4:05 pm
Paul — “But I will still predict that many gay marriage advocacy groups would still oppose because they will say they still do not have full marriage equality.”
Seems to me that that argument would be fought out in churches, not in government.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
4:06 pm
“Try not to get bogged down in the specifics. They are used to illustrate the main point.”
Well, you see…I believe STRONGLY in the separation of church and state…in BOTH directions. If churches want to be left alone to do things their own way, fine. Let them. But they should not then be able to receive monies that *I* contributed to and use them to discriminate against – possibly – ME, or someone like me. If they want to be free of controls, then they can fund their own charities and schools and refuse to take any money that is generated from the taxes of us ALL.
And if someone who is eligible for tax generated funds for schooling wants to use that money, then they can choose to go to a school that will comply with all the relevent laws and regulations around and about that money. If they want to go to a school that won’t, then they can pay for it out of their own pocket.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
4:09 pm
“That is why I’m leaning more towards the idea the government performs the civil ceremony for all, conferring legal rights, while the religious institution performs marriages for whomever it wants –”
It’s even easier than that. Civil authorities perform civil MARRIAGES, which are the legal, contractual marriage. Religious authorities can perform religious marriages, but those are not legal marriages.
And, BTW, I have no objection to getting married in a religious ceremony that includes a civil authority to make it legal. Or, as I said above, if the religious authority is able to obey ALL laws and regulations pertaining to legal marriage, then I have no problem with their being licensed to do so…but that would bind them to agreeing to marry any couple who can legally get married.
Gale
May 31st, 2012
4:11 pm
Doggone/GA, thanks for jumping on the history of marriage misinformation. The religious right so often try to claim it as a religious invention.
Adam
May 31st, 2012
4:12 pm
Marriage, like murder laws and theft laws, are NOT religiously based, but tribal law based.
PLEASE understand this before spouting off about the history of something in relation to religion.
Don't Tread
May 31st, 2012
4:12 pm
“do you really think anyone’s proposing to force religious institutions to perform same-sex marriages under threat of some legal prosecution?
Really? Got any cite for that whatsoever?”
I was responding to Doggone’s opinion @ 3:30…read the post.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
4:13 pm
“Doggone/GA, thanks for jumping on the history of marriage misinformation. The religious right so often try to claim it as a religious invention”
You’re welcome…but that false idea is not limited to the right. It is pervasive and transcends political devisions.
Adam
May 31st, 2012
4:15 pm
Paul: I think the real issue here is that marriage is defined nowadays as two people who love each other, with legal implications tied to the word “marriage” in several codes of law throughout the states. If the federal government were to invalidate ALL marriages equally, and then take over the process of civil unions (or whatever term you want to use) leaving marriage to religious organizations and civil unions as the legal part, I would have to disagree with this method of strongarming the subject.
Mister
May 31st, 2012
4:15 pm
The people making Ayn Rand references don’t seem to know or remember that she was an atheist. Her philosophy is opposite of Christian belief. How do you make that work?
Adam
May 31st, 2012
4:16 pm
Mister: The people making Ayn Rand references don’t seem to know or remember that she was an atheist. Her philosophy is opposite of Christian belief. How do you make that work?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance , that’s how
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
4:17 pm
Mister — “The people making Ayn Rand references don’t seem to know or remember that she was an atheist. Her philosophy is opposite of Christian belief. How do you make that work?”
Why, your head asplodes, of course.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
4:18 pm
“I would have to disagree with this method of strongarming the subject.”
Especially as it’s totally unneccessary. The laws on the books refer to marriage. In order to institute Consitutional equality all that’s needed is to define marriage as being between two consenting adults. Then the laws already on the books will apply equally to all legal marriages.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
4:18 pm
afternoon, sfd 3:46
I believe what kicked this off was pointing out the California Supreme Court holding the state constitution states marriage is a fundamental right, in concert with a statutory protection of equality would lead to an outcome that is not at all guaranteed. That was one of the interesting points about California’s proposition 8 – the state already had in place a legal framework that put civil unions on par with traditional marriages.
We have plenty of rabbit holes to fall down in here -
East Cobb RINO
May 31st, 2012
4:19 pm
AMEN to that Doggone!
Gale
May 31st, 2012
4:20 pm
I would be interested to know how many people get married in a religious ceremony without the official presiding giving them the legal document to sign signifying the civil contract. If anyone is “married” without that, the “marriage” is not legal.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
4:22 pm
sfd
Let me rephrase that – I believe the point I mentioned was in response the the notion that a gay marriage law would have no effect other than that gay couples could marry. I was just pointed out that in such matters of law, it’s often incorrect to assert there are no unintended consequences.
OMG
May 31st, 2012
4:22 pm
“equal protection under the law ”
This is another perverse liberal interpretation of our laws and constitution! This is why we cannot allow another four years of Obama and his far left appointees.
John Birch
May 31st, 2012
4:23 pm
angryvet – It was nam wasn’t it? Let’s see proud of your honorable service invading a foreign soveriegn nation and killing people who never attacked us, then resolutely denouncing the Bush invasion of Iraq after 9/11. Yeah, you would believe in situational ethics wouldn’t you?
BTW – “Thou shalt not kill” is extremely simplistic, but it’s a fine moral tenet, as are most of the 10. The honorable thing would have been to refuse to serve in such an immoral war, perhaps you should have considered self-immolation in protest like the buddhist monks!
Oscar
May 31st, 2012
4:24 pm
Marriage, like murder laws and theft laws, are NOT religiously based, but tribal law based
__________
And all tribal customs were based on their religious beliefs. Marriages. as I said before, predate states and laws.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
4:25 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
Probably both.
As long as there’s still money and power at stake -
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
4:26 pm
“And all tribal customs were based on their religious beliefs”
You’d have a hard time proving that.
“Marriages. as I said before, predate states and laws.”
Just because you said it doesn’t mean it’s true. You’d have a hard time proving that too.
OMG
May 31st, 2012
4:28 pm
“but those are not legal marriages”
Could you give a resource for comment? I remember courts accepting information written by hand in the Bible to include marriages. Have you liberals changed that–in NY, Ma, CT where?
Joe Hussein Mama
May 31st, 2012
4:28 pm
J. Birch @ 4:23
You’re a Richard, and I don’t mean Richard.
Paul
May 31st, 2012
4:28 pm
Doggone/GA 4:06
So you’re controlling the behavior and freedom of a student to choose which educational institution they can attend just because they receive food stamps?
Adam
May 31st, 2012
4:28 pm
Paul: Let me rephrase that – I believe the point I mentioned was in response the the notion that a gay marriage law would have no effect other than that gay couples could marry. I was just pointed out that in such matters of law, it’s often incorrect to assert there are no unintended consequences.
But that’s exactly it. There wouldn’t be “unintended consequences” of the law, if all you do is make it two consenting adults. No legal marriage affects any other legal marriage already. All rights afforded to married couples are afforded to ALL married couples. There is no “unintended consequence” in this case.
OMG
May 31st, 2012
4:29 pm
I have documentation for marriage and how far back it goes. Do you have any documentation or is this warm fuzzy feely thing you liberals have often.
Oscar
May 31st, 2012
4:29 pm
Doggone/GA – 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
_______
Marraige predates recorded history. Since there are no records. written proof would be hard to find.
Adam
May 31st, 2012
4:30 pm
John Birch: Let’s see proud of your honorable service invading a foreign soveriegn nation and killing people who never attacked us, then resolutely denouncing the Bush invasion of Iraq after 9/11. Yeah, you would believe in situational ethics wouldn’t you?
Said like someone who really doesn’t get that military people can’t just “say no” when they are deployed. Good grief.
Gale
May 31st, 2012
4:31 pm
OMG, “written in the Bible by hand” in what year?
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
4:31 pm
“So you’re controlling the behavior and freedom of a student to choose which educational institution they can attend just because they receive food stamps?”
If the school is not taking those food stamps, why should it affect where they go? If it IS taking those food stamps why should the school be exempt from any laws pertaining to those food stamps?
OMG
May 31st, 2012
4:31 pm
All this is simply another attempt to accept homosexuals as normal by redefining the term marriage.
Mister
May 31st, 2012
4:31 pm
“equal protection under the law ”
This is another perverse liberal interpretation of our laws and constitution!
Holy Cow! Dude, read what YOU quoted and read YOUR response.
Common Sense isn't very Common
May 31st, 2012
4:31 pm
John Edwards found not guilty on 1 count and mistrial on others
OMG
May 31st, 2012
4:32 pm
Gale
May 31st, 2012
4:31 pm
Does it matter?
bluecoat
May 31st, 2012
4:32 pm
2 republicn appointed judges,and one lonely democrat DOMA illegal.
Oscar
May 31st, 2012
4:32 pm
If anyone is “married” without that, the “marriage” is not legal.
_______
Many states allow common law marriage such as you describe. Georgia did until a few years ago when they were deemed illegal, unless they were formed before the law was passed. Existing common law marriages were recognized and not deemed to be void.
OMG
May 31st, 2012
4:33 pm
“Holy Cow! Dude, read what YOU quoted and read YOUR response”
Holy cow dude! I dont understand what you are saying.
Doggone/GA - 999.999.999.999 (preserving my anonymity)
May 31st, 2012
4:33 pm
“Marraige predates recorded history. Since there are no records. written proof would be hard to find”
Yep, that’s why we can’t rely on YOUR MEMORY of which came first. Since you weren’t there.
They BOTH suck
May 31st, 2012
4:34 pm
Common Sense
I do not know all the facts and legalities in the John Edwards case to say that he is guilty or not.
What I will say is that he is 100% guilty of being a scum bag.