federal gay marriage ban unconstitutional

[ElFenix]

interferes with states rights

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38154952


bet this isn't what the states righters were thinking of, is it?

 

[PokerGuy]

Thank goodness we still have 5 sane judges on supreme court so they can smack this back down.

 

[AreaCode707]

Good ruling.

I wish they'd strike marriage from law altogether and instead issue cohabitation licenses without regard to romantic relationship status. Adult child + parent, long term roommates, heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, etc.

If everyone had the right to extend "spousal" benefits to one other cohabiting adult of their choice things would be much simpler. Kids should be covered regardless. Trying to regulate based on romantic entanglement is just retarded in this day and age of divorce, long-term live in partners, and other changing definitions of relationship.

<----- orthodox Anglican who is firmly against legislating Christian morality

 

[HumblePie]

Good ruling.

I wish they'd strike marriage from law altogether and instead issue cohabitation licenses without regard to romantic relationship status. Adult child + parent, long term roommates, heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, etc.

If everyone had the right to extend "spousal" benefits to one other cohabiting adult of their choice things would be much simpler. Kids should be covered regardless. Trying to regulate based on romantic entanglement is just retarded in this day and age of divorce, long-term live in partners, and other changing definitions of relationship.

<----- orthodox Anglican who is firmly against legislating Christian morality

Nice post from you for once. I agree with wholeheartedly. Religion, marriage, romance, or anything else along those lines has no business when it comes to regulatory laws and benefits in my opinion. Just make everything equal and obtainable for everyone. Not that everyone will obtain, just as the land of opportunity everything should have equal chance at anything they want in life in this country.

 

[Throckmorton]

Thank goodness we still have 5 sane judges on supreme court so they can smack this back down.

LOL what? So much for states' rights and freedom and all that!!

 

[misle]

interferes with states rights

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38154952


bet this isn't what the states righters were thinking of, is it?

Any time we can wrestle power away from the Federal Gov and give it back to the States is great day!

 

[Fern]

interferes with states rights

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38154952


bet this isn't what the states righters were thinking of, is it?

As far as states' rights go I'm OK with it.

Problem is, that's not what it's about. If you'd have noticed the federal government's position, their complaint is the state thereby madating who is eligible for FEDERAL benefits.

Fern

 

[Slick5150]

I love when the "states' rightsers" show their true colors when they disagree with something that states do. This, Oregon's assisted suicide law, etc...

Good times!

 

[classy]

I don't think this surprising at all. This is a Boston Mass judge, where the state allows gay marriage.

 

[xj0hnx]

Good ruling.

I wish they'd strike marriage from law altogether and instead issue cohabitation licenses without regard to romantic relationship status. Adult child + parent, long term roommates, heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, etc.

If everyone had the right to extend "spousal" benefits to one other cohabiting adult of their choice things would be much simpler. Kids should be covered regardless. Trying to regulate based on romantic entanglement is just retarded in this day and age of divorce, long-term live in partners, and other changing definitions of relationship.

<----- orthodox Anglican who is firmly against legislating Christian morality

/thread

 

[dammitgibs]

Meh I'm a "states rightsers" or whatever you call it, I'm conservative, I agree with this, unfortunately I think most of the states will choose to ban gay marriage if put to a vote. The gov of hawaii just vetoed a gay marriage bill saying she thought it should be up to the people to decide. Translation: "I don't want to take any political heat so if I leave it up to the voters then I'm not responsible for the outcome if one side is unhappy." Just do away with marriage already, leave that between people and their own churches or organizations and just have civil unions for everyone with the benefits that go along with it.

What about marijuana legalization? Should that be a states right too? It's not about state or federal it's just about getting the outcome you want.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I never saw that interpretation coming. I was certain it was going to be an equal protection argument that got rid of all that nonsense. Still, I don't care how it happens, as long as everyone ends up with equal rights. Ideally government can just get 100&#37; out of anything having to do with marriage, but in the interim this should work too.

 

[Perknose]

As far as states' rights go I'm OK with it.

Problem is, that's not what it's about. If you'd have noticed the federal government's position, their complaint is the state thereby madating who is eligible for FEDERAL benefits.

Fern

Fern, do you perhaps have some hidden, unacknowledged social bigotry that interfered with your basic reading comprehension?

If not (I hope not) what other explanation can you give us for getting this simple and clear cut ruling so completely wrong?

The Feds LOST the case, on the crux of state's rights! This ruling is EXACTLY what this is about.

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004. [States won!]

Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens.

The Justice Department argued the federal government has the right to set eligibility requirements for federal benefits — including requiring that those benefits only go to couples in marriages between a man and a woman. [Feds LOST this argument, based on states rights.]

 

[abaez]

Decision here: http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2010-07-08-gill-district-court-decision.pdf

 

[AreaCode707]

Nice post from you for once. I agree with wholeheartedly. Religion, marriage, romance, or anything else along those lines has no business when it comes to regulatory laws and benefits in my opinion. Just make everything equal and obtainable for everyone. Not that everyone will obtain, just as the land of opportunity everything should have equal chance at anything they want in life in this country.

Gee, thanks.

 

[glenn1]

I love when the "states' rightsers" show their true colors when they disagree with something that states do. This, Oregon's assisted suicide law, etc...

Good times!

Whatever - those celebrating this ruling would turn on the principle in a moment if the logic of states' rights were being applied to overturn Roe v. Wade. While I agree with the ruling, it's shameful to see people cynically use a rationale they otherwise disagree with to arrive at their predetermined desired outcome in a case.

 

[ModestGamer]

funny as thats how it was PROIR to the 19th century. Most of the bullshit is fiarly new. Divorce was easy. you left.

Good ruling.

I wish they'd strike marriage from law altogether and instead issue cohabitation licenses without regard to romantic relationship status. Adult child + parent, long term roommates, heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, etc.

If everyone had the right to extend "spousal" benefits to one other cohabiting adult of their choice things would be much simpler. Kids should be covered regardless. Trying to regulate based on romantic entanglement is just retarded in this day and age of divorce, long-term live in partners, and other changing definitions of relationship.

<----- orthodox Anglican who is firmly against legislating Christian morality

 

[ModestGamer]

Whatever - those celebrating this ruling would turn on the principle in a moment if the logic of states' rights were being applied to overturn Roe v. Wade. While I agree with the ruling, it's shameful to see people cynically use a rationale they otherwise disagree with to arrive at their predetermined desired outcome in a case.

You do understand that states may not grant less rights then the constitution ?

 

[CallMeJoe]

You do understand that states may not grant less rights then the constitution ?

First you use facts, now you apply reasoning; you're really not making much of an effort to fit in at P&N.

 

[Double Trouble]

So, back to Fern's post: this law was also used to determine eligibility for federal benefits. Does that mean eligibility for federal benefits will be determined by state laws? That doesn't make any sense.

I'm generally for state rights, so any ruling that returns power to the states to decide for themselves is a good thing. I disagree with gay marriage though, but it doesn't appear that was the crux of the ruling anyway. Something tells me this case is going to the SCOTUS.

 

[Brainonska511]

You do understand that states may not grant less rights then the constitution ?

You do understand that the Constitution does not grant rights. It only outlines some of the rights you already had and says the government cannot infringe on them.

 

[MJinZ]

You do understand that the Constitution does not grant rights. It only outlines some of the rights you already had and says the government cannot infringe on them.

What rights did we already have?

 

[ModestGamer]

You do understand that the Constitution does not grant rights. It only outlines some of the rights you already had and says the government cannot infringe on them.

In practice they are prvilages. Learn the difference.

but the heading is Bill of Rights regardless of all the verbal assualts the document has survived from idiots of all political affiliation have flung at it.

We guanretee at a minimum you shall has these RIGHTS !!!!

Learn the difference.

 

[ModestGamer]

What rights did we already have?

the right to pay a 2 penny tax on a pound of tea. Oh and the right to be under the auspice of the british empire. And the right to be a protestant. hmmm and the right to be a christian.

Native American. not so much.

 

[Aegeon]

So, back to Fern's post: this law was also used to determine eligibility for federal benefits. Does that mean eligibility for federal benefits will be determined by state laws? That doesn't make any sense.

This already is the way things basically work.

In particular first cousin marriages are legal in about 20 states, while 30 others ban it. The US goes by which states recognize cousin marriages as legal with regards to determining federal benefits. (Its possible there are a few differences, but basically in both cases state law and whether the marriages is recognized as legally valid is the key to determining federal policy.)