Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Another Federal Judge Rules Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional
KQED (Bay Area/CA) ^ | May 25, 2012 | News Staff and Wires

Posted on 05/25/2012 10:33:26 AM PDT by kevcol

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last
To: kevcol

21 posted on 05/25/2012 11:49:53 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bratch

22 posted on 05/25/2012 11:59:58 AM PDT by tflabo (Truth or tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kevcol
BJ Clinton appointment. [check]

J.D. from the UC Berkeley School of Law [check]

'National Lawyers Guild' member - a leftist "shadow" ABA [check]

Legal aid and public defender in SF [check]

Looks like a Dyke. [check]

23 posted on 05/25/2012 12:01:35 PM PDT by XenaLee (The only good commie is a dead commie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) ( enacted September 21, 1996, is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.---Wiki

Unconstitutional our ashes you leftist tyrant hack judge.

24 posted on 05/25/2012 12:16:53 PM PDT by tflabo (Truth or tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deb
"This is going to keep happening till a defense of marriage amendment to the Constitution is passed."

Actually, the PROBLEM started with the pandering to select Classes of people, by politicians, for their VOTES.

Consequently, the POLITICALLY-APPOINTED Judges ruled that the Constitution's "Equal Protection" clause did not mean TO ALL PEOPLE, but rather now means to all people's agenda's. MEN and WOMEN, regardless of religion, color, or National Origin, are ALL that should be applied as the Equal....what sex lives, net worth, or non-citizenships are issues that should not even enter into any consideration.

We've lost our Common Sense, and moral compass. Sex activity has NO BEARING on what should or should not be applied under the 14th Amendment, period.

Allowing foreigners (criminally in THIS country), voting rights, driver's licenses, social security benefits, income tax credits, etc., etc., is costing Trillions.

Implement "love it or leave it", and let the mal-contents try to find a Country that's more accomodating to their antics (good luck with that !)

25 posted on 05/25/2012 12:17:34 PM PDT by traditional1 (Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

Ya think just maybe they did a little shopping around for a worthy leftist gremlin federal judge to declare a valid law (DOMA) as unconstitutional?


26 posted on 05/25/2012 12:22:43 PM PDT by tflabo (Truth or tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Chances of that happening with Obama or Romney in office? Zero.

An Amendment, mind you. The President has nothing to do with the amendment process.

If there are majorities in the House and Senate, they can propose the amendment, and then the states get it. The President need not be consulted.

27 posted on 05/25/2012 12:45:58 PM PDT by thulldud (Is it "alter or abolish" time yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: manc
"We should not have given them civil unions years ago as giving them steps in their agenda has helped them further their bigger agenda."

Actually that would have worked perfectly had we, under Bush, slam-dunked DOMA as a Constitutional Amendment, with that bit of 2nd-tier accomodation as the sop to the mushy middle. NONE of this would be happening. Incrementalism favors the Left at every turn.

28 posted on 05/25/2012 1:17:59 PM PDT by StAnDeliver (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

Wonder why gays can not conceive? Perhaps our generous government should make it a right?


29 posted on 05/25/2012 1:20:22 PM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the Statist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474
It is also in the state interest to have males restrained by female companions

Well, maybe in the interest of a real kinky state.

30 posted on 05/25/2012 1:52:22 PM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

A lizzbo if I have ever seen one.


31 posted on 05/25/2012 1:54:18 PM PDT by RetiredArmy (He has Risen!!! If you do not know Him, this is the perfect week to seek Him out!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

She looks butch-dykey. Is she?


32 posted on 05/25/2012 2:03:03 PM PDT by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

DOMA does NOT violate any “equal protection”! EVERY adult in America has the right to marry ANY consenting partner of the opposite sex! The SAME rules apply to all. She never programmed a computer, I can tell!


33 posted on 05/25/2012 2:05:28 PM PDT by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deb

“This is going to keep happening till a defense of marriage amendment to the Constitution is passed.”

The time for that has come.... and passed.
It’s too late now.

A few years ago, there was a “window of opportunity” through which a “Marriage Amendment” might have passed. But that window has now closed.

The left is traveling the same path with homosexual marriage as they did with abortion. That is, get liberalized laws passed in a few states, get court decisions in their favor in a few states, and then “go for the big one” in the Supreme Court.

Eventually, this is how they will win the issue.

Republicans and conservatives had their chance to stop gay marriage in it’s tracks, and backed away. They had a very good chance of getting a Marriage Amendment through both houses of Congress, but chose to put up the “Defense of Marriage” act because a Constitutional Amendment would have seemed too drastic, too “divisive”. They set themselves up for the defeat that’s coming.

By the way, I was one of the first posters on this board, and the first people anywhere, to propose a “Marriage Amendment” years ago. But again, one must “strike while the iron is hot”.

For conservatives, this iron has grown cold. I wish I could be more optimistic about this, but I’m not.


34 posted on 05/25/2012 2:31:36 PM PDT by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

From a constitutional standpoint, DOMA is unconstitutional because the federal government does not have the power to legislate on such a matter.

But of course, those elected in both parties feel the need for government to have its say in everything.


35 posted on 05/25/2012 2:36:12 PM PDT by wastedyears ("God? I didn't know he was signed onto the system.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

I fully agree. The Tenth was written for a good reason.


36 posted on 05/25/2012 2:41:42 PM PDT by wastedyears ("God? I didn't know he was signed onto the system.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

Without reading the article, I hope that the House’s legal defense team will be appealing this ludicrous decision.


37 posted on 05/25/2012 3:46:19 PM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WashingtonSource

Oakland [Check]


38 posted on 05/25/2012 3:54:06 PM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Deb
This is going to keep happening till a defense of marriage amendment to the Constitution is passed.

Insanely, this same "judge" will just find such an amendment to the US Constitution "unconstitutional."

39 posted on 05/25/2012 3:56:09 PM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: StAnDeliver
Actually that would have worked perfectly had we, under Bush, slam-dunked DOMA as a Constitutional Amendment, with that bit of 2nd-tier accomodation as the sop to the mushy middle.

And instead, we'd have homosexual imposition by another name, then.

Wrong solution, buddy.

40 posted on 05/25/2012 4:00:45 PM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson