[lbryce]

Bill Clinton, philanderer, impeached president,slippery purveyor of US missile technology to China, con-man extaordinaire,cigar aficianado, lover of ugly women, highly recognizable, identifiable,very own Little Rock,lover of spending time under the presidential desk, who enjoyed immensely napping out underneath the presidential desk,with a smoldering cigar in one hnd and a smoldering whatever-you-want-to-call-it, his own private little Rock, I suppose is as good as any, recently recanted his signing of the bill that outlawed gay marriage as federal violation reaming of being being the first First Husband in history NOW says, the law is unconstitutional

And of course, totally by coincidence, What- difference-does-it-make-Hillary announced last week without cosulting Catarrh-face,that she suppports gay marriage as well.

Well, it aeems like this gay marriage fun and frivolity that is going on will probably become federal law, but only if Catarrh-face and Hulllary have separate sleeping arrangments, the Rose Garden would make a very inviting budoir for Mr. Cohiba,If I do say so myself.

[llevrok]

You left out disbarred lawyer.

[DBeers]

He disagreed with the contention that the federal law simply created a single definition for federal purposes, noting that same-sex couples are not treated the same as other married couples. “It’s not really uniformity,” he said.

WHAT ABOUT ABORTION? The definition of when life begins has been imposed upon the states by the federal government? The definition was locked in stone by SCOTUS...

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list

[VanDeKoik]

“5 Justices Skeptical of Ban on Benefits to Gay Spouses”

So why stop there? Why does one have to be “married”? Under whose morality is marriage even a thing?

Benefits should be given to girlfriends/boyfriends, hook-ups, and “baby mamas” too! Hell even good friends are kinda like being married, isn’t it???

[highball]

I’m starting to think that they’re right. This is the FedGov stepping on a state’s right to define its own institutions.

I don’t want Washington telling Wisconsin it has to issue a certain number of gun licenses, New York that it must allow no-fault divorce or Missouri that front license plates must be mandatory.

It does raise the issue of how states will handle the marriages they don’t recognize when people move. I’m wondering how this was handled back in the 1950s and 1960s with interracial marriages? I ask not to equate them but because that’s the most recent time I can think of for different recognition of marriages across state lines.

[xkaydet65]

Regarding benefits, one of Ronald Reagan’s objections to social security was that the beneficiary could not choose who could receive payments after death. It was and is limited to a spouse. He believed that since it was your money, you paid for it you should be able to choose, especially if you were unmarried or widowed.

[Terry Mross]

If Kennedy says it should be left up to the states then wouldn’t that make Prop 8 legal?

[Diggity]

Left out pathological liar.