and here i thought it was defined by the Church...Given the judge’s name, it is fitting that his decision is 100% Bull.
Gaystapo trying to move the culture wars.
Doesn’t federal law trump state law, when those laws don’t agree?
That was certainly the legal framework with civil rights era challenges to Jim Crow laws in the south.
Clearly this judge thinks that “states rights” is the most important issue. He is saying that the federal government is not allowed to define marriage.
Nixon appointee.. was a Judge in the midst of mental healthcare reform in Massachusetts..
—
Tauro, Joseph Louis
Born 1931 in Winchester, MA
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
Nominated by Richard M. Nixon on September 12, 1972, to a seat vacated by Francis J. W. Ford; Confirmed by the Senate on October 12, 1972, and received commission on October 17, 1972. Served as chief judge, 1992-1999.
Education:
Brown University, A.B., 1953
Cornell Law School, LL.B., 1956
Professional Career:
U.S. Army First Lieutenant, 1956-1958
Assistant U.S. attorney, District of Massachusetts, 1959-1960
Private practice, Boston and Lynn, Massachusetts, 1960-1971
Chief legal counsel to the governor of Massachusetts, 1965-1968
U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, 1972
Race or Ethnicity: White
Gender: Male
Isn’t medicaid a federal program? Then the federal definition should apply.
If Kagan was Solicitor for this case, she would be forced to recuse herself from the case once it got to the Supreme Court.
This would take away one gay vote on the Supreme Court.
This *could* be a very favorable thing.
Isn’t medicaid a federal program? Then the federal definition should apply.
(sorry for the double)
The sad thing about this is that if the DOMA gets overturned this way then the faggots will get married in Mass. and then try to bring their perversion to our states and claim to be married.
Maybe we should just shoot them as they invade our borders. (Sorry, topic jumped to illegal aliens. But on second thought it would be a great deterrant in this case also)
Does this mean that the gay activists will accept the right of each state to define marriage?
If we’re saying that the federal government cannot legally define marriage, then will the liberals leave the 45 states which don’t allow homosexual marriage alone?
Next step will be a federal appeals court, and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court.
An openly homosexual judge is considering a federal challenge to California’s Proposition 8 as we speak. He will probably rule that California has no right to define marriage, so in that case, he will say that a state does not have the right to define marriage.
So which is it, do states have a right to define marriage or not? Does any level of government have the right to define marriage? Are liberal leaning judges doing to define marriage; is no other legal process to do so permitted? Do judges have all the wisdom in the world to make these decisions?
Legally speaking, they are creating a legal mess of marriage and family law. The U.S. Supreme Court will have to resolve it someday.
LMAO!!!
Massachusetts, land of "Fisting for Fifth Graders".
I suspect this judge Joseph Tauro has had his share of little boys.
As currently constructed, the Constitution, if correctly interpreted (plain language meaning) can only force the legalization of "gay marriage".
It sort of reminds me of MacArthur in the Korean war. He had pushed the North Koreans back over their border, but that was not enough, he kept going to the Chinese Border. (It is more complicated then that but this after all just an analogy).
He was surprised when several “million” screaming Chinese started heading south. Not to carry an analogy too far, there may come a time when middle America will feel threaten enough they will begin to fight back.
Not literally but figuratively. Since the courts are not inclined to defend America then perhaps a Constitutional Amendment is needed saying that a marriage is between one man and one woman (with the state setting the age of consent).
Only 38 States are required to ratify an amendment and I think there are at least 38 that would do so.
The same can be said for all the hot button issues.
I am old enough to remember a time guns could be order from Sears, the Winter Holiday was Christmas and Jesus was celebrated in the school and school pageant's, and when abortions were illegal.
A lot of the changes within our society have been brought about by the misinterpretation of the Constitution. Simple amendments that restate what the founding fathers had in mind would go a long way to correcting the movement to the left.
“A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right a state to define marriage. “
Liberals, in this instance, at this particular point in time, are for States rights.
But in the Arizona case... not so much.
Once marriage is no longer defined by law, marry your kids to avoid inheritance taxes.
That will wake the dems up!
The true move will be the removal of Don't ask Don't tell.
Once the military starts to give "partners" medical care, death benefits and on base housing, the courts will declare the military has set a precident of recognizing gay marriage.
They will use our own military against us to reset social "norms"......
and here i thought it was defined by the Church... The jerk judge is blowing smoke with his 10th, 5th Amendments and Due Process clause non-argument.
Oh, I see. The states have rights to support homosexual marriage but they can’t pass and enforce immigration laws to protect their people and property.
Two and a half years more of this insanity. I don’t believe the United States can survive.
The guy is 79 years old, he won’t have to be around to deal with the consequences of his decision.
Yes, and yes. When DOMA was first passed, I presumed that it would eventually run into problems with judicial review, especially on a couple of the points of law cited by the judge. While this is only a single District Court decision, I think it foretells of DOMA's eventual fate.
The only way to cure this problem is with a constitutional amendment, and the chances of that happening are slim to none.
Caca del Tauro