This campaign season would be an EXCELLENT time to begin the process of introducing a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage. Everybody on record, let’s go.
Well, of course a liberal judge has found the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional. Of course a liberal judge rules that we cannot define marriage as a man and a woman. We have to be liberal. Homosexuals are an officially aggrieved liberal special interest group. Somewhere along the way, it became cool to be gay.
We have to bend over backwards to prove how liberal we are.
The fact is, that current marriage law does not discriminate against anyone, because all men and all women are treated the same under current marriage law. But that doesn’t matter to the liberal judges.
I’m waiting for the polygamy and group marriage lawsuits. If we can’t define the sex of the partners in a marriage, then it must also be discriminatory to limit marriage to only two people.
See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=D9vQt6IXXaM&hd
At this point, too many judges are just attorneys with political connections and their decisions on issues of this nature should be regarded in that light.
They don’t interpret law, they attempt to make it.
I hope all the liberals in Mass, etc. are going to enjoy their totalitarian leftist governments when all the producers in their respective states have seen the light and moved on. It is an interesting thing to see how vultures react when there is no other prey.
By this logic, how can you deny any federal benefit to anyone?
Is it any less disriminatory to deny presidential level medical care or subsidized senatorial level perks to the homeless or working poor, or to any citizen or resident for that matter?
I have never been able to justify the DOMA, Constitutionally... should have handled with Constitutional Amendment a long time ago before the homosexual agenda was shoved down our throats so far. Now am amendment would be highly unlikely.... IMO
The will of the people has become the will of the bench.
It’s not “marriage-marriage”, judge.
On the other hand, it does raise the question of how same-sex civil unions should be treated with respect to benefits.
I believe marriage is between a man and a woman—anything else gets at least an asterisk. But, I can see a case for civil unions. Then, the question becomes, should real marriage be special with respect to benefits such as pensions, health plans, and insurance?
I’m not sure about that one, as long as gays get to experience all the legal joys of separation, alimony, and post-marital support that normal people are subject to.
Blaming this on Romney appears to show a lack of understanding, it appears, regarding WHO made this bad decision. A federal court, out of the purview of a governor, made the call.
Governors do not appoint federal judges, do they?
Blaming this on Romney appears to show a lack of understanding, it appears, regarding WHO made this bad decision. A federal court, out of the purview of a governor, made the call.
Governors do not appoint federal judges, do they?
Even more stunning is the rationale: They couldn’t find even a word in the Constitution to justify their decision. It’s based solely on other, recent judges’ decisions. (See Duncan’s comments and quote at National Review, “First Circuit vs. DOMA.”)
Great, inter-species marriages coming next! *partying snake*
Yet anther example of why Federal courts are too powerful and far far too involved in our domestic affairs.
Leftist will issue any edicts they want expecting the rest of us to yield to their dictatorial edict as if its the law.