COURT STRIKES DOWN GAY MARRIAGE BAN

WHY IS HONEST DISAGREEMENT WITH LIBERAL IDEAS ALWAYS LABELED AS "HATE"? CAN'T LIBERALS JUST SAY "DISLIKE" INSTEAD?

BOSTON – The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution and therefore denies married gay couples some federal benefits, a federal judge ruled Thursday in Boston. U.S. District Judge Joseph ruled in favor of gay couples’ rights in two separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law that the Obama administration has argued for repealing. The rulings apply to Massachusetts but could have broader implications if they’re upheld on appeal. 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. Tauro agreed and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens in order to be eligible for federal funding in federal-state partnerships. LINK

Safe to say we can all expect the Obama administration’s Justice Department under Eric Holder to file immediate appeals based on the pre-eminence clause of the Constitution. After all that’s what they are using to challenge Arizona’s illegal immigration law, you know the one copied directly from its federal counterpart. The very same law this administration refuses to enforce thereby turning the entire country into an illegal alien safe haven. But I won’t hold my breath. Remember this is the same Injustice Department that refuses to prosecute civil rights cases when the victims are white. Go figure.

Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the conservative Family Research Council, said the rulings result in part from “the deliberately weak legal defense of DOMA” that the Obama administration mounted on behalf of the government.

You have to love this: states can define marriage but not who is an illegal alien. What’s to say they won’t incorrectly label someone gay who is just chipper? Can we really expect bureaucrats and law enforcement at the state or local level to carry out these laws in an unbiased fashion or know who is gay and who isn’t? SNARK

“One things that’s going to be really interesting to watch is whether the Obama administration appeals or not,” he said.

Ya think? Odds anyone? It’s got to be tough to be Obama these days. His despicable anti-American, anti-family policies bite him in the ass at every turn. Now he will be forced to defend gay marriage outright since gay rights is as much a part of the democrat party platform as abortion is. You have to hand it to democrats though. Their platform is as intricate as an NFL playbook. They support killing unborn babies but not cop killers, rapists or murderers. They support saving the environment except when an environmental disaster will further their radical environmental policies. They support states rights when it comes to elevating gay marriage to the status of traditional marriage but they will sue a state that tries to enforce immigration laws they refuse to. Whew. No wonder democrats are always dancing on the head of a pin.

Advertisements

17 Responses to COURT STRIKES DOWN GAY MARRIAGE BAN

  1. Randal Graves says:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,…” – except for the filthy gays.

    Talk about selectively protecting the ideals of our forefathers.

  2. Gays have the right to marry someone of the oposite sex if the so choose (marriage). Therefore they have equal rights. If they choose to enter a civil union with someone of the same sex our laws provide for that as well. (civil union).
    A marriage is a religious based ceremony between people of the opposite sex based on thousands of years of tradition and comon law. Few if any religions recognise “gay marriage”. That is their right. Gay people somehow feel they have the right to re-define a heterosexual ceremony for their own personal satisfaction.
    What if heterosexual people co-opted a “gay” term? Maybe we could all decide from now on “Gay” meant unclean?

    Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    ——————————————————————————–

    • Randal Graves says:

      “Gay people somehow feel they have the right to re-define a heterosexual ceremony for their own personal satisfaction.”

      – Why does it only have to be a heterosexual ceremony? That’s such a narrow-minded view. Please don’t say “because that’s how it’s always been”.

      Gay marriage has ZERO effect on you personally. Why the hell do you care if 2 men or 2 women want to get married? If they’re happy, why are you so against it.

      You protect the Constitution/ Declaration of Independence when it favors you (e.g. gun control). Yet when issues regarding “all men are created equal” and “the pursuit of happiness” are brought up, your defense of suddenly wanes.

      • The war in Afghanistan has zero effect on me personally as well. What kind of logic is that? Just because you assume I don’t have a personal stake in something I should just stand by and let societys long held values be destroyed? Nice logic.We all have a stake in a moral and just society.

        Hey look that black man is getting the shit beat out of him.

        Doesn’t bother me.

        All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

      • It doesen’t HAVE to be anything, but it is and always has been a heterosexual rite. Sorry

      • Randal Graves says:

        “stand by and let societys long held values be destroyed?”

        Nice to see that you’re finally admitting that you’re a homophobe and you think lesser of homosexual people.

      • Randal Graves says:

        “We all have a stake in a moral and just society.”

        Man, I feel sorry for anyone close to you that is gay. You must really hate them for subjecting you to all of their immoralness and unjustness just because they want to get married. Sounds awfully bigoted to me.

      • There it is the name calling. I’m a homophobe because I defend MY beliefs. I never said anything derogatory about any gay person. They have their beliefs and I have mine. My beliefs happen to be in line with the vast majority of Americans. The homosexual agenda is SOUNDLY rejected everywhere it is placed on a ballot that includes Calif. So spare me the name calling. Marriage always has been between a man and a woman. It is the Gay minority in this country that wishes to change that. I have every right to wish for the definition not to be changed.
        I don’t think “lesser” of gay people. I just have a strong disagreement with their chosen lifestylr as do most other people. In fact I grew up in a big liberal city and have been exposed to gay lifestyle and culture more than most people. All in all I would say I am indifferent to them, except when the want to push their agenda on broader society. I don’t hate many people. Gay people who never bother me don’t come anywhere close.

      • Randal Graves says:

        It’s not name calling when it’s true. You obviously think lesser of gay people; you won’t let them be married because their gay.

        “one who regards or treats the members of a group with intolerance”

        And you’re ignorant too: “I just have a strong disagreement with their chosen lifestyle”. It’s not a choice.

        And you still ignore your lack of defense of Constitution/ Declaration of Independence. Oh I forgot, it doesn’t fit your argument today.

  3. Wyatt Earp says:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,…”

    Actually, at the time, the forefathers were selectively protecting their own ideals. Slaves and women were not included, and had very little (if any) rights.

    Luckily, the Obama administration “is taking it back,” by selectively prosecuting African-Americans for voter rights abuses.

    Personally, I would rather see civil unions before marriage, but that opinion has classified me as a filthy right wing hate monger.

    • Filthy indeed.

      You are correct. It was a bunch of white men that gave us not only the ideals to create the greatest country in human history but sacrificed everything they had in the process.

      • Randal Graves says:

        Well, they didn’t sacrifice everything. They held on to the slaves that they owned.

  4. Slavery as an institution existed back into Biblical times. Remember the Egyptians enslaved the Israelites. It just so happenes it took the founding of THIS country and a bunch of wealthy white men to put the institution on the road to extinction. Ironically one of the few places slavery still exists today is Africa. Go figure.

  5. I don’t support gay marriage, but truth be told, the DOMA Act had too many 10th and 14th Amendment issues to ever pass. It was too sloppily written.

  6. Ingineer66 says:

    Bitter you nailed it. There was no way that law was going to survive a constitutional challenge. I am going to part with my conservative brethren here. I used to think gay people should have civil unions and leave marriage for a man and a woman, but anymore I do not have a problem with gay marriage and voted against Prop 8. Allowing gay people to marry is not going to weaken my marriage and hell let them call it whatever they want. Hetero people have screwed up the institution of marriage so badly anyway, why not let gay people have a chance to be miserable.
    If gay people want to get married why not and let them have go through the ugly divorces and pay more taxes through the marriage penalty and all that comes with being married.

    • Ingineer: it really only boils down to the principal of the matter. I guess next the dope addicts will want to legalize drugs. (They do) It goes on and on. We have to think about what kind of society we want. In a vacuume any one thing on it’s own doesn’t change things a whole lot. But it’s like looking the other way at one or two illegal aliens. It’s Ok until there 18 million of them here.

      • Ingineer66 says:

        I pretty much agree with you on the slippery slope concept but we will have to agree to disagree on this issue.
        But we do pass out free needles to drug users so they don’t spread disease and we are pretty much legalizing Marijuana here in Cali. I don’t know where it stops.

%d bloggers like this: