Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Jul 8, 2010.
I don't think this is necessarily as nice as it seems at first blush. It seems to allow states to discriminate and allow the feds to discriminate.
this can go both ways. Long run for gay rights in the US I think this is bad.
Reason being is it also means that the federal government can not say that 2 gays must be able to be married and states have the right to define marriage as between a man and a woman and there is nothing the feds can do about it short of an conditional amendment.
I fully support gay marriage.
I hope this starts a trend of keeping the entire issue of marriage out of the Courthouse. Repeal DOMA and stop wasting tax payer dollars on legislating bigotry from the Church.
Yes! Thank you!
Left untouched this leaves the doors open to state sponsored discrimination, I wouldn't get too worked up Lee, there's still the long road ahead.
This country needs to wake up and fast, the rest of the world is advancing in leaps and bounds socially while comparatively we are at a standstill, while in some cases moving backwards. Its sad, and pathetic.
Two separate pieces of the same puzzle. That's wrong for other reasons, which hopefully my own state will make progress on any day now.
The law works in weird, counterintuitive ways. Courts typically only narrowly answer the specific question in front of them.
What's truly sad is that we can get married in places like South Africa and Mexico City, but not here.
That's beyond pathetic and does not speak well of the American people.
To quote a forum member (whom normally I wouldn't quote in a million years): OUTSTANDING!!
I like the result. The only thing I wonder about is the basis for that decision, i.e., the DOMA law cannot supersede the rights of states to define marriage. We all know that too many states still define marriage in purely heterosexual terms. In the long run, this actually may bolster that.
But as a victory on the federal level, it's terrific. "Defense of Marriage" my ass.
The situation "on the ground" has to be better in the US than in South Africa.
WAIT, now you SUPPORT State's rights to legislate gay marriage?
It was completely stupid. Once this is gone, maybe we can finally get rid of that other piece of crap Clinton gave us- DADT.
Proof that we need a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage.
Wonder what Obama will do. If he fights it, then the DOJ argument against the Arizona law is an obvious hypocrisy. But if he does not, then its once more weight against the Democrats in 2010.
LOL you really think that gay marriage will be the Dems downfall?
A constitutional amendment to deny certain Americans their rights. How special.
This country is so ****ing polarized, we couldn't pass an amendment that said the sky is blue on sunny days.
That's because its sky blue and you damn well know it.
Yea, it's getting beyond pathetic around here.
WTF IS YOUR PROBLEM? SERIOUSLY? You could never get this anyway.
This won't be used against the Dems successfully again, trust me. People are sick of this crap from people like you, and recognize you for what you are.
It can be in swing states, e.g. Florida. Visit North Florida (AKA South Alabama) sometime and tell me it cannot. North Carolina is another state that comes to mind. It might not be useful 'up North', but that does not mean it cannot be in other places.
Oh, and I think Gallup proves you wrong
Actually, support for Homosexual marriage was higher in 2004 when this was a hot issue, and it was in 2009. So, yes we can! use this!
Full of Win - can you at least give some sort of explanation behind your statement? Why is a district judge striking down DOMA "proof that we need a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage"?
I'd like to know this as well.
Nice to see that you would harm fellow citizens' rights just to get your way.
Part 1: Because with a amendment, the Judge cannot make these types of liberal rulings.
Part 2: The Obama DOJ in the Arizona case is arguing for Federal Preemption over state actions, the same Federal preemption that the Defense of Marriage Act is using. How can he fight for one Federal preemption but not the other.
He's not. A judge made this decision, not Obama. You really are amazing.
The DOJ was fighting this. Read the article.
You still haven't said why we "need" to outlaw gay marriage. What is the reason? And I didn't know that freedom and civil rights were things only liberals believed in. But maybe you're right- perhaps conservatives don't believe in freedom or civil rights. Actually, it wouldn't surprise me.