DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[del]

BOSTON — An appeals court ruled Thursday that a law that denies a host of federal benefits to gay married couples is unconstitutional.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.

The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004



Boston court: Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional - BostonHerald.com

i guess the judges forgot to read the bible.

 

[Truthmatters]

yeap this is about rights and always has been.

Gay peoples civil rights are being infringed and have been for the entire history of our country.

 

[bodecea]

BOSTON — An appeals court ruled Thursday that a law that denies a host of federal benefits to gay married couples is unconstitutional.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.

The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004



Boston court: Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional - BostonHerald.com

i guess the judges forgot to read the bible.

I guess they did. And everyone knows our country is based on the Bible....what the heck is wrong with them???????

 

[del]

"The couples argued that the power to define and regulate marriage had been left to the states for more than 200 years before Congress passed DOMA"

gotta love real conservatism.

 

[Truthmatters]

yet again the republican party stands on the WRONG side of history

 

[bucs90]

Guess it was that damn racist, bigoted, hateful, homophobic DEMOCRAT president in 1996 that allowed DOMA to be passed...Bill Clinton.

 

[Truthmatters]

The state can not legally infringe on someones civil rights.

 

[del]

Guess it was that damn racist, bigoted, hateful, homophobic DEMOCRAT president in 1996 that allowed DOMA to be passed...Bill Clinton.

no, he signed it.

it was the asshat republican congress that ginned it up.

try again

 

[bodecea]

Guess it was that damn racist, bigoted, hateful, homophobic DEMOCRAT president in 1996 that allowed DOMA to be passed...Bill Clinton.

Yes he did. He learned the time was not yet right and he bowed to political necessity. I'm sure he's laughing now and thinking "I knew it wouldn't last."

 

[bucs90]

yet again the republican party stands on the WRONG side of history

How ironic.

You blame Republicans for being on the "wrong side of history" for DOMA, which was passed in 1996 under a Democrat president




BTW, I'm against DOMA. I believe it is a state's right. Glad it's gonna be gone. Dumbass Democrat Bill Clinton shouldn't have let this pass anyway.

 

[Ravi]

This is excellent.

Let us all hope that when it gets to the Supreme Court the con side of the aisle acts conservative for a change.

 

[del]

The state can not legally infringe on someones civil rights.

would you mind taking your rainman act somewhere else?

it's ten minutes to wapner

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What the controlling rw does not know or understand is the Constitution says is not hat the people can do but rather what the government can.

Interesting documentary being shown on FSTV (Free Speech TV network) called Blood of Patriots. Not something rw's would want to see however.

Get (pubs, rws, tb) government out of our bedrooms, out of our private lives.

 

[Papageorgio]

I agree, it is a state issue, not a federal issue, just like the Immigration issue in Arizona and the Marijuana issue in California.

 

[Truthmatters]

Becoming Law: On Sept. 21, 1996, President Clinton signed DOMA into law – a turning point for the marriage debate that left a mark of discrimination still on the books: Feature Story section: Metro Weekly magazine



But for former Sen. Tom Daschle, then the Senate Democratic leader, and the 32 Democratic senators who voted for it, DOMA was essentially the lesser of two evils — he says they considered a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to be almost ''inevitable'' at the time.

''There was a strong movement to pass a constitutional amendment to put in constitutional law the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman. And the concern that many of us had was that you couldn't beat the constitutional amendment,'' he says. ''So, you had to come up with an alternative to a constitutional amendment and argue that this was better for all concerned. And that was a big part of the tactical and strategic decision-making that went into the run-up to the vote itself.''

 

[Truthmatters]

The Rs back in those days were almost as crazy as the ones we have now

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The state can not legally infringe on someones civil rights.

If we let them, the Rs will pass more and more laws to control our bodies as well as who we are allowed to marry.

While they say they are against Big Government, in fact they are in favor of any and all laws to control us.

The right is what Orwell meant by Big Brother.

 

[Sinjorri]

I agree, it is a state issue, not a federal issue, just like the Immigration issue in Arizona and the Marijuana issue in California.

but than the government wont be able to take over on issues, no way this place is caleld the Federal Government of the States, not the United States of America where the states had say. I learned by demo controlled agenda pushed lessons in school and no way should hte states have say, and if they do, u create a federal law to grab for it.

The Federal Government is not here to rule, seriusly, its just here to guide u and and lead u on a better path, sure it might tell u what to do and suck u dry and leave u in a confused state wondering what happened to ur rights.

 

[bucs90]

What the controlling rw does not know or understand is the Constitution says is not hat the people can do but rather what the government can.

Interesting documentary being shown on FSTV (Free Speech TV network) called Blood of Patriots. Not something rw's would want to see however.

Get (pubs, rws, tb) government out of our bedrooms, out of our private lives.

I agree with you for once.

Now....do you agree the government should stay out of my private life if I decide I believe in holistic medicine and diet, and thus, decide NOT to sign a contract with a private business that sells health insurance? I dont plan to ever use the fraudulent medical system, but instead, rely on natural, clean food, exercise, and spiritual approaches. Should the govt be able to FORCE me to buy a private good, or fine me for not?

Or what if I'm in the US's prime city, New York. Should the govt be able to tell me what size soda I can buy? Or what type of fat I can consume? What if I live in Chicago, or California, and want a certain type of firearm in my bedroom?

 

[bucs90]

The state can not legally infringe on someones civil rights.

If we let them, the Rs will pass more and more laws to control our bodies as well as who we are allowed to marry.

While they say they are against Big Government, in fact they are in favor of any and all laws to control us.

The right is what Orwell meant by Big Brother.

But DOMA was passed under (D) Bill Clinton