AlbertCat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jul-09-10 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
| 38. Doesn't matter. This issue will now take center stage for the republicans to drum up votes. |
|
Even though the ruling upholds one of the GOP's most cherished causes...state's rights.
I wish the government would get out of the marriage business altogether. Every person, regardless of genders or preferences, should only be able to get a "domestic partnership" from the government, and then they and their children are "legal". The marriage part is some kind of ceremony that the couple may choose or not choose to have.... at the church or institution that they want. Therefore, only domestic partnerships have any legal status and the marriage part is up to the couple after that and has no bearing on the legalities of the partnership.
So churches that don't want to marry gays don't have to, and those that do, can. The only thing the state can issue is a legal domestic partnership.... religion is out of the equation as far as the state is concerned.... as it should be with the separation of church and state.
|
| -Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional |
Hissyspit |
Jul-08-10 09:04 PM |
#0 |
 -
...cue GOP fright-ads for the November election |
tomm2thumbs |
Jul-08-10 09:25 PM |
#1 |
 -
Why GOP Fright-ads? |
Oldtimeralso |
Jul-09-10 12:21 AM |
#11 |
| -
Doesn't matter. This issue will now take center stage for the republicans to drum up votes. |
AtheistCrusader |
Jul-09-10 12:55 AM |
#12 |
 -
Doesn't matter. This issue will now take center stage for the republicans to drum up votes. |
AlbertCat |
Jul-09-10 10:17 AM |
#38 |
| -
Because this means that the h-h-h-HOMOsexuals will be forcing pre-schoolers... |
krispos42 |
Jul-09-10 02:32 PM |
#49 |
| -
Mark my words... The WH will appeal this! |
mikesm |
Jul-09-10 01:47 PM |
#47 |
| -
I don't know if that's true |
MadMaddie |
Jul-09-10 08:41 PM |
#66 |
| -
Damn, but that's good news. |
Robb |
Jul-08-10 09:31 PM |
#2 |
| -
When it gets to SCOTUS, the right-wing bigots, including idiot Shrub's appointees, |
Hissyspit |
Jul-08-10 09:34 PM |
#3 |
| -
I would say that's not very likely. |
TheWraith |
Jul-08-10 09:39 PM |
#6 |
| -
Hope you are correct. |
Hissyspit |
Jul-08-10 09:45 PM |
#7 |
| -
I agree with you, |
Q3JR4 |
Jul-09-10 05:38 AM |
#16 |
| -
I don't think civil unions are an option here. |
TheWraith |
Jul-09-10 09:45 AM |
#34 |
| -
Before it gets to SCOTUS, Obama will personally be ripped a new orifice here at DU |
jberryhill |
Jul-08-10 10:29 PM |
#9 |
| -
Putting all your eggs in that basket will |
ooglymoogly |
Jul-09-10 01:26 PM |
#46 |
| -
SCOTUS is (or can be)... |
Alpha Numeric Wanda |
Jul-08-10 10:29 PM |
#10 |
| -
the only way it gets to SCOTUS is if the DOJ appeals |
davidinalameda |
Jul-09-10 08:50 AM |
#28 |
| -
I knew that this lawsuit had legs! |
TheWraith |
Jul-08-10 09:37 PM |
#4 |
| -
Excellent |
nickinSTL |
Jul-08-10 09:39 PM |
#5 |
| -
How do you suggest this case get to the Supreme Court? |
jberryhill |
Jul-08-10 10:26 PM |
#8 |
| -
Point one, the federal government is legally obligated to defend federal law. |
TheWraith |
Jul-09-10 03:35 AM |
#14 |
| -
Thank you for bringing some sanity to this. |
polmaven |
Jul-09-10 07:04 AM |
#19 |
| -
The president is in another no-win situation. |
zanana1 |
Jul-09-10 07:22 AM |
#21 |
| -
yes, he is in a no win place. |
polmaven |
Jul-09-10 09:08 AM |
#30 |
| -
"The administration, as you point out, is legally obligated to defend federal law." |
Xicano |
Jul-09-10 02:13 PM |
#48 |
| -
Yes, the other thing pointed out by Marbury v. Madison |
jberryhill |
Jul-09-10 05:40 PM |
#61 |
| -
The requirement to defend a bigoted law is no excuse |
Politicub |
Jul-09-10 06:16 PM |
#64 |
| -
From all accounts, they DID mount a "milquetoast defense." |
TheWraith |
Jul-09-10 11:01 PM |
#68 |
| -
Once a Federal Judge has ruled a statute unconstitutional |
ruggerson |
Jul-09-10 07:33 AM |
#22 |
| -
But the decision applies only to MA... |
polmaven |
Jul-09-10 09:10 AM |
#31 |
| -
Recommended. |
Heidi |
Jul-09-10 01:47 AM |
#13 |
| -
K&R! Good news! |
Rhiannon12866 |
Jul-09-10 04:02 AM |
#15 |
| -
good ruling |
florida08 |
Jul-09-10 06:01 AM |
#17 |
| -
No, the states SHOULD NOT have that right. |
keepCAblue |
Jul-09-10 02:32 PM |
#50 |
| -
Two points you are missing |
jberryhill |
Jul-09-10 05:33 PM |
#58 |
| -
I agree with you 100%. I wasn't addressing the ruling but rather... |
keepCAblue |
Jul-09-10 08:50 PM |
#67 |
| -
Please, please, please, let it hold up! |
Sciguy |
Jul-09-10 06:37 AM |
#18 |
| -
K&R |
Soylent Brice |
Jul-09-10 07:11 AM |
#20 |
| -
Finally some good news on this front. |
sellitman |
Jul-09-10 07:37 AM |
#23 |
| -
SCOTUS will kill this, because SCOTUS hates Americans. nt |
valerief |
Jul-09-10 08:08 AM |
#24 |
| -
K&R!!! |
racaulk |
Jul-09-10 08:16 AM |
#25 |
| -
K&R |
Odin2005 |
Jul-09-10 08:20 AM |
#26 |
| -
I've checked some conservative blogs this morning |
MissMillie |
Jul-09-10 08:47 AM |
#27 |
| -
Oh, yeah, I've been to a few myself. The old sex-with-ducks crew is frothing at the mouth |
Rozlee |
Jul-09-10 10:07 AM |
#36 |
| -
The problem with this is that it keeps the right to deny marriages to gays... |
Ozymanithrax |
Jul-09-10 09:08 AM |
#29 |
| -
Agreed, it's only a baby step when we need leaps & bounds |
NewJeffCT |
Jul-09-10 09:24 AM |
#33 |
| -
As long as people realize that it is a baby step, and not time to mambo, I'm fine. nt/ |
Ozymanithrax |
Jul-09-10 10:05 AM |
#35 |
| -
yes I agree |
Rosa Luxemburg |
Jul-09-10 08:22 PM |
#65 |
| -
The decision is not about whether anyone can become married |
jberryhill |
Jul-09-10 05:34 PM |
#59 |
| -
Judge Tauro is a Republican appointee as well |
NewJeffCT |
Jul-09-10 09:20 AM |
#32 |
| -
At this point Nixon looks like a liberal compared to most "New Dems" too. |
liberation |
Jul-09-10 10:11 AM |
#37 |
| -
that's fabulous news, hope it stands........ |
nightrain |
Jul-09-10 10:28 AM |
#39 |
| -
Hopefully it cost the state a fortune to persue this case! |
BEZERKO |
Jul-09-10 11:26 AM |
#40 |
| -
Wait - right ruling, but WRONG reason! |
johnaries |
Jul-09-10 12:05 PM |
#41 |
| -
The Constitution should over-ride |
NewJeffCT |
Jul-09-10 12:54 PM |
#42 |
| -
+100000 |
Dappleganger |
Jul-09-10 01:25 PM |
#45 |
| -
Tauro made TWO rulings yesterday... |
keepCAblue |
Jul-09-10 02:51 PM |
#52 |
| -
Yes, you are wrong |
jberryhill |
Jul-09-10 05:37 PM |
#60 |
| -
It is extremely Unconstitutional...nt |
and-justice-for-all |
Jul-09-10 01:03 PM |
#43 |
| -
I just find it amusing that you have the "Bush/Uncle Dick" graphic |
24601 |
Jul-09-10 01:07 PM |
#44 |
| -
Clinton has since admitted his error and now supports SSM. Bush never will. |
keepCAblue |
Jul-09-10 02:55 PM |
#53 |
| -
Of course Clinton now says that but in reality, he'd sign it again for |
24601 |
Jul-09-10 03:32 PM |
#55 |
| -
The purpose of DOMA was to head off the effort for a constitutional amendment /nt |
jberryhill |
Jul-09-10 05:41 PM |
#62 |
| -
I've had that graphic for years. It doesn't really have anything to do with |
Hissyspit |
Jul-09-10 03:59 PM |
#56 |
| -
You would have preferred |
polmaven |
Jul-10-10 06:53 AM |
#69 |
| -
In honor of the ruling |
Timbuk3 |
Jul-09-10 02:49 PM |
#51 |
| -
K&R |
pleah |
Jul-09-10 02:58 PM |
#54 |
| -
This ruling is a mixed bag. |
roamer65 |
Jul-09-10 04:19 PM |
#57 |
| -
Or cousin marriage today /nt |
jberryhill |
Jul-09-10 05:41 PM |
#63 |
| -
States have always controlled who can and cannot get married. |
Unvanguard |
Jul-10-10 09:24 AM |
#70 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread