Did you guys hear...

[Okla-homey]

in a huge victory for gay marriage advocates, a federal judge in MA ruled the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional?

Here's the good part, he ruled that since marriage and family law is pretty much exclusively a state law matter, DOMA unconstitutionally invades a STATE'S RIGHT to recognize gay marriage if it wants to do so. He even cited the Tenth Amendment.

Them gay marriage folks are getting smarter. Using the "states rights" argument is genius.

This ruling, if it stands on appeal, paves the way for an equal protection argument that will REQUIRE states to recognize gay marriages from states where it's legal.

[47straight]

Homey, there are no states rights. The south lost. Get over it.

[Okla-homey]

Homey, there are no states rights. The south lost. Get over it.

When Sic'em reads that ^^^^^^^, his head may explode.:D

[SicEmBaylor]

When Sic'em reads that ^^^^^^^, his head may explode.:D

My new tactic is to try and ignore gross-ignorance and stupidity.

[JohnnyMack]

Good. The Federal Govt. has no business dealing with marriage.

[TUSooner]

My new tactic is to try and ignore gross-ignorance and stupidity.

Is that "self-denial"?

[Collier11]

Good. The Federal Govt. has no business dealing with marriage.

This

[KC//CRIMSON]

Good. The Federal Govt. has no business dealing with marriage.

That.

[SicEmBaylor]

Good. The Federal Govt. has no business dealing with marriage.

Agreed.

[OUMallen]

I didn't think this was an issue at all. That marriage is a state-issue is well-settled, right?

[SicEmBaylor]

I didn't think this was an issue at all. That marriage is a state-issue is well-settled, right?

Evidently not since, apparently, the Confederacy lost the war you see and now there's no such thing as states' rights. So we can all rejoice that there's no check on Federal power and they can do whatever the hell they want when they want to do it.

[Chuck Bao]

Good. The Federal Govt. has no business dealing with marriage.

I have to say that I am generally in agreement with the outcome and the "This" and a "That" responses so far by Collier and KC//CRIMSON. Spek.

But, I'm also afraid that the individual states will do a double, triple loopied-loop in legal logic around it. I can’t see a scenario where straight marriages are not recognized across state lines, but at the same time excluding homosexual marriages and rights.

I hope that I am wrong and the queers in this country finally get equal rights. A turning point in my own tiny little world would be the US state department recognizing same-sex marriages with the appropriate visa. If that would happen, I’d dance at your state-sanctioned and nationally-recognized wedding. I’d give a toast. I’d even offer fashion and make-up advice to the bride.

[47straight]

This ruling, if it stands on appeal, paves the way for an equal protection argument that will REQUIRE states to recognize gay marriages from states where it's legal.

Disagree. I can't see how reinforcing state's rights with this ruling will bolster expansion of the EPC. Well, and remaining consistent and intellectually honest. But I'm willing to bet a paycheck that the district judge in this case is neither and quoted the 10A for the first time in his life today.

[Frozen Sooner]

Heh. The DC judge cited Scalia's Lawrence dissent as providing support for the EP claim.

That popping sound you heard? Nino's head.

[Frozen Sooner]

Disagree. I can't see how reinforcing state's rights with this ruling will bolster expansion of the EPC. Well, and remaining consistent and intellectually honest. But I'm willing to bet a paycheck that the district judge in this case is neither and quoted the 10A for the first time in his life today.

The judge specifically relied on the EPC in his ruling and said that the DOMA failed rational review on an EP basis.

[Okla-homey]

I think DOMA is going down eventually. For non-lawyers:

First off, the Fourteenth Amendment guarentees "equal protection under the law" of all similarly situated persons regardless of their state of residence.

The Fourteenth was passed (ratified in 1868, three years after the Civil Woah was won by the Federal gubmint) to make sure the former Cornfed states could not legally, emphasis on legally, deny black folks the Constitutional rights they were granted with their new US citizenship. IOW, black folks could now vote under Federal law, therefore they ought to be able to vote in all states, even in Alabama.

Also important to keep in mind, marriage and family matters have historically been the exclusive province of state law. HOWEVER, the Supreme Court ruled in a 1967 case involving a mixed-race couple who couldn't legally be married in the state in which they resided (Virginia) that they were denied the "equal protection" guarenteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This couple got married in DC, but when they went home to Virginia, they were charged with the crime of inter-racial marriage.

Additionally, the Court added some stuff about how marriage is a fundamental right (like gun ownership, thanks be to McDonald v. Chicago) and states can't infringe on folks' fundamental right to marry whomever they choose because simply they don't like mixed-race marriages. To infringe on a fundamental right, the state must demonstrate a very good reason for doing so AND that the state restriction neatly takes care of the problem and is not overbroad.

The Virginia ban on inter-racial marriage failed the Court's tests as to "equal protection" and because Virginia couldn't demonstrate a decent reason why this couple ought not to be married. Therefore, the Virginia ban on inter-racial marriage went down in flames.

Therefore, I expect, if the right case ever gets to the Supreme Court, they will probably rule that if a gay couple can marry in any state, they ought to be allowed to marry in every state (equal protection), particularly since there is no evidence letting gay folks get married hurts non-gay folks...or anyone else for that matter. (no valid basis for not allowing gay marriage). For all the above reasons, I think DOMA is going down eventually and gay folks will be free to marry, and more importantly for the legal community, pay for expensive divorces from sea to shining sea.

Note: I don't approve of gay marriage, but it there is no reason I can give not based on my religious beliefs (which is verboten in constitutional questions like this) why they should not be allowed.

[C&CDean]

Gay marriage is like so last year.

[Leroy Lizard]

... and more importantly for the legal community, pay for expensive divorces from sea to shining sea.

Any wonder why the world hates lawyers?

[Frozen Sooner]

I think DOMA is going down eventually. For non-lawyers:

First off, the Fourteenth Amendment guarentees "equal protection under the law" of all similarly situated persons regardless of their state of residence.

The Fourteenth was passed (ratified in 1868, three years after the Civil Woah was won by the Federal gubmint) to make sure the former Cornfed states could not legally, emphasis on legally, deny black folks the Constitutional rights they were granted with their new US citizenship. IOW, black folks could now vote under Federal law, therefore they ought to be able to vote in all states, even in Alabama.

Also important to keep in mind, marriage and family matters have historically been the exclusive province of state law. HOWEVER, the Supreme Court ruled in a 1967 case involving a mixed-race couple who couldn't legally be married in the state in which they resided (Virginia) that they were denied the "equal protection" guarenteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This couple got married in DC, but when they went home to Virginia, they were charged with the crime of inter-racial marriage.

Additionally, the Court added some stuff about how marriage is a fundamental right (like gun ownership, thanks be to McDonald v. Chicago) and states can't infringe on folks' fundamental right to marry whomever they choose because simply they don't like mixed-race marriages. To infringe on a fundamental right, the state must demonstrate a very good reason for doing so AND that the state restriction neatly takes care of the problem and is not overbroad.

The Virginia ban on inter-racial marriage failed the Court's tests as to "equal protection" and because Virginia couldn't demonstrate a decent reason why this couple ought not to be married. Therefore, the Virginia ban on inter-racial marriage went down in flames.

Therefore, I expect, if the right case ever gets to the Supreme Court, they will probably rule that if a gay couple can marry in any state, they ought to be allowed to marry in every state, particularly since there is no evidence letting gay folks get married hurts non-gay folks...or anyone else for that matter. For all the above reasons, I think DOMA is going down eventually.

Misread what you wrote. Yup, I agree. As Nino pointed out, Lawrence v. Texas is the eventual death knell for legislation barring homosexual marriage.

[C&CDean]

The Equal Protection claim was based around the statute burdening a racial classification. Racial classifications get strict scrutiny. Whatever classifications based on sexual preference gets (rational basis or rational basis "with a bite" whatever that means) it isn't strict scrutiny.

The "marriage is a fundamental right" argument was a substantive due process claim.

You were a hell of a lot more fun when you were a banker.

[Chuck Bao]

Gay marriage is like so last year.

Dammit to hell!!! I had the bag and the shoes too!

[Frozen Sooner]

You were a hell of a lot more fun when you were a banker.

You don't hear that every day.

[C&CDean]

This is what lawyerin' will make you look like:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/trutv.com/graphics/photos/serial_killers/notorious/boston/12d.jpg

[Frozen Sooner]

Sweet. I'm going to get better looking!

[StoopTroup]

One thing I've noticed is that many things like civil rights, women in the workplace, Gay agenda, abortion, death penalty, the draft (or lack of)...I'm sure there are many more...

The issues that seem to have continued to be things that politicians and Supreme Court candidates get asked about really have no answer and there is absolutely no reason to even bring them up to someone when there is very little hope of a resolution to these things. I know...it's probably not in our nature as Americans to let things go...but getting our Government to move on these issues takes some folks who are real leaders and right now I don't think we've hit rock bottom yet as far as our politicians are concerned.

Even guys like Tom Coburn or John Sullivan make me sick as in decenct enviroment they are mediocre as politicians IMHO. Our Country is going to dredge it's way through a few more years of Democrats more than likely before the republican party quits putting guys like Steele and Palin in charge. The Party has let some trust fund idiots work their way into power and it seems like they have set the Republican Party back 20 years. Fox Channel initially seemed to have good faith in helping them but now they have a bunch of out of touch "On Air" fags working the airwaves everyday instead of guys like Ollie North or better that actually have worked both sides of the political scene.

Sad. It makes my stomach turn to even watch much more of it.

[47straight]

The judge specifically relied on the EPC in his ruling and said that the DOMA failed rational review on an EP basis.

Oh.

Well, then the judge is completely full of it.

[Frozen Sooner]

Oh.

Well, then the judge is completely full of it.

Yeah, I don't know if I actually agreed with his reasoning. Like the result, but I don't think applied rational review correctly.

[badger]

Fox Channel initially seemed to have good faith in helping them but now they have a bunch of out of touch "On Air" fags working the airwaves everyday instead of guys like Ollie North or better that actually have worked both sides of the political scene.

I miss Alan Colmes. Fox News needs more token liberals, or at least more liberal guests. Whenever the parents, grandparents or other relatives watched that channel, my favorite segments would be where they'd have someone like Al Sharpton on, or Colmes interviewing Ann Coulter. It was like a breath of fresh air... like when Jon Stewart visited CNN's Crossfire and pwn3d Tucker. Listening to O'Reilley scold people got old. The whole Colbert/O'Reilley thing was awesomeness.

Ah, but this isn't about Fox news, so whatev

[EnragedOUfan]

Evidently not since, apparently, the Confederacy lost the war you see and now there's no such thing as states' rights. So we can all rejoice that there's no check on Federal power and they can do whatever the hell they want when they want to do it.

Dude, check up on your history. I'm all for the states to have rights, but there absolutely must be Federal Government intervention and checks and balances.....Historically, the states and they're "laissez-faire" economics policy led us to the great depression..... Look it up. If the states were allowed to do as they please, women wouldn't be voting, slaves would still be slaves, and African Americans wouldn't be voting. Historically, we need state and federal. That's why I think this Tea Party movement is the stupidest thing ever....

[Breadburner]

How bout a "Gay butt-sex tax"....That should have us out of debt in no time...

[SunnySooner]

I just wish the gubmint would concentrate on real problems and totally forget about what consenting adults want to do in their bedrooms, or backseats or up against trees or on powdery white beaches or...um, ok, anyway, you get the point. We've got **** we need to deal with here, folks, and if whoever wants to get married, then let the county clerk collect their $50 and move on, we've wasted way too much time and effort on this bull****e. They can get married, have kids and divorce and become as dysfunctional as the rest of us, big whoop. What about the clusterf that is health care, or trying to help peeps whose houses have dropped $100k in value in 3 years, or fixing the other clusterf of public education, and oh yeah, we're fighting a couple or 3 wars, can we focus on some of that **** and stop getting so riled up about what 2 people want to willingly do to each other in private, with a legal right to do so, and a right to make decisions for the other if they are injured, etc.? It's just sex, people, whatever floats your boat, I really hate that so many resources are wasted on this insignificant issue when MUCH larger problems are begging for attention. My personal beliefs about the topic should have no bearing on how policy should be made, I really wish we could find people to elect with at least one gonad, but it seems they are a vanishing breed.

[AlbqSooner]

How bout a "Gay butt-sex tax"....That should have us out of debt in no time...

So, are you gonna be an IRS auditor? I understand the gubmint benefits are mahvalous.

[StoopTroup]

I'd like to be an auditor but of course only because I know how to look up folks from the past and send them a letter every year for the rest of their life. :D ;)

[Okla-homey]

Any wonder why the world hates lawyers?

We're not the ones who get married, suddenly decide "The Thrill is Gone" (props to B.B. King) and want to look for greener (or sexier) pastures. It's our dumarse fellow citizens who marry the wrong person, or can't keep their spouse happy in the mattress dancing department, or frankly don't really know WTH they want in a spouse but rush on down to get married anyway who are to blame.

In short, we're merely the toll booth operators on the toll bridge to Divorce-land.

It's a dirty job. Somebody has to do it.

Look on the bright side Slappy, at least its not something illegal aliens can do or that can be out-sourced to India.;)

[Okla-homey]

I just wish the gubmint would concentrate on real problems and totally forget about what consenting adults want to do in their bedrooms, or backseats or up against trees or on powdery white beaches or...um, ok, anyway, you get the point. We've got **** we need to deal with here, folks, and if whoever wants to get married, then let the county clerk collect their $50 and move on, we've wasted way too much time and effort on this bull****e. They can get married, have kids and divorce and become as dysfunctional as the rest of us, big whoop. What about the clusterf that is health care, or trying to help peeps whose houses have dropped $100k in value in 3 years, or fixing the other clusterf of public education, and oh yeah, we're fighting a couple or 3 wars, can we focus on some of that **** and stop getting so riled up about what 2 people want to willingly do to each other in private, with a legal right to do so, and a right to make decisions for the other if they are injured, etc.? It's just sex, people, whatever floats your boat, I really hate that so many resources are wasted on this insignificant issue when MUCH larger problems are begging for attention. My personal beliefs about the topic should have no bearing on how policy should be made, I really wish we could find people to elect with at least one gonad, but it seems they are a vanishing breed.

What she said. 100%. Just as long as Big Brother doesn't require my church to be the situs of such unholy joinings or to endorse same.

I say, full on, balls deep gay-fests, complete with a$$-less chaps for the bridesmen and a 55 gallon barrel of lube, with "It's Raining Men" for the soundtrack. Just don't make me watch. Because that's some deviant, sick and twisted shat.

[tommieharris91]

What she said. 100%. Just as long as Big Brother doesn't require my church to be the situs of such unholy joinings or to endorse same.

It's been awhile since I've checked the Constitution, but I do believe that 1st Amendment thing won't allow it anyway.

[Leroy Lizard]

I'd like to be an auditor...

For the gay butt-sex tax?

[Leroy Lizard]

We're not the ones who get married, suddenly decide "The Thrill is Gone" (props to B.B. King) and want to look for greener (or sexier) pastures. It's our dumarse fellow citizens who marry the wrong person, or can't keep their spouse happy in the mattress dancing department, or frankly don't really know WTH they want in a spouse but rush on down to get married anyway who are to blame.

In short, we're merely the toll booth operators on the toll bridge to Divorce-land.

It's a dirty job. Somebody has to do it.

You're like a doctor who enjoys seeing cancer in his patients. More $$$$ wooohooo!!

[yermom]

You're like a doctor who enjoys seeing cancer in his patients. More $$$$ wooohooo!!

except the doctors didn't decide how cancer ravages your body

since they are the same sex, how do the judge and lawyers know which one to rape in court over the kids and assets?

[Okla-homey]

You're like a doctor who enjoys seeing cancer in his patients. More $$$$ wooohooo!!

Divorce, unlike cancer, is completely preventable.

[yermom]

marriage, unlike cancer, is completely preventable.

fixed :D

[Okla-homey]

since they are the same sex, how do the judge and lawyers know which one to rape in court over the kids and assets?

Precisely. And that's the aspect that will make it so complicated (and expensive). The really cool part is the fact that the men in straight relationships are generally more prone to infidelity than the women. Ergo, you put two men in a marriage, and you've doubled the odds there will be cheating. And cheating is among the leading causes of divorce. The other cool part is gay men tend to be higher income folks than the general population. Ka-Ching!

Yessirree, gay marriage will be a veritable cornucopia of financial blessing to the family law system!:D

[Chuck Bao]

Precisely. And that's the aspect that will make it so complicated (and expensive). The really cool part is the fact that the men in straight relationships are generally more prone to infidelity than the women. Ergo, you put two men in a marriage, and you've doubled the odds there will be cheating. And cheating is among the leading causes of divorce. The other cool part is gay men tend to be higher income folks than the general population. Ka-Ching!

Yessirree, gay marriage will be a veritable cornucopia of financial blessing to the family law system!:D

That's so wrong and disgusting and an abummanation to what is right and fair.

If you ever represent me, I want you to know that I'm just frisky.

[Okla-homey]

That's so wrong and disgusting and an abummanation to what is right and fair.

If you ever represent me, I want you to know that I'm just frisky.

Chuckles, you're a smart guy.

I respect your intellect and the fact we're both from Southern Oklahoma. I expect as a smart guy, you understand the full reach and effect of marriage. I think sometimes that's lost amidst the sturm and drang of the struggle for the right to marry. Folks need to realize, both gay and straight folks, once you invite the state into your relationship by getting married, the state won't let you out without it costing you a bundle. Both emotionally and financially.

In truth, I think lesbians would be better marriage candidates than gay men because they tend to commit to each other early and for the long haul. My lesbian cousin, who lives with a girl she met over 20 years ago, told me a joke once that I think sums it up nicely: "Q: what does a lesbian bring along on her second date? A: Her furniture."

Anyway, be patient. You'll be able to marry Nope before the end of this new decade and that marriage will be recognized in all 50 states. I'm certain of it.

[Chuck Bao]

Chuckles, you're a smart guy.

I respect your intellect and the fact we're both from Southern Oklahoma. I expect as a smart guy, you understand the full reach and effect of marriage. I think sometimes that's lost amidst the sturm and drang of the struggle for the right to marry. Folks need to realize, both gay and straight folks, once you invite the state into your relationship by getting married, the state won't let you out without it costing you a bundle. Both emotionally and financially.

In truth, I think lesbians would be better marriage candidates than gay men because they tend to commit to each other early and for the long haul. My lesbian cousin, who lives with a girl she met over 20 years ago, told me a joke once that I think sums it up nicely: "Q: what does a lesbian bring along on her second date? A: Her furniture."

Anyway, be patient. You'll be able to marry Nope before the end of this new decade and that marriage will be recognized in all 50 states. I'm certain of it.

Homey, dude, you’ve given me some hope. Actually, a lot of hope and sincere thanks for that.

So you respect my intellect? That is another huge surprise. As a response, I will post no arguments here that will immediately disprove it. Oh, you probably don’t know that I am still incapable of remembering my own street address despite living in my new condo for 2 years. I carry a laminated card in my billfold with the address to give to taxi drivers.

By the way, our sister lesbians are, yep, lovely and loyal and make for better long-term relationships. Of course, if I didn’t say that, they’d rain down all sorts of holy hellish terror on me when whooping on my sweet little ***.

Lawyers getting into that business are going to need steel-reinforced balls. On the other hand, gay men divorces would be a cakewalk.

[Okla-homey]

Lawyers getting into that business are going to need steel-reinforced balls. On the other hand, gay men divorces would be a cakewalk.

I couldn't do it. Too emotionally taxing and too much drama. Not to mention, of the lawyers shot by their former clients of whom I'm aware, without exception, they've been divorce lawyers. :eek:

I'll stick to Indian law, and defending people sued in personal injury and professional negligence cases. It's safer.;)