SCOTUS strikes down part of Defense of Marriage Act, supports same-sex marriage

[Venti Quattro]

349890929479516160

[clambake]

i know some dinosaurs that are gonna be pissed. lol

[Rogue]

my goddess supports same-sex marriage too. she said that it (prohibition of gay marriage) is so archaic, and bizzare to her.

a famous quote of my goddess:

I feel like in 10 or 15yrs our children are gonna look back and say "what, you were around when gay people were not allowed to get married?"

[sjacquemotte]

i know some dinosaurs that are gonna be pissed. lol
http://dinosaurusrex.ca/wp-content/gallery/top-25-awesome-dinosaur-memes-and-pics/never-forget-the-dinosaurs-saving-mamals.jpg

[LnGrrrR]

Should be fun to see what this means for gay military couples.

Also, I'm enjoying all the religious butthurt going on right now.

[boutons_deux]

Quote of the Day: Nobody Cares About Federalism


From Justice Anthony Kennedy, (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf) writing for the majority in United States vs. Windsor:


The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State....This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.


In a nutshell, Kennedy says the Constitution doesn't forbid states from banning same-sex marriage. But if a state allows same-sex marriage, the federal government can't refuse to recognize it. Marriage is a state concern—in fact, it's literally a textbook example of a state concern—not a federal one. Taken as a whole, this ruling was as pure a defense of federalism as we've seen in a while.

So why did all the conservative justices oppose it? Answer: Because no one actually cares about federalism. It's merely a convenient veneer when you prefer one outcome over another. Yesterday state sovereignty was of crucial concern when conservatives gutted the Voting Rights Act. Today, they couldn't care less about it.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/06/quote-day-nobody-cares-about-federalism

[boutons_deux]

Indiana Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Felony Punishable by Prison

On July 1 of next year, same-sex couples applying for a marriage license in Indiana will have committed a felony (http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/indiana-law-makes-it-a-felony-for-same-sex-couples-to-apply-for-a-marriage-license/) punishable by 18 months in prison an a $10,000 fine. The new crime stems from the revival of a1997 law forbidding false information on a marriage license as a Class D felony. It will also make it a Class B misdemeanor -- punishable by up to 180 days in a jail and a maximum fine of $1,000 -- for clergy, judges, and others to perform a same-sex marriage.

The New Civil Rights Movement explains (http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/indiana-law-makes-it-a-felony-for-same-sex-couples-to-apply-for-a-marriage-license/) how the new rule works:

Because Indiana marriage license forms have a space for “male applicant” and “female applicant”, any same-sex couple filling out the form would automatically violate the law. The harsh penalties Indiana lawmakers have approved make it difficult for protest movements like the Campaign for Southern Equality’s “We Do (https://www.facebook.com/SouthernEquality?fref=ts)” Campaign, which encourages same-sex couples to apply for marriage licenses as a protest in states that prohibit same-sex marriages.


Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Indiana, but legislators are contemplating adding a ban in an amendment the state's Constitution. The vote will be held in the January-March 2014 legislative session.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/indiana-makes-same-sex-felony?akid=10678.187590.sXD3mb&rd=1&src=newsletter867164&t=3

red states FUCKING SUCK, especially their BIBLE-THUMPING "CHRISTIAN" HATERS

[TeyshaBlue]

lol atlernet.
lol boutons and the rest of the non thinking rss fellators.
http://www.bilerico.com/2013/07/slow_down_indianas_new_marriage_law_isnt_real.php? utm_source=front_page&utm_medium=top_story&utm_campaign=Top_Story

[cheguevara]

Marriage is nowhere in the Constitution. That's by design. Our forefathers left it to the States to decide.

what a joke this country has become.

I could care less if the State of Montana legalized marriage between a man and his left toenail. That's how our forefathers designed this country.

now wasting taxpayer dollars on stupid shit like this

what a joke

[boutons_deux]

Marriage is nowhere in the Constitution. That's by design. Our forefathers left it to the States to decide.

what a joke this country has become.

I could care less if the State of Montana legalized marriage between a man and his left toenail. That's how our forefathers designed this country.

now wasting taxpayer dollars on stupid shit like this

what a joke

Slavery wasn't in the Constitution, "left up to the states", until an Amendment denied the "states right" to hold slaves

(same sex) marriage wasn't in the Constitution, "left up to the states", until an Amendment (or Federal law) denied the "states right" to discriminate against LGBT marriages.

[scott]

Been thinking about this for the last two weeks and have decided my marriage is a complete sham as a result. Going to run home and tell my wife that our union isn't sacred and that I need to check with a doctor if I too am Gay

[scott]

If a homosexual man and a lesbian have sex... is it still gay sex?

[boutons_deux]

have decided my marriage is a complete sham as a result.

fucking stupid, but that's your right. Freedom!

Also pretty fucking stupid to define, confirm YOUR sexual preference as hetero just because you married a female. Marriage isn't "sacred" in govt's eyes. It's strictly a legal relationship.

[Fabbs]

Culture wise, will gay mens favorite NFL team now become the Packers?

[spursncowboys]

Is there such a thing as a homodextrous?

[cheguevara]

Slavery wasn't in the Constitution, "left up to the states", until an Amendment denied the "states right" to hold slaves

(same sex) marriage wasn't in the Constitution, "left up to the states", until an Amendment (or Federal law) denied the "states right" to discriminate against LGBT marriages.

Yes, it's called ammending the Constitution. That is a process that has to go through Congress - The People.

If they want to ban, or force states to some definition of Marriage, then go ahead and ammend the Constitution. Good luck.

[boutons_deux]

Yes, it's called ammending the Constitution. That is a process that has to go through Congress - The People.

If they want to ban, or force states to some definition of Marriage, then go ahead and ammend the Constitution. Good luck.

Amendment is one way, passing a Federal law is the other.

Obviously, with how Repugs have polarized, divided the country and how they keep their ignorant base constantly inflamed, any amendment is impossible.

[Jacob1983]

Marriage is a benefit, not a right.

[boutons_deux]

Marriage is a benefit, not a right.

inalienable rights don't exist. The only rights are those defined, granted, and enforced by society.

If society (govt) decides same-sex marriage is to have all the govt-granted rights of hetero marriages, it's done.

[Jacob1983]

Marriage isn't the same as being able to vote or being allowed to have an attorney and a trial by jury. It's a benefit. Plain and simple. Your life won't end if you are single.

[spursncowboys]

Marriage isn't the same as being able to vote or being allowed to have an attorney and a trial by jury. It's a benefit. Plain and simple. Your life won't end if you are single.
As a former married person, I find it very offensive for you to call it a benefit.

[Jacob1983]

It's a benefit. Why should two people that are together get more from the government than one individual? Answer that for me.

[Winehole23]

A federal judge in Louisville ruled Wednesday that same-sex couples living in Kentucky who were married elsewhere have a constitutional right to official acceptance of their marriages and to equal access to marital benefits. While the judge limited his ruling to that specific issue, he predicted that the analysis he used would eventually mean that same-sex couples will gain the right to marry across the nation.


The ruling by U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II, in a twenty-three-page opinion (http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Kentucky-marriage-recognitioin-ruling-2-12-141.pdf), was another indication that equal access to marital benefits is becoming increasingly an approach used by courts leading toward full recognition of equal marital rights for gays and lesbians.


In fact. the judge suggested that it may take just one more Supreme Court ruling “in the next few years” to complete “the judicial journey” toward full equality for gays and lesbians in American law.
The judge wrote that the Supreme Court’s ruling last June in United States v. Windsor (http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/United_States_v_Windsor_133_S_Ct_2675_186_L_Ed_2d_ 808_118_FEP_Cas/17)“would seem to command that a law refusing to recognize out of state same-sex marriages has only one effect: to impose inequality.” The Windsor decision struck down a part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that barred equal federal benefits related to marriage to same-sex couples who are legally married.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/02/kentucky-ruling-on-same-sex-marriages/

[boutons_deux]

It's a benefit. Why should two people that are together get more from the government than one individual? Answer that for me.

govt policy to promote marriage?


why should a same-sex marriage not have the same advantages as a mixed-sex marriage? Answer that for me.