The ruling was narrow in its scope. It did not (yet) address the issue of whether states without same-sex marriage can be forced to recognize gay unions performed in states where it's legal. The 1st Circuit judges also weren't asked to address whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, the key issue that will eventually lance the 30 pustules of church-sponsored anti-gay laws in states like North Carolina.
Only a matter of time. Two of the three judges on the 1st Circuit panel that issued this ruling were Republicans appointed by Republican presidents.
9 comments:
Fact? Prove it.
DG, What are you talking about? Are you trying contest the fact that the First Circuit Appeals Court ruled a key part of DOMA unconstitutional? Because I'd suggest you look at *any* major news outlet if you're unclear about the facts.
If you're talking about the assertion that "it's only a matter of time" then obviously only time will tell. Nowhere in this post did JW say "It's a fact that it's just a matter of time" or give any other indication that he was representing this as a fact. It's his own assertion and that's clear in the post. If you want to get into political debates it's pretty important for you to be able to distinguish between an assertion and a fact!
Deborah, Prove what, exactly? I think I can now prove that you, who supposedly hate government at all levels, are perfectly willing to use government to deny equal rights to a minority of our citizens, all in the name of religion. That's your legacy.
What rights are you referring to, J.W.? The "right" to a certain type of contract when other contracts do the same thing?
Ah, there's the personal contract baloney yet again. Those other contracts do NOT do the same things as marriage, no matter how many times you say it. Two people cannot give themselves state or federal marriage benefits in a contract. It just can't be done.
The 1960's are calling Anonymous, they want their separate but equal back.
DG is like a seagull who just flies in, craps, and then leaves.
Two people cannot give themselves state or federal marriage benefits in a contract. It just can't be done.
Then the problem is with the tax code, etc.; not the contract or the definition of marriage.
No, the problem is with how the federal and state governments define marriage. Can you imagine the howling from the right wing if either the US Congress or the state legislature tried to give same-sex couples the same benefits? Never mind... the amendment makes that stuff impossible. So what you're saying is "don't change marriage, change the tax code. But you can't change the tax code because the amendment doesn't allow it." How convenient for you!
Post a Comment