 |
| Image from source, GayCityNews |
I'm happy that the judge ruled this way, because very often in sensitive issue cases (religion in politics, and anything to do with the gay), judges twist their logic into a pretzel to come up with reasons why obviously un-Constitutional laws do not violate the Constitution. An example would be for the Supreme Court to rule that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance does not have a religious meaning. Really, they did that.
Another reason to be glad, is that this sets a precedent for other states when it comes to future cases involving same-sex marriage. Will they fall like dominoes, or have to fight one state at a time? Will this instead go to the Supreme Court, effectively overturning DOMA or cementing it in place? The prospect makes me--half of a legally married same-sex couple--nervous. Because a court that could rule that "God" is not a religious word could contort their logic to say anything.
[Excrept]
Federal Judge Strikes Down Portions of DOMA
In a stunning double win in the battle to advance the marriage equality cause, a US district court judge in Boston on July 8 has struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of legal marriages by same-sex couples, in separate cases brought by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and married gay and lesbian couples.
In Gill et al v. Office of Personnel Management, Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that Section 3 is unconstitutional in the context of claims brought by seven married same-sex couples and three widowers from Massachusetts. The plaintiffs challenged the denial of federal recognition in a variety of areas, including income tax filing, Social Security, and benefits available to US government employees and retirees. . .
Read more at: GayCityNews
So, apparently the judge believes in State's rights. Ok, then i suppose you would be ok with the Arizona immigration law- another state's right issue.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the judges ruling is that what happens in States like Nevada that refuse to recognize gay marriage. How do you handle gay divorce and child custody issues?
BTW,while I am not in favor of gay marriage, I do think it is a State's issue, as long as other states are not forced to go along with gay marriage if the State and it's people don't want it.
I simply think that same-sex marriage should be legal. The arguements don't matter much to me. I'm married via California law (by loophole!), and I think my valid, legal, California marriage should grant me the rights of any other legal American marriage. I don't really care how they get there.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the Arizona law goes, I'll say this. If it is true that the cops have to have a prior reason (some sort of legal infraction) to ask for papers, I'm cool with that. As the law was originally stated, the police were COMPELLED to ask for papers for any reason, if they thought someone was illegal. No infraction required. THAT would have lead to racial profiling, no matter what. The biggest "wiggins" I got from the original law, was that actual citizens would be required to produce papers on suspicion only. THAT is creepy and un-American.
ReplyDeleteJames, I think some things are wrong via the gay marriage issue. For instance, I think gay couples have every right to visit their spouse in the hospital and make medical decesions for their loved ones. Share in social security and pension benefits. I am not in favor of domesitic partner benefits such as health care but I am against also against hetro's getting those benefits as well. If a private employer wants to offer, great. Government- no, but more for an expense issue. Gay adoption, no problem.
ReplyDeleteI am glad for you that you found a loop hole and if you are in love, great. If a State wants gay marriage and they do it through the legaslative process, I find that to be more acceptable than a judge or judges making that decesion. But I do understand your position. I am not a gay hater or basher, unlike some conservatives.
As far as the idenification thing for immigration, you say it is creepy, but every time you are pulled over by the cops, you have to produce ID. If you commit a crime or suspected of a crime, they ask for ID. That has not changed.
But I understand your point. Watching COPS for 20 years or so, I do find it troubling when they stop someone for nothing and then demand ID and I do find that troubling.