Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

***OFFICIAL USA SUPREME COURT DOMA & PROP. 8 DECISION THREAD***

Live feed at link.

by Anonymousreply 36806/01/2014

I think I'm going to be sick.

by Anonymousreply 106/26/2013

Live Updates here.

by Anonymousreply 206/26/2013

NBC News live video.

by Anonymousreply 306/26/2013

"At 10am ET, the Supreme Court may make history – good or bad – on gay rights"

We’re only hours away from a momentous day at the Supreme Court, when decisions on the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Proposition 8 are expected at 10am Eastern.

The court will either do something good, something bad, punt the issue all together, or possibly even put it off until the fall.

I remember I was in law school at Georgetown in 1986 when the court decided Bowers v. Hardwick, ruling that state laws against sodomy – which were usually enforced against gay people, and sometimes only written about gay people – were upheld as constitutional. I was still closeted, but I was definitely gay. And it was very weird studying a case that applied to you, and basically ruled that you were somehow “less” than other Americans.

Reading Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986 gave me a small window into what it might have been like for African-Americans in the 1950s and 1960s to have to wait for their government’s stamp of approval of their humanity.

What to expect at 10am ET

So, what to expect at 10am Eastern today when the Supreme Court releases its final opinions (aka decisions) for the year? Most of us expect that they’ll release the DOMA and Prop 8 decisions. But as I’d written earlier, it’s not unprecedented for the court to hold off on releasing a particularly tough decision until the next session – they did just that with Brown v Board of Education and Roe v Wade.

Still, it’s rare. As for what to expect at 10, first thing, think about health care reform. Practically no one expected the decision the court came out with – all of us were expecting it to be struck down. So, I’ve learned not to “expect” anything from the court.

DOMA

Having said that, look back at the oral arguments that took place before the court in March, and the analysis then was that “DOMA is in trouble.” Though it’s still possible that the court could kick the case out entirely for lack of standing.

A quick refresher. The Defense of Marriage Act does two things. It forbids the federal government from providing any of the over 1,100 federal benefits of marriage to gay couples, even if they’re legally married. This affects gay couples on their taxes, with Social Security, with immigration, and practically every agency. The second thing DOMA does is make it so that no state is forced to recognize the legal gay marriage of another state. Section 3 of DOMA, the part about benefits, is the one in question today.

CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin does a great job explaining the oral arguments on DOMA, and the overall issue of DOMA. It’s a great primer to watch before today’s rulings:

Proposition 8

Proposition 8 is the people’s proposal in California that passed in November, 2008, and repealed that state’s law making gay marriage legal. At the point the law was repealed, 18,000 gay couples had already legally wed, and their marriages remained in tact. I can’t imagine that, if the court decides this case on the merits, that isn’t going to be a significant part of the decision.

Prop 8 also has a standing question, which might mean, again, that the court may not even rule on the merits. From Scotusblog:

Kennedy told him bluntly to “address why you think we should take and decide this case.” And with that, the Justice may have confirmed that the real question before the Court is not whether it would strike down Proposition 8, or what the broader effect of such a decision might be, but whether it is going to reach the merits of the case at all – a prospect that would be (to say the least) anticlimactic but seemed to be a real possibility by the end of the morning.

More from Scotusblog on what to expect:

Given the shifting alliances on view at the Court today, and the overall lack of enthusiasm on the part of some Justices for deciding the case on the merits, the Justices’ Conference later this week – at which they will vote on the case – promises to be an interesting one. Will at least five Justices join forces to hold that the proponents lack the right to defend the initiative at all? Will they instead decide that even if the proponents have that right, the time is not right to decide the merits of the case? Or will they go ahead and reach the merits after all?

Depending on the answers to those questions, the case could proceed in several different directions. If at least six Justices conclude that now is not the right time to rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, they could “DIG” the case – dismiss it as improvidently granted. If that happened, the lower court’s ruling striking down Proposition 8 would stand, but it would have no real significance outside of California. Getting to that result would almost certainly require the Chief Justice to join forces with Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor; nothing that we heard today provided any reason to believe that Justices Scalia, Thomas, or Alito would vote to dismiss the case. In this scenario, Proposition 8 would be invalid, but another lawsuit – for example, brought by a Californian who opposed same-sex marriage – could eventually follow and reach the Court at a later date.

If the Justices do decide the case, they could vote in any number of ways, and so it’s hard to predict how the case will play out: the Court could ultimately rule that Proposition 8 is invalid (for a variety of different reasons), or it could hold that the proponents lack the right to defend the initiative but set the stage for a new challenge later on. Or they could surprise us all and simply send the case back to the lower courts for those courts to weigh in based on the Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, the challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, in which it will hear arguments tomorrow. But in all events, it is difficult to count five votes in support of an opinion that reverses the court of appeals outright and holds that Proposition 8 is constitutional; Justice Kennedy seemed to be looking for a strategy to avoid that result.

There’s lots more, but that’s a good start.

See you at 10am Eastern!

by Anonymousreply 406/26/2013

Scotusblog just announced three boxes, which means three long decisions, which means a ruling on standing is perhaps unlikely in Prop 8? It seems like that would perhaps be short?

by Anonymousreply 506/26/2013

Watch them strike down prop 8 and hold up doma because gay marriage is a states issue to Obama and ALL politicians who support gay marriage.

by Anonymousreply 606/26/2013

DOMA up first.....

by Anonymousreply 706/26/2013

DOMA down, but Roberts in the minority.

Scary, but not surprising.

by Anonymousreply 806/26/2013

5-4 per Kennedy

by Anonymousreply 906/26/2013

DOMA down in flames!

by Anonymousreply 1006/26/2013

Good chance that the opinion will roll over all civil unions to marriage now -- NBC reports broad language, not narrow in the DOMA opinion.

by Anonymousreply 1106/26/2013

Good. Now maybe we can move on and talk about something else?

by Anonymousreply 1206/26/2013

Will that pissy bitch Scalia read a dissent into the record from the bench, like he did in Romer & Lawrence?

by Anonymousreply 1306/26/2013

Scalia & Thomas opposed, natch.

by Anonymousreply 1406/26/2013

I wish I understood the majority of what is going on. I'll need the Cliff Notes afterwards.

by Anonymousreply 1506/26/2013

Link to the opinion.

by Anonymousreply 1606/26/2013

Let's talk about YOU r12.

by Anonymousreply 1706/26/2013

Are we officially rejoicing over DOMA, or do we need more from them in that territory?

by Anonymousreply 1806/26/2013

[quote]Good chance that the opinion will roll over all civil unions to marriage now -- NBC reports broad language, not narrow in the DOMA opinion.

I'm totally confused.

by Anonymousreply 1906/26/2013

Did one of the conservatives on the court vote against DOMA?

by Anonymousreply 2006/26/2013

r12 who tells you what to talk about? CNN? Get your own id. you fool.

by Anonymousreply 2106/26/2013

GREAT SIGN -- Roberts dissented ONLY on the standing question, not on the merits, so maybe Roberts will let the lower courts on Prop 8 stand.

by Anonymousreply 2206/26/2013

I prefer the other, more euphoric Supreme Court thread - I am moving there!

by Anonymousreply 2306/26/2013

Let me see if Wikipedia has been updated already. lmao

by Anonymousreply 2406/26/2013

It is unfortunate that Roberts dissented. I was really hoping it would be 6-3 not a 5-4 split decision.

by Anonymousreply 2506/26/2013

r18 The media is going to tell us to rejoice and fall at the great leaders' feet even if he had nothing to do with this.

by Anonymousreply 2606/26/2013

Already updated. Damn!

by Anonymousreply 2706/26/2013

OMG, Free Republic!

by Anonymousreply 2806/26/2013

That is great news R22, I take back what I said R25.

by Anonymousreply 2906/26/2013

Free Republic is not discussing this. I even checked their HomosexualAgenda tag. What gives? All I see if Marco Rubio hate. Did they just give up on this?

by Anonymousreply 3006/26/2013

Right wing sites must be in full meltdown mode! Grab the popcorn and let's go watch!

by Anonymousreply 3106/26/2013

r26, what in holy hell are you babbling about??!

by Anonymousreply 3206/26/2013

R31, that was my first thought!

by Anonymousreply 3306/26/2013

"We hold today that we lack jurisdiction to consider it in the particular context of Hollingsworth v. Perry."

from Kennedy's dissent.

by Anonymousreply 3406/26/2013

Then this will be a day of independence, for all same sex spice and their descendants.

by Anonymousreply 3506/26/2013

Yuck Good Morning America has some douche on for the Family of Research Council.

by Anonymousreply 3606/26/2013

Okay, I am officially doublethreading it now...!

by Anonymousreply 3706/26/2013

Just a question, I didn't hear this: If DOMA is now tossed, can the states still retain the power to define marriage?

by Anonymousreply 3806/26/2013

So with the DOMA (and hopefully Propr 8) decisions going toward civil rights, and yesterday's ruling on the Voting Rights Act moving away from them, is this setting things up for a Racial minorities vs. gays debate?

I hope not, but you know that there will be some major (and understandable) bitterness about the earlier rulings this week that could be taken out on us.

by Anonymousreply 3906/26/2013

If we get the Prop 8 case as well, Freeperland will have their biggest meltdown since the election. Delicious Freeper tears will fall like rain.

by Anonymousreply 4006/26/2013

R26, you mad?

by Anonymousreply 4106/26/2013

Great attitude, R39.

by Anonymousreply 4206/26/2013

It seems Prop 8 is going to be dismissed on standing R40. Which means California will get same-sex marriage.

by Anonymousreply 4306/26/2013

He's ascared r42, the sky is falling and we've all got to find a hiding place fast!

by Anonymousreply 4506/26/2013

Scalia is reading his dissent from the bench. Look up "sore loser" in the dictionary, and you'll see his picture.

by Anonymousreply 4606/26/2013

After what happened yesterday, today's victory is bittersweet. Americans have no idea what equality truly means and the repeal of DOMA means jack shit in the grand scheme of things.

by Anonymousreply 4706/26/2013

Okay Prop 8 dismissed.

by Anonymousreply 4806/26/2013

WE WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Anonymousreply 4906/26/2013

Congratulations everyone. We are EQUAL.

by Anonymousreply 5006/26/2013

Stop flaming each other and be happy!

by Anonymousreply 5106/26/2013

@SenGillibrand: Congress must finish the job #SCOTUS started by repealing #DOMA in full. Join me & @DailyKos in urging Congress to act

by Anonymousreply 5206/26/2013

Just finished reading the recap of the opinion published at the beginning of the opinion.

States alone have the right to define marriage. NY says they are married. DOMA attempts to create a class that is denied marital rights that are legally created by the State of New York. It also attempts to deny rights "legally granted by the state" to a class that suffers discrimination.

So DOMA is unconstitutional because a) it contravenes NY's power to define marriage (This could be bad in the future) and b) it creates a class that is treated unequally.

Forget that those two positions cannot be reconciled across the 50 states without stating that the Federal government has NO say in what a marriage is.

We won the battle but I think, at least on this front, the victory in the war was not helped today.

by Anonymousreply 5306/26/2013

Calm down R50, you're only equal if you live in CA or were already married in a state that permits same sex marriage.

by Anonymousreply 5406/26/2013

Let's all go to California and get gay married and then file our taxes!

by Anonymousreply 5506/26/2013

The battle is not over. The majority of states in America do not recognize same-sex marriage and the Supreme Court does not force them to.

Still, the Federal government MUST recognize your marriage if you get married in a state that allows it. The most populous state now has gay marriage.

It's a big deal, but not over.

by Anonymousreply 5606/26/2013

WONDERFUL!!!

(and please ignore the shit-stirring freepers here - don't let their Scalia-like diseased bitterness tain this beautiful moment for LGBT people!)

GREAT NEWS!!!

by Anonymousreply 5706/26/2013

How did the judges vote?

by Anonymousreply 5806/26/2013

r56 not over by a long shot. sadly, the mainstream media is going to portray it like it is.

by Anonymousreply 5906/26/2013

I bet *you* would, R44.

by Anonymousreply 6006/26/2013

So the Prop 8 decision is: "stop being such a busybody"? to the folks who authored it?

by Anonymousreply 6106/26/2013

Defense Of Marriage Act is still a thing.

What's the point in celebrating? congrats. Cali people I guess.

by Anonymousreply 6206/26/2013

It's a great day. Sure, the fight continues but let's celebrate our victories as we go along.

by Anonymousreply 6306/26/2013

So, if I live in a state that has gay marriage, does this now mean that my partner and I will receive things like each other's Social Security partner death benefits, etc., as do straight couples currently?

by Anonymousreply 6406/26/2013

If you had filed an extension, and you are legally married, can you now file your 2012 tax returns jointly?

by Anonymousreply 6506/26/2013

Why? I'm not the one with my head up there, r60.

by Anonymousreply 6606/26/2013

Suck it, freepers.

by Anonymousreply 6706/26/2013

[quote]Calm down [R50], you're only equal if you live in CA or were already married in a state that permits same sex marriage.

Go away.

by Anonymousreply 6806/26/2013

Defense of Marriage act is NOT "still a thing"!

Are you even American?

by Anonymousreply 6906/26/2013

Yes, it will take the federal government a little while to change their regulations but yes. Now you are legally entitled to all those rights and benefits from the federal government that straight couples get R64.

And you are paying attention R62? DOMA was struck down, and struck down hard.

by Anonymousreply 7006/26/2013

IF you live in a State that recognizes gay marriage, yes. The federal government must recognize your marriage and act accordingly.

by Anonymousreply 7106/26/2013

R58,

DOMA: Majority = Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, Kennedy, Sotomayor

Prop 8: Majority = Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, Roberts, Sotomayor

by Anonymousreply 7206/26/2013

R59, Crawl off and die while the rest of the world moves on without you.

by Anonymousreply 7406/26/2013

The Defense of Marriage Act has been struck down, R62.

by Anonymousreply 7506/26/2013

Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are Obama appointees.

Justice Kennedy delivered the court’s opinion, and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer.

Imagine if McCann won, we would have had a very different outcome.

by Anonymousreply 7606/26/2013

r69 Yes, it is and yes, I am.

by Anonymousreply 7706/26/2013

And actually it is even better R71, it's not if you LIVE in the state, its if you got MARRIED in a state that allows it. The Federal government has to recognize it even though the state you reside it doesn't (right now...).

So you wouldn't get the state benefits of marriage in that case, but you would get the federal benefits.

by Anonymousreply 7806/26/2013

In R62's defense, we have a DOMA and a DOM Constitutional Amendment in my state. So while I will drink to your victory, it doesn't do most of us much good.

by Anonymousreply 7906/26/2013

John Roberts is the swing vote in the Supreme Court now.

This and before that Obamacare.

by Anonymousreply 8006/26/2013

r71 But not in the other 40 something states?

LAME.

by Anonymousreply 8106/26/2013

I am so confused.. it says court struck down PART of DOMA. Does that mean there's a part that's still denying rights for LGBT couples?

by Anonymousreply 8206/26/2013

[quote]So, if I live in a state that has gay marriage, does this now mean that my partner and I will receive things like each other's Social Security partner death benefits, etc., as do straight couples currently?

You might. Some federal benefits can only be determined by the state you live in, so if that state doesn't recognize same sex marriage, you're out of luck. That's according to ABC's Terry Moran.

by Anonymousreply 8306/26/2013

There is another great victory in the Windsor (DOMA) case, which you should not ignore. Kennedy establishes a "careful consideration" standard for handling instances of discrimination against gays. This is intermediate between rational basis (the lowest standard) and strict or heightened scrutiny (the highest standards), but it should be enough to strike down most state discriminatory laws. Big, big victory!

by Anonymousreply 8406/26/2013

Pres. Obama directs Justice Department to take the lead on analyzing, implementing DOMA decision - @NBCNews

by Anonymousreply 8506/26/2013

Explain what you mean, R62. You're making very little sense with your "hit and run" statement.

by Anonymousreply 8606/26/2013

...planning my wedding now... which state to go to?

by Anonymousreply 8706/26/2013

"DOMA was struck down, and struck down hard."

So I can have my NY gay marriage recognized in Texas?

If not, then NO it wasn't.

by Anonymousreply 8806/26/2013

You brought it up, R60, must be some game you play.

Meanwhile, I'll be with the rational people, celebrating victories large and small, and acknowledging the many people who contributed in many ways.

by Anonymousreply 8906/26/2013

Lawyer here and I am pretty sure you are wrong, R78

by Anonymousreply 9006/26/2013

R88, DOMA was about FEDERAL recognition not state to state recognition.

by Anonymousreply 9106/26/2013

We all knew this wasn't the end of the line. But it's a big step.

Celebrate the victories before you start worrying about the next battle.

by Anonymousreply 9206/26/2013

We are even more so two very different countries in these "United" states.

by Anonymousreply 9306/26/2013

r82 DUH.

by Anonymousreply 9406/26/2013

Thanks, R70, for the updated info. We've been together for nearly 20 years, and it hardly seemed logical or fair that we wouldn't be afforded the same "straight" benefits. If it all holds true, many long-term couples can truly rejoice.

by Anonymousreply 9506/26/2013

R82 you have to have standing to challenge a law. Every part of a statute is not automatically unconstitutional because one part is.

The injuries in Windsor were caused by Section 3, so she could challenge Section 3.

The next case will attack the rest of it.

Civics lessons are in order!

by Anonymousreply 9606/26/2013

Make me R68.

by Anonymousreply 9806/26/2013

Find me a husband first before I care.

by Anonymousreply 9906/26/2013

[quote] Will that pissy bitch Scalia read a dissent into the record from the bench, like he did in Romer & Lawrence?

yes he did. A lengthy one. That's why it took so long to get the Prop 8 decision.

I hope that cunt Scalia chokes to death on his own bile.

by Anonymousreply 10006/26/2013

Agreed, R92, There is always a first step. Great news.

by Anonymousreply 10106/26/2013

Where can you read which justices voted which way in both rulings?? Thank you!

by Anonymousreply 10206/26/2013

@BreakingNews: Further litigation likely over whether gay marriage can take place across California - @Reuters; for more:

If the court were to find the proponents did not have standing, then it would not reach the merits of that case. That would mean that an earlier federal district court ruling that struck down Proposition 8 would be left intact. Further litigation would ensue over whether the district court rule would apply statewide.

by Anonymousreply 10306/26/2013

r91 It was about BOTH.

you're making yourself seem really stupid. DOMA is not repealed in full and claiming it was is a blatant denial of facts.

by Anonymousreply 10406/26/2013

At P.S.T. 7:oo AM D.O.M.A. = D.O.A.

At P.S.T. 7:18 AM Prop 8 = No Standing; Marriage equality restored to California

by Anonymousreply 10506/26/2013

A lot of messy litigation ahead, but five years from now the country will have changed utterly. Relish the moment!

by Anonymousreply 10606/26/2013

Wonderful day for US lgbt people. Love you guys!! Today is your day!

by Anonymousreply 10706/26/2013

Has Neil Patrick Harris commented yet?

by Anonymousreply 10806/26/2013

Yeah twitter responses, those would be fun. Somebody get on that.

by Anonymousreply 10906/26/2013

David Boies just explained that the victory is larger than it may appear. Implicit in the decision that the proponents of Prop 8 lacked standing is the conclusion that there is no harm to anyone else if gay couples can marry. This means the Court has ruled that the chief justification for bans on same sex marriage has no merit.

At the same time, the DOMA case establishes an equal protection right to marriage equality. Given that the sole justification for unequal treatment has been dismissed in the Prop 8 case, any future challenge to a ban on gay marriage will ultimately win.

In short, we now have the legal weapons to overturn all bans on gay marriage in the states and arguably to tools to require states to allow gay marriage.

by Anonymousreply 11006/26/2013

All you non-Americans who wondered in the other thread (about annoying Americanisms) what the definition of "butthurt" is, I give you one Antonin Scalia.

by Anonymousreply 11106/26/2013

Wow, there are a fair amount of really scary stupid people posting here. Really. Wow.

As anyone with a shred of brainpower and compassion is doing, I REJOICE today. The battle is not over but this is a very significant victory for gay marriage, gay equality, gay dignity and gay rights. VERY significant.

Yes, there is still a quagmire of issues to be dealt with. Such as whether DOMA's death means that gay couples married in a state that recognized their marriage as legal but who then move to a state that does not will still receive full FEDERAL benefits of their marriage. Because "federal trumps state." Not that easy. The problem there is that some federal benefits are determined by that STATE'S laws. So, this may cause some "forum shopping" for gay couples. And require further litigation.

Kennedy also stated new parameters (a WONDERFUL part of the ruling) for constitutional analysis of any state that has laws banning gay marriage that make it less likely to hold up (in future lawsuits). It is somewhere between strict scrutiny and rational basis. This means that it will be much harder in future lawsuits for any anti-gay marriage law to pass a test that makes it legal to discriminate. In short, there will be more litigation and the standard will be "Hey, this law discriminates! What is your reasoning for this law that will make it legal to discriminate? Can't use religion! Can't use morality!"

by Anonymousreply 11206/26/2013

Tee hee.

by Anonymousreply 11306/26/2013

Prop 8 case was Roberts, Scalia, Breyer, Kagan and Ginsberg in the majority. Kennedy, Alito, Thomas and Sotomayor in dissent. There must be a fascinating story behind that line-up.

by Anonymousreply 11406/26/2013

Doma is not "dead" and I stopped reading r12's post after his lie.

by Anonymousreply 11506/26/2013

Well stated, R112.

by Anonymousreply 11606/26/2013

Yes, I'm really wondering why Kennedy voted with the minority on that one given his ruling on DOMA.

by Anonymousreply 11706/26/2013

R113 was for R111.

Tee to the fuck hee.

by Anonymousreply 11806/26/2013

R115, DOMA is dead for all practical purposes. So, kiss every gay marriage advocate's collective ass. k?thx.

by Anonymousreply 11906/26/2013

[quote]In short, there will be more litigation and the standard will be "Hey, this law discriminates! What is your reasoning for this law that will make it legal to discriminate? Can't use religion! Can't use morality!"

Can't use any of the arguments advanced in defense of Prop 8.

by Anonymousreply 12006/26/2013

I think with the Prop 8 case it's clear those that dissented are those that wanted to rule on Prop 8. Thomas and Alito because they wanted to uphold it. Sotomayor because she wanted to strike it down, and probably the same for Kennedy, given his equal dignity argument in the DOMA case.

by Anonymousreply 12106/26/2013

DOMA is not dead, it's true; but the decision today makes its other sections moribund, particularly if the Obama administration is aggressive in using executive power to alter current government regulations. We need to be vigilant in urging Obama to do so.

by Anonymousreply 12206/26/2013

r119 you're posting lies on a british website.

I told you people on the last thread days ago that DOMA is going to get adjusted and all the press is going to be twisting the language to make it seem like dona is dead for good.

And I was RIGHT!

by Anonymousreply 12306/26/2013

R123, see R122. The sections that are not dead are moribund. Dead limbs.

Screw that British link I posted, I just grabbed it from the net.

by Anonymousreply 12406/26/2013

God, you're insufferable, r123. Wow.

by Anonymousreply 12506/26/2013

Whether or not you're right, R123, depends on the fine print. From the headlines it looks like there is no way to defend the rest of DOMA and all it will take is a case to put it down.

by Anonymousreply 12606/26/2013

[quote]Imagine if McCann won, we would have had a very different outcome.

I had no idea someone named "McCann" ran for president.

by Anonymousreply 12706/26/2013

As it happens, this is the tenth anniversary of the Lawrence ruling. What a way to celebrate the occasion!

by Anonymousreply 12806/26/2013

I live in Texas. This has zero effect on me. Meh.

by Anonymousreply 12906/26/2013

OK R26, by now you have heard about Obama calling the court with congratulations.

What do you have to say now?

by Anonymousreply 13006/26/2013

Yes, R127. Chad McCann. He was my first love.

by Anonymousreply 13106/26/2013

[quote]I live in Texas. This has zero effect on me. Meh.

Reread your first sentence and see if you can figure out a solution to your problem.

by Anonymousreply 13206/26/2013

Is David Souter sending out his wedding invitations now?

by Anonymousreply 13306/26/2013

WW for R132.

by Anonymousreply 13406/26/2013

Thanks for the explanation, R92. I'm not American, so this is all very confusing for me.

by Anonymousreply 13606/26/2013

So what's the next step in getting rid of DOMA in its' entirety?

by Anonymousreply 13706/26/2013

"if the Obama administration is aggressive in using executive power to alter current government regulations. W"

Obama has made himself clear that if states don't want to recognize gay marriages, they won't have to.

by Anonymousreply 13806/26/2013

[quote]I live in Texas. This has zero effect on me. Meh

This is not true. Striking down DOMA on the grounds that gay people can't be discriminated against because they are gay and they deserve heightened scrutiny is a HUGE DEAL FOR EVERY GAY PERSON.

You are an idiot if you don't realize how momentous this decision is.

by Anonymousreply 13906/26/2013

[quote]Obama has made himself clear that if states don't want to recognize gay marriages, they won't have to.

That's not the issue at hand. No one is saying other states have to recognize it with this decision. The issue that will have to be worked out is whether the Federal goverment will recognize same-sex married couples if they move to a state that doesn't recongize it.

That is where we need Obama to stand up and assert they will.

by Anonymousreply 14006/26/2013

R134. I'm guessing you know slavery was abolished after the war of northern aggression?

by Anonymousreply 14106/26/2013

[quote]So what's the next step in getting rid of DOMA in its' entirety?

Passing Jerry Nadler's Respect for Marriage Act.

Which the Senate is likely to do now, and the House...not so much.

by Anonymousreply 14206/26/2013

All along, the LGBT lawyers have been outmaneuvering their opponents. Windsor was very carefully chosen to attack only the most vulnerable part of DOMA, but thereby to establish a precedent that would, in the end, take the Feds out of the marriage debate as other sections of DOMA came under attack. That strategy has worked brilliantly. Gaudeamus igitur!

by Anonymousreply 14306/26/2013

FAQ about what the marriage rulings mean

by Anonymousreply 14506/26/2013

R76 for the win. Never forget, no matter often it seems like both sides are the same - voting STILL MATTERS.

by Anonymousreply 14606/26/2013

R139,

If gays are now a "suspect class," this would have seriuos implications in the other civil rights laws.

by Anonymousreply 14706/26/2013

Are the Prop 8 proponents hateful enough to try and limit the ruling so only the parties involved can marry? If they decide to challenge, will same-sex marriages in California again be put on hold?

by Anonymousreply 14806/26/2013

[quote]That is where we need Obama to stand up and assert they will.

Good luck getting they to assert they will.

by Anonymousreply 14906/26/2013

Obama can't force the states to change their laws, but he can make a huge difference at the federal level. Here is a NYTimes article on the subject, which deserves close reading. We need to make sure that Obama doesn't shirk.

by Anonymousreply 15006/26/2013

[quote] I'm guessing you know slavery was abolished after the war of northern aggression?

Oh honestly, R141, just crawl back to the Free Republic. Your pissing on our parade isn't worth one drop of Wendy Davis' piss that she had to hold to put up with reactionaries like your crazy self.

Great, wonderful, awe-inspiring news. Edie Windsor is my hero too.

by Anonymousreply 15106/26/2013

Excellent point, R146.

Needs to be repeated often (apparently).

by Anonymousreply 15206/26/2013

No one was pissing on your parade, but it did seem a bit ignorant to mention a slave state when those no longer exist. Even the Supreme Court said you cannot continue to punish states based on past behavior and you seem really high on what the Supreme Court thinks right now. ;-)

by Anonymousreply 15306/26/2013

Windsor says federal recognition will be given to any legal same-sex marriage. Therefore, couples who reside in non-equality states could go to states that recognize out-of-state same sex couples as eligible for marriage, get married there, and obtain federal (not state) benefits and recognition. For instance, a same-sex Virginia couple could go to D.C, get married there (if DC allows out of state couples to get married there), and they could get federal recognition.

by Anonymousreply 15406/26/2013

Yes, the "Democrats and Republicans are the same" assholes can suck it.

by Anonymousreply 15506/26/2013

How will this effect my Divorce?

by Anonymousreply 15706/26/2013

Yeah, R90- the video here (a little way down, 'What Same-Sex Couples Can Expect) explains that you have to live in the state. Unfortunately.

by Anonymousreply 15806/26/2013

R157. You aren't supposed to mention that. Marriage is forever.

by Anonymousreply 15906/26/2013

r159, that won't stand for long.....

straight people don't have to live in the state they were married in to receive federal benies, so....

by Anonymousreply 16006/26/2013

Good but it should have been FOR ALL.

by Anonymousreply 16106/26/2013

The official whine from NOM:

"There's a stench coming from these cases that has now stained the Supreme Court. It's imperative that Congress continue to protect the right of states to not recognize faux marriages in their state." — Brian Brown

by Anonymousreply 16206/26/2013

r155 They're the same when it comes to wars and anything not about abortion or gay marriage. That's their two wedge issues.

by Anonymousreply 16306/26/2013

Excuse me while I get some cheese and crackers to munch on while I sample all of today's delicious whines.

by Anonymousreply 16406/26/2013

The anti-LGBT has my full support...

to commit mass suicide.

by Anonymousreply 16506/26/2013

I love that Obama called the plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case to offer congratulations. So cool for them.

by Anonymousreply 16606/26/2013

Now to watch the Mormons and filipinos start to have epic meltdowns!!!

by Anonymousreply 16706/26/2013

r167 to congratulate them on second class citizenship?

I bet his administration is behind all the false headlines. Just like when he announced he was pulling out of Iraq when there's still thousands of men and women loosing their lives over there as we type.

by Anonymousreply 16806/26/2013

"The only other saving grace of the Supreme Court's decisions today is that they refused to go along with the urgings of Ted Olsen and David Boies to find a constitutional right to same-sex ‘marriage,'" Brown said. "The plaintiffs failed in their primary objective, which is a major victory for those defending Proposition 8, especially Chuck Cooper and his firm, along with the attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom, and Andy Pugno of the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund."

by Anonymousreply 16906/26/2013

[quote]Are the Prop 8 proponents hateful enough to try and limit the ruling so only the parties involved can marry? If they decide to challenge, will same-sex marriages in California again be put on hold?

They can't challenge. There's no place left to appeal. Prop 8 is dead.

by Anonymousreply 17006/26/2013

r161 sure it won't.....

by Anonymousreply 17106/26/2013

And deep in their hearts, lots of their residents wouldn't mind their going back to being slave states at all, R141.

by Anonymousreply 17206/26/2013

[quote] when there's still thousands of men and women loosing their lives over there as we type.

Oh, dear.

by Anonymousreply 17306/26/2013

"...loosing their lives..."

This mistake makes me grate my teeth.

It's "losing", R169. As in you're a loser.

by Anonymousreply 17406/26/2013

You're right, R167.

Very cool!

by Anonymousreply 17506/26/2013

To congratulate them on winning this case and this larger battle, r169. This is a historic positive step today. No amount of denial from you will change that. It is momentum in the right direction. Obama doesn't control the Supreme Court. I'm happy he is actively, visibly rooting for our side.

by Anonymousreply 17606/26/2013

He called Edie Windsor too.

by Anonymousreply 17806/26/2013

"about" r178 Damn typing on this phone is a bitch!!!

by Anonymousreply 17906/26/2013

The best Free Republic posts are the ones that start with, "Behold a pale horse..."

by Anonymousreply 18006/26/2013

Edith Windsor: AMERICAN HERO

I cried when I saw this post.

by Anonymousreply 18106/26/2013

Is this just a typo, too, R178?

[quote]whether than Obama's false announcement bot the Iraqi war.

by Anonymousreply 18206/26/2013

That's great, R179!

by Anonymousreply 18306/26/2013

[quote] Therefore, couples who reside in non-equality states could go to states that recognize out-of-state same sex couples as eligible for marriage, get married there, and obtain federal (not state) benefits and recognition.

When they sue for state benefits, what is going to prevent their victory? It seems to me Windsor pretty much makes any defense of discrimination impossible.

by Anonymousreply 18406/26/2013

Obviously, r183.

"Oh, dear" lemme guess, you're over 50?

by Anonymousreply 18506/26/2013

Yes r183, he explained it's an auto-correct issue with his phone. Get off it, as if you've never made typos too.

by Anonymousreply 18606/26/2013

Pictures of Edie upon the announcement:

by Anonymousreply 18706/26/2013

Yeah R185, what the DOMA decision says you can't discriminate against gay couples marriage rights because they are gay. States would have to come up with a reason to ban it other than moral disapproval of homosexuality. That is very tough.

by Anonymousreply 18806/26/2013

Really? What does "whether than" mean, R178 R186?

by Anonymousreply 18906/26/2013

What a tool.

by Anonymousreply 19006/26/2013

"Gov. Brown orders issuing of same-sex marriage licenses immediately"

by Anonymousreply 19106/26/2013

Yay Brown, he outlawed "reparative therapy" too.

by Anonymousreply 19206/26/2013

R191, love the response: "Yeah, tears of joy."

by Anonymousreply 19306/26/2013

r190 You're a dinosaur so there's no point in explaining anything to you.

by Anonymousreply 19406/26/2013

I feel like a whole person now.

by Anonymousreply 19506/26/2013

Cindy Mccain tweet:

" I'm saddened by the Supreme Court decision on DOMA. For every gay committed couple it is a step backwards. #equality #forall"

by Anonymousreply 19606/26/2013

[quote]" I'm saddened by the Supreme Court decision on DOMA. For every gay committed couple it is a step backwards. #equality #forall"

She's probably just high again.

by Anonymousreply 19706/26/2013

What is Cindy McCain talking about?

by Anonymousreply 19806/26/2013

Was Cindy typing with the duct tape over her mouth?

by Anonymousreply 19906/26/2013

Huckabee should read the next verse.

by Anonymousreply 20006/26/2013

r198 or she is not brainwashed by lying headlines like this one by Time magazine

by Anonymousreply 20106/26/2013

Is she high? Seriously.

by Anonymousreply 20206/26/2013

Forgot the link, oops

by Anonymousreply 20306/26/2013

[quote]@GovMikeHuckabee: My thoughts on the SCOTUS ruling that determined that same sex marriage is okay: "Jesus wept."

{quote]Reply from a Twitter user: Jesus need to man up.

LOL!

by Anonymousreply 20406/26/2013

What IS the verse after jesus wept?

by Anonymousreply 20506/26/2013

SO, WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP IN GAY MARRIAGE?

HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT WILL TAKE FOR ALL STATES TO JOIN?

by Anonymousreply 20606/26/2013

As Voice says, sounds like she's high. Probably has to stay that way to dull memories of sex with her rageaholic hubby.

by Anonymousreply 20706/26/2013

The voting on Prop 8 was really weird. I'll take it, but really weird.

Scalia must be halucinating or something.

by Anonymousreply 20806/26/2013

"And then the Jews said, Behold how he loved them!"

by Anonymousreply 20906/26/2013

I'm sorry, "Behold how He loved him."

by Anonymousreply 21006/26/2013

r188 Edie Windsor is looking fabulous at 83. Barbara Walters good (same age)

by Anonymousreply 21106/26/2013

Has Ann Romney issued a statement yet?

by Anonymousreply 21206/26/2013

In other words Jesus wept because he was heartbroken that Lazarus was dead, not because he disapproved of something....

by Anonymousreply 21306/26/2013

But in all Israel tehre was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty! From the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him. II Samuel 14:25

And it was so, that when any man came nigh to him to do obeisance, he put forth his hand, and took him, and kissed him. And on this manner did Absalom to all Israel that came to the King for judgement: so Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel. II Samuel 15:5-6.

by Anonymousreply 21406/26/2013

When does CA resume gay marriages then?

by Anonymousreply 21506/26/2013

I just read the opinion in Windsor and it repeatedly and expressly states that it only protects gay marriage if the state has chosen to allow it. The price of Kennedy's vote and perhaps a failed effort to switch Roberts.

Therefore, it cannot be used as a weapon to require states to approve of same-sex marriage, though its reasoning would point in that direction.

by Anonymousreply 21606/26/2013

[bold] Jerry Brown: Counties must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples [/bold]

Gov. Jerry Brown said county clerks must soon begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the issue Wednesday.

Brown has directed his Department of Public Health, which oversees marriage licenses, birth and death certificates and other such documents, to tell local officials the licenses should be issued as soon as a federal appeals court lifts a ruling that was temporarily making same-sex unions illegal.

The temporary ban is expected to be lifted now that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a lower-court ruling which held that Proposition 8, the voter-approved measure prohibiting gay marriage, is unconstitutional.

“I have directed the California Department of Public Health to advise the state’s counties that they must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the Ninth Circuit confirms the stay is lifted,” Brown said in a statement.

County clerks say they’re prepared.

We’re pretty much ready to go,” said Cathy Darling Allen, the clerk for Shasta County and the head of the California Assn. of Clerks and Election officials. “In 2008, we had some assistance from the state Department of Public Health in making marriage license forms gender neutral. We continue to use those forms today. So the mechanics of the process are ready to go.”

Darling Allen said she expects that it will take some time before same-sex marriages are able to proceed. “My understanding is we’ll have some kind of a waiting period in terms of start date,” she said. “Twenty-five to 30 days is what I’ve been told, but that feels kind of speculative. But it’s not going to be Friday. It’s going to be at some point in the future.”

by Anonymousreply 21706/26/2013

r216 - check out Lambda's very clear FAQ... Forget everything else.

by Anonymousreply 21806/26/2013

exactly. r216. That;s what worries me. All these new soutlets are reporting it like gay marriage is now legal everywhere. It sends out the wrong idea and misleads people. Why aren't gays telling them to change their headlines?

by Anonymousreply 21906/26/2013

It is worse than that R217, it ENSHRINES and MEMORIALIZES the states' rights to define marriage and further, PROHIBITS the federal government from being involved.

This is not a national victory and in the bluest states it is a loss.

by Anonymousreply 22006/26/2013

I feel like every now and then, a good thing happens. I almost feel happy.

by Anonymousreply 22106/26/2013

So the most important benefits like taxes will remain the same, even if you go out of state to get married.

What' there to be celebratory about?

by Anonymousreply 22206/26/2013

[quote] So the most important benefits like taxes will remain the same, even if you go out of state to get married.

No, not necessarily. Your FEDERAL taxes will not be the same.

by Anonymousreply 22306/26/2013

Dear god quit your MARY'ing, it does no such thing R221 if you understand the ruling.

This ruling will be used as the basis for challenging states that ban gay marriage.

by Anonymousreply 22406/26/2013

R216, in SF they are doing it now. They started preparing for it last week, training municipal workers and stuff.

by Anonymousreply 22506/26/2013

Correction from Cindy (I love gays) McCain:

Cindy McCain ‏@cindymccain 59m To all Twitter followers. I had two Tweets ready to go. I hit the wrong button. I am happy today about the Supreme Court ruling!!

by Anonymousreply 22606/26/2013

t225 No, it won't. Pull your head out of your ass.

The mainstream media is done with this issue. In their eyes, it's won. As per the thousands of articles on the web indicating so.

by Anonymousreply 22706/26/2013

Damn Xanax!

by Anonymousreply 22806/26/2013

Not quite yet, R226:

1. When exactly can same-sex couples in California start getting married again?

A few final, legal steps must be completed before same-sex couples can once again marry in California, which should take only about a month. First, the Supreme Court’s ruling must become final, which will happen 25 days after the ruling. Under the Supreme Court’s rules, the party who loses a case has a right to ask the Court to rehear the case within 25 days of the decision’s release. Petitions for re-hearing are very rarely granted, so it is unlikely that anything will change during this 25 days. Once the ruling is final, the Ninth Circuit will issue a “mandate” that will send the case back to the District Court. When the mandate is issued, the injunction against the enforcement of Prop 8 will take effect, and same-sex couples in California will once again have the freedom to marry.

We expect that the State of California will issue guidance to all County Clerk offices in the state about when the decision becomes final and when those offices must resume issuing licenses on an equal basis to same-sex couples. Please note that couples should wait until the Supreme Court ruling is final and the Ninth Circuit issues a mandate to the District Court before attempting to obtain a marriage license or to marry, to ensure that your marriage is valid.

by Anonymousreply 22906/26/2013

"Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted. For thousands of years of recorded human history, no society has defended the legal standard of marriage as anything other than between man and woman. Only since 2000 have we seen a redefinition of this foundational unit of society in various nations. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to join the trend, despite the clear will of the people's representatives through DOMA. What the Court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States."

-- Michele Bachmann, from her released statement earlier today

"Who cares?"

-- Nancy Pelosi, when asked about Bachmann's statement

by Anonymousreply 23006/26/2013

Dear god you are ignorant R228. Freedom to Marry and Lamda Legal among other groups are jumping at the chance to use this ruling to challenge other states. Do you not realize how quickly a couple that was married in one state and moves to a state where it is banned is going to sue?

It doesn't matter if the mainstream media moves on. The court system exists with or without constant coverage of the issue.

by Anonymousreply 23106/26/2013

And I have read the opinion. The first half of it is about how the State (NY) chose to grant this right, that is the State's prerogative and the Fed cannot compromise that. Read it.

by Anonymousreply 23206/26/2013

Ha, Cindy had a frowny face tweet sitting there ready, for some reason anticipating a bad decision for gays, and then when it went mostly our way, she sent the tweet anyway. Yep, she definitely sounds tipsy, can't blame her married to that toad.

by Anonymousreply 23306/26/2013

Scalia is right that the Court's opinion is a complete muddle.

by Anonymousreply 23506/26/2013

Keep getting emails like the following. Does it do any good? Is it just a way to get on mailing lists to get more requests for $$$?

It's from Democratic Victory 2014.

"Thanks for signing the petition supporting marriage equality!

This is an incredible victory, but we can’t stop fighting now. Republicans are going to put everything they’ve got into tearing marriage equality apart. Can you:

1. Forward this petition to your friends and get them on board: https://www.dscc.org/equality

2. Share this petition on Facebook!

Let’s get one million supporters behind marriage equality!

Thanks, Democratic Victory 2014

P.S. Contribute right away to make sure we have the power to fight tooth and nail for marriage equality. If you pitch in today, we’ll send you a free sticker!"

by Anonymousreply 23606/26/2013

I wish I could bury my hand in the sand as easy as most of you people can. It's like all that matters to you is the headline, regardless of what the ruling actually states.

by Anonymousreply 23706/26/2013

R235, how much do the Koch Brothers or their ilk pay you to post such absudities?

by Anonymousreply 23806/26/2013

Don't let it spoil your celebration r232. Some people just insist on being a Cassandra, no matter what's happening. Best to ignore.

OF COURSE, there's still much to do before we have full marriage equality, but posters like that, acting like this is a day for mourning and bellyaching, are just the nervous, doom-n-gloom types by nature, always looking for the dark cloud around the silver lining. Meh. The type exists. "Let 'em work, Let 'em live," as the highway sign says.

by Anonymousreply 23906/26/2013

You don't see this as progress of ANY kind, r238?

by Anonymousreply 24006/26/2013

No, he doesn't, r241. That's why it's crucial he comes to DL and crap over threads, telling everyone they're wrong and gays are headed to concentration camps within weeks.

by Anonymousreply 24106/26/2013

Does anyone have the screengrab of Marcus B. during Michelle's speech when she mentioned the dog collars? I cannot get the search function to work.

Thanks either way. What a day!

by Anonymousreply 24206/26/2013

That Adam Shnogglehoefer guy is very handsome...

by Anonymousreply 24306/26/2013

[quote]Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to join the trend, despite the clear will of the people's representatives through DOMA.

So when the people's representatives in your state expressed the will of the people in enacting marriage equality, that was a good thing. Right. Michele?

by Anonymousreply 24406/26/2013

That is why it is so idiotic. DOMA could have been dismissed on the grounds of federalism and that the Federal government couldn't override states definition of marriage.

Instead it was a incredibly strong decision that explicitly says DOMA was discriminatory to gay couples and and that it violated their rights.

Today was a huge victory. This person is either grossly ignorant or trolling.

by Anonymousreply 24506/26/2013

Well done guys. Another step towards full equality. I'm raising a glass to you from the UK.

by Anonymousreply 24706/26/2013

r241 Doma is un constitutional? then why is only section 3 thrown out.

This further pushes that it's a states right issue. What's there to be celebratory about? That's not a good thing.

by Anonymousreply 24806/26/2013

Damn. I wanted to be free in Ohio too. To dangle equality before us only to condemn the majority to life in bitter bondage is cruelty. Especially the day after guaranteeing that voting is no longer an option to solving our problems.

by Anonymousreply 24906/26/2013

[quote] Doma is un constitutional? then why is only section 3 thrown out.

Because that was the grounds of the suit before the court..Section 3. SCOTUS couldn't just throw out the whole of DOMA because the only question they were asked to rule on pertained to Section 3.

by Anonymousreply 25006/26/2013

Fuck marriage. I'll settle for a date.

by Anonymousreply 25106/26/2013

The way I read it is that none of the three rationales advanced by the Court--federalism, equal protection and substantive due process--was strong enough by itself to attract 5 votes, but the liberal 4 and Kennedy wanted to overturn the statute anyway. So they mention all three concerns and torture reason to say that the right that is at stake is the right not to have rights that the states have decided to grant impaired by federal law.

by Anonymousreply 25206/26/2013

I just saw this on MSNBC (never saw it before, maybe others have).

From 1996:

by Anonymousreply 25306/26/2013

r251 you think they would have ruled that section 2 was unconstitutional or wrong? hell no.

DOMA still stands in other sections and these news outlets should be responsible because they're flat-out lying.

by Anonymousreply 25406/26/2013

[quote]What's there to be celebratory about?

r249, the poster at r248 puts it well:

[quote] Another step towards full equality.

Sorry if the sight of people being happy and hopeful is too much for you, but you do at least REMEMBER joy, don't you?

You're right. No one can see the future and tell if state bans will definitely be struck down in a future judgment. But DOMA sec 3 was struck down today on the grounds that it violated the liberty and right for equal protection for gay couples. It was also determined that laws which discriminate against gay people must always be given a new level of scrutiny to determine if they're constitutional. These are HUGE steps forward and the likelihood that state bans will survive future scrutiny under these precedents seems pretty slim.

If you want to turn that into a reason to wail and gnash your teeth, knock yourself out. But the rest of us feel this is a happy day, a day to celebrate progress and hope for the future. Typically, celebrations like this last for a day or two and then we re-group, re-assess, and then we take a new look at the work that needs to be done under the new landscape.

Perhaps during the next few days while the rest of us are celebrating you could go to Lambda Legal and see if there might be a way for you to contribute to the cause as a more positive way to deal with your anxieties and concerns, rather than coming here and sniping at other posters in their moment of happiness and hope?

by Anonymousreply 25506/26/2013

This is a roadblock to equality. We're never gonna get a federal ruling now. This effectively ends the chances of that.

by Anonymousreply 25606/26/2013

They used Section 2 to knock down Section 3. I've always thought Section 2 violates Full Faith and Credit though.

by Anonymousreply 25706/26/2013

I have never liked Obama, but I have to credit the president for being such a great ally and supporter of LGBT rights. If only he would stop calling social security for "entitlements". Obama might be a "leftie" in USA, but he would never be a leftie in Europe.. here he would actually be a conservative.

by Anonymousreply 25806/26/2013

thank you r256!!!

by Anonymousreply 25906/26/2013

R259. Please, take him.

by Anonymousreply 26006/26/2013

Five on our side.

by Anonymousreply 26106/26/2013

[quote]I have never liked Obama

Let me guess - because he's black?

This is the first president who's given a damn about gay rights and you don't like him. Go figure.

by Anonymousreply 26206/26/2013

R262. Why is Ginsberg wearing a bib tucked into her robe?

by Anonymousreply 26306/26/2013

[quote]We're never gonna get a federal ruling now. This effectively ends the chances of that.

If anything, this opens the door for the Court to issue a broader ruling in the future.

by Anonymousreply 26406/26/2013

I want to share a Vicodin and some champagne with Cindy McCain. I bet she's a hoot.

by Anonymousreply 26506/26/2013

[quote]I have never liked Obama

Me too! He called me Jeffrey three times!

by Anonymousreply 26606/26/2013

[quote]Poor Bill, has to watch one of his big prices of legislation get overturned. Guess that will teach the Repub...oh wait.

WTF are you yammering about, you tool?

Finish your thought. It'll teach the Repub...?

Oh wait, are you actually trying to act like because of Clinton -almost 20 years ago- that the GOP isn't the *current* reason the country is fucked? Did you miss the SotH stating his disappointment with this decision? Oh wait, that would require introspection.

You also get off on Cheney's support, don't you? An out-of-power Cheney who only supported it for selfish reasons. Oh wait, I guess you also missed his silence when Bush tried to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

You referred to "northern aggression" in an earlier post, so that's pretty much all we need to know about your pathetic, log cabinette ass.

by Anonymousreply 26806/26/2013

What's the agenda of the news outlets that are lying? That's my only question.

by Anonymousreply 26906/26/2013

Does this mean I can use my soul mates as a deduction on my tax return?

by Anonymousreply 27006/26/2013

R263, so gay rights is EVERYTHING now all of a sudden? I even praised him for his stance on LGBT rights. I think that's great, honestly, I do. But I disagree with Obama on so many other issues, mainly fiscally.

And I hate blacks? HAHA.. no. I'm from Norway. Kids here got slaughtered because of that fucking racist monster. I have ALWAYS supported minority rights, I support The Labour Party. I have never voted conservative in my entire life. I just don't like how he's handling social security and other rights. The fact that he calls it "entitlements" speak volumes. And then it's all the kissing ass he does with the repugs all the time. He's a terrible negotiator. He's good at giving speeches, and he has a lot of charisma. But that doesn't change the fact that he had very little experience when he became the president. And his fiscal policies are still to the right. He's socially liberal but fiscally conservative.

by Anonymousreply 27106/26/2013

Doesn't Obama get credit for appointing civil rights friendly judges? Why the hate(from certain posters)?

WTG and Congratulations to all!

by Anonymousreply 27206/26/2013

R273, yes.. of course he deserves credit for appointing civil rights friendly judges. I have never denied that he wasn't socially liberal and on our side. But I still disagree with his fiscal policies. Like I said.. he's socially liberal but fiscally conservative.

by Anonymousreply 27306/26/2013

Words can't express my happiness.

As a young man, we so often had to hide and cower in fear at work, at home and out and about. Fear of unjust police action, rejection from family members and friends.

Progress. How far we've come towards equality. More to go but a wonderful day it is today in 2013.

Simply wonderful.

by Anonymousreply 27406/26/2013

My old hometown newspaper doesn't classify this as "news". Not even National News. It does not appear as news on their website. I actually called the editorial offices and asked about the SCOTUS decision and they said they thought DOMA was struck down, but they didn't seem very sure. They did not act surprised that they had no story about it on their (NEWSPAPER!!) website. So glad I left that place.

by Anonymousreply 27506/26/2013

R273 They don't like him because he's black. Let's be honest - he's the ONLY president to have taken steps to get gay rights, yet white gays STILL bitch about him. Who gives a fuck if he was encouraged to do it? As long as he finally did it, then that's the main point.

by Anonymousreply 27606/26/2013

Bickering about current and past presidents in this thread seems off topic to me.

by Anonymousreply 27706/26/2013

If the rumors proffered about Justice Roberts on the Datalounge are true, now is the time for the evidence to come out. He voted in the minority on this decision.

by Anonymousreply 27806/26/2013

R263 Ginsberg is a tough old girl. Don't mess with her.

by Anonymousreply 27906/26/2013

R275 You just bought a wee tear to my eye. So glad things have changed so much.

by Anonymousreply 28006/26/2013

People like R256 are the reason it takes so much time to get things accomplished. Because they want to party and celebrate and not focus on what really happened.

This was not sweeping. ONE section of DOMA was overturned. One. It is good news for those who live in states that have marriage equality.

BUT this decision does nothing for those people who live in states that have banned marriage equality. Those states can continue to discriminate, and they are the majority of states.

This decision allows one state not to recognize gay marriages from another.

I would also point out that the celebration is not quite so gleeful for many. SCOTUS decimated the Voting Rights Act and started unraveling affirmative action, so for LGBTI people of color things are not quite so happy.

PERSPECTIVE. This isn't happy hour in a gay bar. We're at the very beginning of things not the end.

by Anonymousreply 28106/26/2013

[quote]I just don't like how he's handling social security and other rights. The fact that he calls it "entitlements" speak volumes.

If I work for 50 years, you had best believe your lily white ass that I am ENTITLED to social security or if I get laid off I am ENTITLED to unemployment. I've paid into those programs for years and I am ENTITLED to receive them.

It is only the rethugs that have made entitlement a dirty word.

by Anonymousreply 28206/26/2013

r271 is the reason I come here. Bless you.

by Anonymousreply 28306/26/2013

And you STILL don't get it, 283.. but that's ok.

by Anonymousreply 28406/26/2013

[quote]BUT this decision does nothing for those people who live in states that have banned marriage equality. Those states can continue to discriminate, and they are the majority of states

Because THAT is not what this case was about. But, it gives power to those that are now going to sue their state for discrimination, and people will.

by Anonymousreply 28506/26/2013

R286 COMPLETELY misses the point.

It's not quite that simple.

Not by a long shot.

by Anonymousreply 28606/26/2013

[quote] if I get laid off I am ENTITLED to unemployment. I've paid into those programs for years

Unemployment is funded by EMPLOYERS in most states, not workers.

by Anonymousreply 28706/26/2013

There clearly needs to be a special section for people who don't want to be happy or hopeful today.

Dears, a celebration of a big victory tends to last a day or so, then we take a new look at the landscape and decide what needs to be done next moving forward. Did anyone claim this was the end of all suffering for everyone for all time and that no work for social justice would ever have to be done ever again for any cause? Yeesh.

There's a difference between realistically listing the next steps for social progress versus snatching the noisemakers out of people's mouths and scolding them for celebrating. Learn it. Know it. Live it.

by Anonymousreply 28806/26/2013

That same perspective should allow you to realize this was a momentous day for gay rights even though the battle is not over r282.

God you are ridiculous. And we haven't forgotten the voting rights act. But these are two completely different cases.

This is still a big win for us.

by Anonymousreply 28906/26/2013

Anyone who is not thrilled with today's decision and the legal implications that it brings is really really really....stupid. If you are gay and support gay marriage and do not understand such things as:

1. Screw the media. The justice system, courts and laws function on the basis of LAW, not the court of public opinion ("angry homos" means nothing). Media does not win lawsuits and are of ZERO help to do so, anyway. Hell, the media has been kept OUT of courtrooms for most of history.

2. Today's ruling enuciates a much stricter scrutiny for any state that currently has a no gay marriage law, meaning that new, fresh lawsuits in those states will make it much harder for a state to discriminate.

3. The rest of DOMA will fall soon enough. The KEY part, the dark heart of it has been gutted. Today's ruling could not have been clearer about this.

anyone who doesn't get this and who is still wringing his little hands in angst is tiresome and needs to just shut the hell up and let the rest of us celebrate.

by Anonymousreply 29006/26/2013

Look, this was decided as a 'state's rights' case. There are not suddenly going to be hundreds of successful lawsuits to get state DOMA's overturned. We are going to be at a peculiar standstill for a very long time.

by Anonymousreply 29106/26/2013

There are people who would've been pissed regardless of the decision - these are the people you want to avoid in every day life.

by Anonymousreply 29206/26/2013

R289, R290...grow up. You're not children presumably. I can be happy for the decision and still keep it in perspective. You're the ones who can't be happy unless you turn this into some sweeping celebratory victory for all. Which is your damage.

Reality is more complex than children's fantasies and magical thinking. I realize that this is a culture where magical thinking is preeminent. But you're grown people. Act like it.

Stop attacking people for spoiling your party with the truth. this is a good day for people living in certain states. Since most of the people who post here are from NY, I can see why you might be a bit giddy. But there's a whole big wide country out there where discrimination still exists. Grow up and deal with it.

by Anonymousreply 29306/26/2013

For some reason, those who are the naysayers and party poopers in this thread I have a feeling have no boyfriends. OR husbands. Because, you know, who would want to be around THAT?

by Anonymousreply 29406/26/2013

R292,

I think you're wrong.

The Supreme Court ruling is putting the ball into the court of states, yes, but it's also denying states' powers to trump the federal level.

California has 12 percent of the population residing it the state. They're going to come through with marriage equality that will put other states on a trendline. What is going to follow are some guesses as to which states would follow, as though there may be some order. But it's going to happen in all fifty states plus District of Columbia (as it already has in D.C.).

by Anonymousreply 29506/26/2013

[quote]Look, this was decided as a 'state's rights' case. There are not suddenly going to be hundreds of successful lawsuits to get state DOMA's overturned. We are going to be at a peculiar standstill for a very long time.

Yes and no. There are repeal efforts for state-level DOMAs in Oregon, Nevada, and Colorado that have a chance at getting an extra boost because of this. In particular, Oregon's got a shot at getting it on the ballot next year. There's also Illinois, where attempts to go to full equality got knocked back, but since they're likely going to have a special session to deal with state pensions, it gives them more time to whip votes.

But yes, in the dark red states, there are going to be lawsuits. It's going to take a Loving v Virginia-style suit that settles the matter once and for all, unless Congress acts, which would take an act of God at this point.

by Anonymousreply 29606/26/2013

From Lambda's FAQs re federal rights for marriages in SSM states/residency in non-SSM states:

"Some federal benefits are based on whether a marriage was valid where enacted; others are based on whether a marriage is valid where the couple lives. Now that the Supreme Court has struck down Section 3 of DOMA, we believe that all married couples, including same-sex couples, should be treated as married by the federal government no matter where they live. But getting access to all federal marital protections for same-sex couples who were validly married, but live in a state that discriminates against their marriages will take some work. At the current time, couples who live in states that do not respect their marriage will receive only some federal benefits, not all, which may create significant problems and complexities. We are confident the Obama Administration will take prompt action to implement the ruling striking down Section 3 of DOMA and ensuring that all married couples receive federal benefits where legally possible, no matter where they live.

However, some federal programs are required by law to determine marital status based on whether the state where you live recognizes your marriage; for these programs, additional work and possibly new legislation will be needed. So check back here for updates: we will soon have a more extensive guide specifically about the effect of the DOMA ruling on access to federal rights and benefits."

by Anonymousreply 29706/26/2013

[quote]Does this mean I can use my soul mates as a deduction on my tax return?

Yes, Tom, provided you marry them in a state where it's legal. Not that you'd ever do THAT.

by Anonymousreply 29806/26/2013

[quote] Since most of the people who post here are from NY, I can see why you might be a bit giddy. But there's a whole big wide country out there where discrimination still exist

r289 here, r294... I actually live in the deepest of red states, and here's a concept for you.... Are you sitting down? I'm happy and celebratory for gay people in equality states who now get federal benefits and for gay couples in California.

You really don't need to remind me that there's still work to be done for the rest of us. Really. Don't do me any favors.

by Anonymousreply 29906/26/2013

Justin Trudeau, Liberal Party Leader of Canada

[quote]With today’s victory in the march towards equality for our American neighbours, we’re one step closer to a more just world.

by Anonymousreply 30006/26/2013

To the nattering nabobs of negativity:

Don't make me get my shitbra!

by Anonymousreply 30106/26/2013

R300, and VOTN...here's a concept for you...I can feel happy about this decision and still be realistic.

I can also continue to mourn the Voting Rights Act decision, and what was done to Affirmative Action. I can also mourn the decision against worker's rights which redefines what a 'supervisor' is. This was a terrible SCOTUS session, and one victory for gay people doesn't negate that. Particularly when that victory is limited in its scope.

But again, don't let reality rain on your parade. Keep that magical thinking going! Because it's not people like you who actually accomplish these victories, it's people like me. Ones who have a realistic approach and work very hard for change. But by all means, keep partying. That accomplishes a lot.

by Anonymousreply 30206/26/2013

Question - It's not official for 25 days during which the opposition can petition for a re-hearing? Is this correct? If so I think they probably started working toward that the minute they got the decision. What do you think?

by Anonymousreply 30306/26/2013

Any it will take 25 seconds for their demand for a re-hearing to be denied, remanding it to the Ninth Circuit, which will in turn remand it to the US District Court, which will lift its stay.

by Anonymousreply 30406/26/2013

R303, maybe you could show us where you were happy about this decision at all? Your posts makes it seem like the people celebrating are the problem.

Do you understand anything about political activism? People need to be able acknowledge their victories. It recharges our batteries. Depressed people aren't going to fight for love for long.

by Anonymousreply 30506/26/2013

I hope that DOMA author Bob "Famly Valyas" Barr is paying attention.

by Anonymousreply 30606/26/2013

They might petition for a rehearing, but they are very unlikely to get one, as they are rarely, if ever, granted.

by Anonymousreply 30706/26/2013

Unless there's some timely confirmation that same-sex married couples living in red states are eligible for federal benefits, then I suspect we'll see a mass migration of gay couples moving to equality states. I know I would if I was in a serious relationship and lived in a red state. And gay couples with children are crazy if they don't live in an equality state.

by Anonymousreply 30806/26/2013

Will Edie Windsor be in the NY Pride Parade on Sunday?

by Anonymousreply 30906/26/2013

[quote]Will Edie Windsor be in the NY Pride Parade on Sunday?

She's the Grand Marshall.

by Anonymousreply 31006/26/2013

I had the best laugh of the day when I turned on Fox Business and witnessed Stuart Varney trying to wrap his head around this decision, and explain everything to his viewers.

by Anonymousreply 31106/26/2013

R306... recharge your batteries? Oh please.

Yeah, I am a civil rights activist and have participated in many such activities. And I celebrate those victories with friends, family, and members of my community. But I don't throw reason out the window. I didn't have to say much that was celebratory here because the magical DL thinkers had already gone WAY overboard. Time to come back down to Earth.

You celebrate the actual victory that was won, not the imagined one in your head. In my experience LGBT people in mainstream activism employ a little too much 'recharging' and not enough actual grunt work and critical thinking. These victories don't get won because of overblown fantasies. They get won because activists are realistic and work towards sensible goals.

So YES, I have worked in many GLBT endeavors...have YOU? Because if you did you'd know that recharging one's batteries doesn't mean flights of fancy.

by Anonymousreply 31206/26/2013

[quote]She's the Grand Marshall.

Wow! That's going to be historic. Then Cher at the Pier Dance.

by Anonymousreply 31306/26/2013

R303/R313, I've done a lot of GLBT activism not to mention activism and organizing around immigration rights, voting rights, environmental, anti-racism, and anti-police brutality. You're the kind of person that drives other people away from activism.

by Anonymousreply 31406/26/2013

Well, I'm sure those shitting on Obama would have preferred that the two newest justices on the court were selected by a President McCain or Romney.

by Anonymousreply 31506/26/2013

I don't know if this has been said on one of the many threads, but we should stop to take a moment for a little perspective... especially for the European-bashing datalounge.

The UK House of Lords overwhelmingly supported same-sex marriage and it will soon become law in the UK... democratically.

France, bashed as homophobic on DL, democratically has same-sex marriage as do countries in South America, Uruguay and Argentina.

The Court is encouraging those of you in states without same-sex marriage to stop sitting around and waiting the Court to do all the work for you.

So U.S. of A., your victory today is a reminder you are not the leaders of the world on equality.

Drink, be merry, and get it together.

by Anonymousreply 31606/26/2013

[quote]Because it's not people like you who actually accomplish these victories, it's people like me.

I'm sure there'll be a bust of the DL MotherHen right next to those of Edith Windsor and Harvey Milk in the hall of important figures in the history of the struggle for gay rights, honoring her for her important work scolding anonymous internet posters for their positive outlook on the day the DOMA decision was announced.

by Anonymousreply 31706/26/2013

They did it!!!!

by Anonymousreply 31806/26/2013

So if you live in a state that allows you to marry. But, you do not. Can you claim Common Law marriage?

I have heard about people living together then splitting then one suing the other claiming common law marriage?

by Anonymousreply 31906/26/2013

Depends on the state, 320.

by Anonymousreply 32006/26/2013

[quote]You celebrate the actual victory that was won, not the imagined one in your head.

Yet you have failed (repeatedly) to point to anyone who has done this.

The problem is definitely with you.

by Anonymousreply 32106/26/2013

It's amazing how many DLers with a self-proclaimed "positive outlook" like r318 come across like they caricatures out of their own Marc Cherry series, "Bitchy & Miserable with a Positive Outlook".

MotherHen, really? You're going to keep pumping this meme?

Silly cranky backward Americans, limping along toward equality, considering yourselves so revolutionary when the countries that you overthrew are more equal than yours.

by Anonymousreply 32206/26/2013

oh come now, r318 just has her caftan in a perpetual wad, still thinking that Eric Stonestreet's Cam is all about her, while she maintains her "positive outlook".

Paints quite a picture.

by Anonymousreply 32306/26/2013

[quote]Silly cranky backward Americans, limping along toward equality, considering yourselves so revolutionary when the countries that you overthrew are more equal than yours.

Tee-hee. Those words look awfully funny following an attempt to label someone else as sounding "bitchy and miserable."

Really... the irony is lost on you, isn't it?

by Anonymousreply 32406/26/2013

[quote]MotherHen, really? You're going to keep pumping this meme?

Absolutely. I call 'em exactly as I see 'em. Whenever I please, however I please.

And if the shoe fits, dear...

by Anonymousreply 32506/26/2013

[quote}Well, I'm sure those shitting on Obama would have preferred that the two newest justices on the court were selected by a President McCain or Romney.

Or Palin (shudder).

by Anonymousreply 32606/26/2013

[quote]Or Palin (shudder).

Michele Bachmann for SC Justice!

by Anonymousreply 32706/26/2013

How the hell can Prop 8 backers keep dragging it out with the Court of Appeals? I thought they didn't have standing.

by Anonymousreply 32806/26/2013

I am still confused as to why Scalia and Roberts voted to overturn Prop 8 and Sotomayor voted to keep it. Any news or opinions on this?

by Anonymousreply 32906/26/2013

[quote]I am still confused as to why Scalia and Roberts voted to overturn Prop 8 and Sotomayor voted to keep it. Any news or opinions on this?

That wasn't the issue. The issue was whether or not there was standing on the pro-8 side, since the state of California wasn't defending it.

by Anonymousreply 33006/26/2013

So. Can anyone tell me if my Vermont Civil Union is treated as a marriage by the Federal Government?

by Anonymousreply 33106/26/2013

I cried at work when I heard.

by Anonymousreply 33206/26/2013

[quote] So. Can anyone tell me if my Vermont Civil Union is treated as a marriage by the Federal Government?

Vermont has legal same-sex marriage. Why do you still only have a civil union?

by Anonymousreply 33306/26/2013

We never got around to it. We'd love to find a JP who will just sign the damn license, and not want to "help us create our ceremony".

by Anonymousreply 33406/26/2013

I would like to know what the Prop 8 proponents are smoking, based on what they posted on their website:

[bold] US Supreme Court Rules on Prop 8: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision Striking Down Prop 8 is Reversed! [/bold]

We are pleased that the Supreme Court has reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ misguided decision that sought to invalidate Proposition 8. For the more than seven million Californians who have seen their vote stripped away from them, little by little, over the course of five years, that decision is gratifying.

While it is unfortunate that the Court’s ruling does not directly resolve questions about the scope of the trial court’s order against Prop 8, we will continue to defend Prop 8 and seek its enforcement until such time as there is a binding statewide order that renders Prop 8 unenforceable.

We are also especially grateful and humbled by the consistent prayers and support of traditional marriage supporters everywhere throughout this long and difficult case.

by Anonymousreply 33506/26/2013

Wow. Not sure what they've been smoking, but whatever it is, it's powerful stuff.

by Anonymousreply 33606/26/2013

[quote]I am still confused as to why Scalia and Roberts voted to overturn Prop 8 and Sotomayor voted to keep it. Any news or opinions on this?

Voice of the Night is correct. The suggestion I heard was that Sotomayor probably wanted a chance to rule on (i.e., throw out) Prop 8 itself and didn't object to the standing issue. In any case, it doesn't mean she supported Prop 8.

by Anonymousreply 33706/26/2013

[quote]The suggestion I heard was that Sotomayor probably wanted a chance to rule on (i.e., throw out) Prop 8 itself and didn't object to the standing issue. In any case, it doesn't mean she supported Prop 8.

And the reverse is that Scalia feared that if they'd ruled on merits, they would have given us clear precedent to overturn other state-level bans.

by Anonymousreply 33806/26/2013

I live is Spokane and am legally married (Dec. 22, 2012). Can I and my husband amend our 2012 tax returns?

by Anonymousreply 33906/26/2013

[quote]I live is Spokane and am legally married (Dec. 22, 2012). Can I and my husband amend our 2012 tax returns?

Our beloved Tax Troll, EA has posted about that. It depends on whether or not the IRS rules that we can. The text of the decision basically invalidates DOMA's entire history, so if they so chose, the IRS could allow us to amend our returns for as long as each couple has been legally married.

by Anonymousreply 34006/26/2013

Can't you amend returns for the previous 3 tax years?

We need Tax Troll.

by Anonymousreply 34106/26/2013

I agree with VOTN and R339 - I think Sotomayer was FAR to the left with her decision in Prop 8.

by Anonymousreply 34206/26/2013

Sotomayor most likely was prepared to strike down Prop 8 and similar bans around the country. She's routinely been ranked the most liberal justice since Stevens retired.

by Anonymousreply 34306/26/2013

I just have to say that, apart from those wonderful pictures of Edie Windsor, my favorite part of the day was watching MSNBC and seeing Rachel Maddow, Thomas Roberts, and Steve Kornacki absolutely giddy.

Rachel gives good "angry," but she also gives good "elated."

by Anonymousreply 34406/26/2013

I'm very impressed with Chad Griffin, who's president of HRC. He's renewed my faith in that organization.

by Anonymousreply 34506/26/2013

Seeing Rachel tear up was pretty great.

I was so happy with MSNBC's completely positive coverage it almost made up for fucking over Ed.

by Anonymousreply 34606/26/2013

I wonder how long it will take before the first lawsuits start appearing in red states challenging the rest of DOMA?

You gay couples in Texas and Florida better get busy! The ball is in your court now.

by Anonymousreply 34706/26/2013

[quote] I'm guessing you know slavery was abolished after the war of northern aggression?

Please secede already. And take Paula Deen with you.

by Anonymousreply 34806/26/2013

Rachel led off her show with the story of an intern who ran five blocks up Broadway as soon as the ruling came down from the DOMA Project offices to the immigration court where deportation hearings were being conducted for half of a married couple. He had a copy of the ruling, and got the proceedings halted.

The intern's name is Gabe. If you see him, offer to buy him a drink and give him a "good work" blow job.

by Anonymousreply 34906/26/2013

Is today officially known as "the day love won out"? I've heard it referred to as this from several sources.

by Anonymousreply 35006/26/2013

That is a fabulous story, VOTN. If you have a link, please post.

by Anonymousreply 35106/26/2013

I'm sure it'll be on her site once her show is over. I'll keep checking.

by Anonymousreply 35206/26/2013

If both members of a married couple work, there's rarely much of a benefit (if any) to file jointly, unless the incomes are wildly disparate. Be careful what you wish for, because once you get married, you can NOT file as single or head of household. Your only choices are Married-Joint or Married-Separate. And if you're in a community property state, you have to claim half of your spouse's income on your separate return (and vice versa.)

by Anonymousreply 35306/26/2013

In prep for today, I watched lots of Ruth Bader Ginsburg vids on YouTube last night. This short clip was my favorite. She says that feminism is just as much about letting little boys know it's okay to play with dolls.

She's pretty much my imaginary grandma.

by Anonymousreply 35406/26/2013

I love everyone here! I love American men! Marry me?

by Anonymousreply 35506/27/2013

Here's Rachel's cold open with the story of Gabe, the heroic running intern.

by Anonymousreply 35606/27/2013

[quote]I wonder how long it will take before the first lawsuits start appearing in red states challenging the rest of DOMA?

What's to wonder? The attorney for the Prop 8 plaintiffs said he was partying in California Wednesday evening and then going to court in Utah today.

Looks like those Prop 8 mormons are going to get lawsuits filed in Utah. That's the best 'fuck you' imaginable. Let Utah be the first state forced to recognize gay marriage.

And yes, I know Prop 8 and DOMA are different.

by Anonymousreply 35706/27/2013

What a great story, VOTN. My eyes are tearing up.

I hope someone develops it as a full news feature with interviews and the stories of the main players. It's really just fantastic. Thanks for posting!

by Anonymousreply 35806/27/2013

Oh yes, that sounds DREADFUL r354!

What was I thinking?!

Maybe I will regret having the right to marry!!

by Anonymousreply 35906/27/2013

[quote]The attorney for the Prop 8 plaintiffs said he was partying in California Wednesday evening and then going to court in Utah today.

Is that Olson? Boies? I hadn't heard anything about that. If you can find a link to where you saw that, please share. I really want to knw what the next step will be in getting rights for gay people in inequality states.

by Anonymousreply 36006/27/2013

He said he'd be in court in Utah. he did not say the court appearance was connected to gay rights. His sly grin when he said it led me to connect the dots as I chose. I'm not sure which attorney it was; I think it was the younger man with a shaved head and glasses.

I cannot find a link but Rachel Maddow underlined the same thing during her show Wed.

by Anonymousreply 36106/27/2013

Oh, cool.

We'll see, I guess. Godspeed.

by Anonymousreply 36206/27/2013

damn

by Anonymousreply 36306/27/2013

I'd be willing to marry an immigrant. If it works. And others have done it first.

by Anonymousreply 36406/27/2013

Ex-Senator Rick Santorum called our victories a "death knell" for marriage, and Gary Bauer warned that the "the militant homosexual movement" is leading America toward a "criminalization of Christianity."

Santorum spends a lot of time going on about gay marriage and the danger it will cause for hetero marriage.

His wife lived with a man for a number of years without the benefit of marriage. The guy she lived with was an abortion doctor and she used to work with him to calm the patients. The kinky part is that the guy she was sleeping with is the doctor who delivered her.

After he paid for her college, she departed his bed and later met and married Santorum - a family values Rethuglican.

by Anonymousreply 36507/01/2013

"criminalization of Christianity."

Wow. Crazy talk, You just have to trust that they're not actually winning supporters by getting more extreme, just stoking up their crazy-base. They'll continue to hemorrhage support imho, and this sort of talk only speeds up the process.

by Anonymousreply 36607/01/2013

[quote]Look, this was decided as a 'state's rights' case. There are not suddenly going to be hundreds of successful lawsuits to get state DOMA's overturned. We are going to be at a peculiar standstill for a very long time.

Or not.

by Anonymousreply 36706/01/2014
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.